Quad Cores or Dual Cores? I'm COnfused =(

[tatts]

You are missing the point deary.

Looks like you've missed the point tbh

I wish i could build a gaming rig for the £120 above.

Dont understand how it isnt a fair test, im not taking about clocks, cache, architecture or any other crap, the fact is with both at stock they get the same results in none quad optimised games (funny how the dual needs an extra 600mhz clock speed though, obviously the extra 2 cores are helping in games even though you only see a 10% usage)

What if i was to set the affinity to core 3 & 4, it wouldnt be running any background programmes like the dual and should give it even more of a boost?

They are the same price, hello? Also the GPU is the main bottleneck in all of those tests.

That post makes no sense, obviously the old quad and new dual are the same price but seriously, how can a res of 1024x768 be much of a GPU bottleneck?

My question was & still is (yet to see a good answer which is backed up) --
why buy a dual when the quad can do the same and more? (surely this makes the quad more bang for buck?)

Before making more posts on how the dual is consistently faster, requires a lot less power and runs a lot cooler (not just a few watts or few C, it really isnt that much difference to make a noticable impact) then please make it informative with relevant links/screenies, until then i will stay with a quad


Edit: The only reason i know of why people have gone dual over quad is for a 4gig clock

 

[Tetras]

You need to indicate exactly what you want to compare, the benchmark you gave used an E8400 and a Q6600, so I used those for my comparison (they are the same price point, after all).

When comparing those CPUs my argument is simple, you get similar (or better) performance along with lower power consumption and cooling requirements (and I am talking about stock here, no overclocking). Articles as requested:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_11.html#sect0
(numbers without system)

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Wolfdale/?page=2
(numbers with system, includes E8400 and Q6600, with approx 50 Watt difference under load)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3069&p=4
(wolf v conroe dual, illustrates architecture power reduction)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/668/13/
(with system, includes Q6600 and E8500 with approx 40 watt)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3184&p=2
(illustrates the potentially massive difference in power consumption, of voltage and frequency with a Penryn quad - the QX9650)


The point of cache size, architecture and voltage are all relevant in performance, overclocking and power consumption, this isn't intentionally complicating the point, it is technical fact.

When comparing performance you need to choose in what (games, older games, newer games etc) and with what graphics card. At lower resolutions CPU performance difference is exaggerated (at stupidly high FPS that isn't noticable in the real world), while at higher the GPU often becomes the main botteneck (negating the difference between them). In those benches you linked it is clear (to the tune of 1 - 3%) that both CPUs are more than capable of what is being asked of them, making direct comparisons somewhat meaningless.

What if i was to set the affinity to core 3 & 4, it wouldnt be running any background programmes like the dual and should give it even more of a boost?

It doesn't work like that, the dual would be doing the same tasks.

My question was & still is (yet to see a good answer which is backed up) --
why buy a dual when the quad can do the same and more? (surely this makes the quad more bang for buck?

Ok, you are asking a different question again here. Which quads, which duals, what PC usage and what price point? Comparing the E8400 to a Q6600 (different generations) is a slightly different argument to say, an E8600 and a Q9300 (although the principles might be similar).

Edit: The only reason i know of why people have gone dual over quad is for a 4gig clock

Overclocking potential is one of them yes, Wolfdale does well for the price. I've given you the others above.

I wish i could build a gaming rig for the £120 above.

The point was that you said 4 figures, what if you were just upgrading from an Athlon 64 rig? What if you were building a single card gaming rig for £500, £600?

Power consumption is also not just about £££. It reduces heat in the case, load on the motherboard (mostly the VRMs but also the northbridge), cooling requirements (as I already said) and (for obvious reasons) the PSU. Whether any of these are relevant to your decision-making, is not for me to say.

 

[tatts]

What if i was to set the affinity to core 3 & 4, it wouldnt be running any background programmes like the dual and should give it even more of a boost?

It doesn't work like that, the dual would be doing the same tasks.

I think you missed the point there again along with many others, your only concern is power consumption in which case i suggest you just run a e7200 @ stock & stay away from high end gpus and enjoy it.

 

[Tetras]

It (along with heat) is the main reason I'd choose one yes (overclocking doesn't bother me). If you will use the extra cores on a Q6600 then it is worth it but I don't believe I ever will before I upgrade (same goes for the gaming OP), hence Wolfdale gets the nod.

It is inevitable that quads will get used, the question is when. After all, Nehalem will be natively quad core.

I think you missed the point there again along with many others, your only concern is power consumption in which case i suggest you just run a e7200 @ stock & stay away from high end gpus and enjoy it.

It isn't my main concern, it is just the main distinguishing feature between the two CPUs (hence it has pride of place in the pro/cons).

Side note: I wouldn't pick a 7200 because it has half the cache, which is important in some games (especially at stock clocks).

What point am I missing with the background tasks? In those tests the Wolfdale CPUs are running the same, changing the CPU affinity between cores doesn't change that.

 

[tatts]

What point am I missing with the background tasks? In those tests the Wolfdale CPUs are running the same, changing the CPU affinity between cores doesn't change that.

When running said game, the dual is running background apps on core1 along with the game (we all know AV is always a killer) where as a quad you can leave all that junk on core1 and set the affinity of said game to 2 other cores


So basically all we've discovered is:
The performance is nothing to worry, the difference between the 2 really isnt worth worrying about, specially when most games dont fully load cpus anyway.
The main factor is power consumption/heat. that doesnt bother me now and probably never will (a highly clocked quad running sli wont draw over 500w), the extra heat isnt an issue with me using water and a decent case with plenty of airflow. It may bother others likeyourself but thats personal preference

Main reason i would choose quad is simply because it can match the wolfdales in games but exceed in just about every other app for the same price bracket

 

[Kelt]

For all you guys with dual cores...

Just a quick run of FSX...note the 100% usage on all four cores at some points!

Don't think the duals can keep up with that!

 

[RizlaKing]

None of this bickering is helping the op with his choice and being honest it is the same thing that always happens when the dual vs quad question comes up. Only point that really decides this for the op is his plans on future upgrades nothing else.

 

[tatts]

The GPU (8800) is the main bottleneck above 1024 x 768 in those tests.

Trend: The E8400 is consistently infront of the Q6600, with the clock speed, architecture tweaks and cache putting it ahead, along with lower power consumption and being easier to cool.

It seems the E8400 needs 3.3Ghz to match a stock Q6600 using a 4870x2 (no more GPU bottleneck)
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=0

 

[RizlaKing]

Thanks for that link Tatts as i now know i don't need to overclock my cpu past the 3.2 at which it is very happy .

 

[Tetras]

There is barely any difference in those benches (even ignoring the extra 330 Mhz they have put on the E8400).

The difference could be put down to the greater L2 cache available to the Quads. If they were being utilised properly I'd expect a much greater gap between them and the dual cores, as it is the results are inconclusive.

What we need to see is more like an E8400 achieving 40 FPS and a Q6600 70 FPS, that would be more telling (and a call to upgrade).

 

[tatts]

There is barely any difference in those benches (even ignoring the extra 330 Mhz they have put on the E8400).

LOL you just wont accept it? look at the clock speeds
Q6600 @ 2.4 = E8400 @ 3.3 on them tests (i make that 930mhz difference not 330mhz?)

The difference could be put down to the greater L2 cache available to the Quads. If they were being utilised properly I'd expect a much greater gap between them and the dual cores, as it is the results are inconclusive.

Why bring L2 into? what about the better architecture you were telling me about in the E series? none of it matters to be really honest, we cant change any of that. All im bothered about is cpu performance.
The facts are there so it isnt inconclusive & yes if they were being fully utilised then the margin would be even greater still.

What we need to see is more like an E8400 achieving 40 FPS and a Q6600 70 FPS, that would be more telling (and a call to upgrade).

No one is telling you to upgrade, the op asked which cpu to go for and im just providing info to help choose.
All i said before was i dont understand why people choose the E series over the Q6600 for the same price which from the answers so far seems to be they're really concerned over power consumption and/or cant afford a decent cooler for the quad.


I would compare the E8400/E8500 with the Q9450/Q9550 seen as they're both 45nm (newer/same tech) and all them 4 draw nearly the same W from the power plug but then i would just get flamed for the price difference

 

[tatts]

None of this bickering is helping the op with his choice and being honest it is the same thing that always happens when the dual vs quad question comes up. Only point that really decides this for the op is his plans on future upgrades nothing else.

Sorry if im giving that impression, I'm just posting relevant info/facts on the 2 cpus in question to try and help him decide

 

[Tetras]

LOL you just wont accept it? look at the clock speeds

You can't just look at nearly similar results and conclude that the clock speed difference makes them equal, the graphics card is pushing the pixels here and ultimately is the main contributor to the FPS seen on the screen. While at low resolutions it might appear that the CPU power difference is huge, in reality this is a misleading conclusion to make, the reason for CPU power pushing the frame rate up can be complicated (depending on the engine used) and may well have a lot to do with cache.

If you don't believe me that L2 cache size is a noticable part of the architecture and resulting performance, then that is up to you, it certainly isn't the only factor but it is relevant to consider.

All i said before was i dont understand why people choose the E series over the Q6600 for the same price which from the answers so far seems to be they're really concerned over power consumption and/or cant afford a decent cooler for the quad.

I have no intention of under-mining your argument, if all you are concerned with is CPU performance over a long time period then you certainly are (in my opinion) justified in buying the Q6600.

Ultimately though we only have a few means to compare what CPU performance is achieved, price is one (obviously), power consumption is another (performance-to-watt could even be regarded as defining an architecture nowadays) and also overclocking potential.

The E8000 series are more wieldy than a kentsfield quad and get you similar performance for the same price. While this might not be true in say, 12, 18, 24 months, it is right now. Hence my advice to anyone considering an upgrade around the Q6600 price-range, is to pick the Wolfdale dual.

 

[Randell]

You asked and I supply:

COH:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2

As you can see a quad core offers double the framerates over the same speed dual core..

what graph are you reading? I see a 3ghz Quad pulling 88fps, and a 3ghz core 2 duo pulling 81fps?

 

[RizlaKing]

So we have gone from "dual is better for games" to "a quad gives hardly any advantage over a dual in games" so despite claiming the dual is better for games the quads have been shown to at the very least perform as well and in some circunstances beat the duals. It really is a pointless argument as it will never end and neither side will give an inch but that legion link will hopefully provide some useful info to the op as it did for me.

 

[Tetras]

so despite claiming the dual is better for games the quads have been shown to at the very least perform as well and in some circunstances beat the duals. It really is a pointless argument as it will never end and neither side will give an inch but that legion link will hopefully provide some useful info to the op as it did for me.

If you read mine and tatts posts you will see no evidence of an argument, both of us are stating the viewpoint we have and to some extent they do meet in the middle. I have absolutely no interest in being "right", I want everyone (including myself) to make the most informed buying decisions and welcome views that my conclusions are erroneous (this is how I learn).

I don't believe the conclusion you are both drawing from the benches is the right one, the reasons are contained in the same post. You may also want to read the Anandtech blog on Nehalem and how the author thinks cache is going to influence gaming performance: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

I would like to find benches that isolate core optimisations and cache with quad and dual cores in games but unfortunately I can't find one.

 

[tatts]

If you read mine and tatts posts you will see no evidence of an argument, both of us are stating the viewpoint we have and to some extent they do meet in the middle.

What he said

 

[RizlaKing]

End of the day though no one cares about architecture and cache they simply want what will give them the best performance and increasingly that is a quad cpu. Also i never specifically said you two were arguing but it is an ongoing argument all over many forums and i meant it in that context that it doesn't really have a definate answer right now but you don't have to look too far in the future to see the quad will hold the advantage. Hence why the upgrade cycle a person has is more relevent then ever.

 

[Tetras]

That is the point, it is important. If the extra cache in the quads is partly or wholly responsible for the extra performance with a comparable dual then it is not an indicator that quads are starting to get used (which after all is why you would buy one for a games-machine, that you think it is or will be, otherwise you may choose to buy a dual now and wait for Nehalem).

 

[RizlaKing]

All i know is that i bought a quad as i upgrade every 2-2.5 years and it seemed the best bet. Since having it i have noticed everything is a lot smoother and easier so i would personally recommend a quad for anyone not planning to upgrade next year. As for games performance i have seen a massive increase in performance and a more fluid time with a quad then i had with a dual but others will say otherwise.