Is it time for Quad Core?

C64 · 16 Dec 2008 at 17:23

dirtydog said:
AFAIK most modern systems (with one graphics card) only use around 200-250w under load. The huge power supplies available today are overkill in a lot of cases.

I think the idea is that the psu is well within it's load limits to prolong it's life and efficiency.

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 17:50

a lot of PSU's don't reach their advertised 80+ Efficiency until at least 50% load, the better units remain at least 80% efficient all the way to 100% load some drop off.

Once you have a clue how much the wattage draw is then you can choose your perfect PSU however it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation i.e what came first the powered system or the PSU!

I'm waiting for the new breed of low wattage PSU's to be released, I would cream myself if ANTEC or Corsair released a standard ATX sized 80+ 200watt Modular PSU! :cool:

Mattus · 16 Dec 2008 at 18:07

Big.Wayne said:
I'm waiting for the new breed of low wattage PSU's to be released, I would cream myself if ANTEC or Corsair released a standard ATX sized 80+ 200watt Modular PSU!

I can't see any business sense in that. How many enthusiasts are going to shell out for a 200w PSU, which couldn't run the majority of enthusiast systems? Particularly as the point in paying extra for a modular PSU is to get rid of cables, of which a 200w PSU would have about four.

helmutcheese · 16 Dec 2008 at 18:21

Considering this thread is a mile of topic now with Green BS added to the fact neither Antec and Corsair make PSU's you would be better looking elsewhere as one of the other Tier 1 Manu's is who makes then anyhow.

Antec for now is using Seasonic.

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 18:30

Mattus said:
How many enthusiasts are going to shell out for a 200w PSU, which couldn't run the majority of enthusiast systems? Particularly as the point in paying extra for a modular PSU is to get rid of cables, of which a 200w PSU would have about four.

Mattus, I'm an enthusiast, old school and my rig is consuming 50w as I type this. My PSU is a nice ANTEC Earthwatts 380w which is total overkill as my system very rarely exceeds 100W and therefore doesn't reach it's maximum efficiency.

There will be a HUGE market for power efficient low wattage PSU's over the coming years, not every computer is running TRI_SLI ya know!

Oh and the modular thing is as still relevant on a low powered PSU as it is a 1K beast, some people just like neater builds than others, no biggie!

realscot · 16 Dec 2008 at 18:44

Just went from [email protected] to [email protected].. cant say I see much difference in overall system performance, i suppose video encoding etc would be faster but not tried that yet. Dunno why people say the Q6600 is such a hot cpu as I actually find its cooler than the C2D chip it replaced. ok ok im H2O but even still, u cant argue with 30c and under for idle @1.5v, even the old E6400 ran hotter than that at same volts and it was lapped, this one isnt.
Fox, if you havnt already upgraded then try and pick up one of the low end Q9 chips but with 12mb cache if you really want to see a performance difference.

malcolm · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:00

Big.Wayne said:
Mattus, I'm an enthusiast, old school and my rig is consuming 50w as I type this.

This is just a guess, but I suspect that figure doesn't include the monitor?

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:04

No malcolm, it doesn't include the monitor, router or laser printer.

RizlaKing · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:06

Well i could do all the crap you say your doing Big Wayne and measure wattage from plug to pc and all the other stuff i have no time for or i could just look at my bill since getting this new quad core pc that replaced a dual core pc and see my energy bill is now in credit by a few quid even though usage has gone up. Also i am not a teenager and i do pay my own electricity bill though thanks for the arrogant patronising presumption on your part at some posters on here who didn't choose to agree with you.

There may well come a point in time when energy efficiency is a big thing but it isn't right now and i don't see it being for sometime and is certainly not something most people give more then a passing thought to when purchasing a system performance and value for money of components seems to be the big two go figure eh. Oh and i am not anti green i am just getting bored of it being rammed down my throat all the time and in that regard i suspect i am far from alone.

gurusan · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:13

Big.Wayne said:
I'm waiting for the new breed of low wattage PSU's to be released, I would cream myself if ANTEC or Corsair released a standard ATX sized 80+ 200watt Modular PSU!

You realize that most modern PSUs are quite efficient at pretty much any given load...?

For example here's my Toughpower 750W, which is almost 3 years old now.....also internally it's basically identical to the Corsair TX750W, which many people have.

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:19

No I didn't find that myself gursan? I found the PSU I tested were more effiecient as the load increased. Anyway it's a very small point and I'd prefere to not to get dragged off topic.

chrispystix · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:20

Big.Wayne said:
No MooMoo444,

I am not talking about other things, I'm talking about computer hardware as this is a computer hardware forum.

I didn't mention Global warming, growing your own chickens or taking less flights, I just pointed out the fact that the greater percentage of computer users who choose a quad core over a dual core will be wasting power needlessly ££££

Oi! Dont start on me!

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:24

RizlaKing said:
There may well come a point in time when [quad core] is a big thing but it isn't right now and i don't see it being for sometime and is certainly not something most people give more then a passing thought to when purchasing a system performance and value for money of components seems to be the big two go figure eh.

Sorry but lets just agree to disagree for the moment.

There is waaay to much bad feeling being banded about this thread for my liking, mostly from new OcUK members too.

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:48

RizlaKing said:
Also i am not a teenager and i do pay my own electricity bill though thanks for the arrogant patronising presumption on your part at some posters on here who didn't choose to agree with you

There is nothing arrogant or patronizing about pointing out the demographics, it's a simple fact that quite a lot of posters here are enjoying their parents hospitality and the only reason I am mentioning this is because these very same younglings would most likely be oblivious to things like energy bills and anything vaguely eco ( with a few exceptions of course!)

I think in all honesty I am bored to tears with this thread, it doesn't matter how clear I spell it out for a lot of you your either not interested, just want a dig or just plain stubborn.

I would be happy to chat further but its just too much unmoderated rudeness for rudeness sakes and really not a lot of technical chatter which is mainy why I am a member here! How can you debate in an enviroment like that?

[TW]Fox;13024431 said:
Is it time for Quad Core?

Nope I don't think it is when dual core is faster in most things and has substantially lower power consumption and running costs . . .

Hopefully in the future there will be a heap more multi-core support in software but at the point when that happens we will all be running octo cores on 22nm production and people will be selling Q6600 on MM for £15 via cheapest postage.

The really smart design of multi core would enable any unused cores to be switched off, now that would be a really good move in the right direction . . . .tick tock!

C64 · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:49

realscot said:
Just went from [email protected] to [email protected].. cant say I see much difference in overall system performance, i suppose video encoding etc would be faster but not tried that yet. Dunno why people say the Q6600 is such a hot cpu as I actually find its cooler than the C2D chip it replaced. ok ok im H2O but even still, u cant argue with 30c and under for idle @1.5v, even the old E6400 ran hotter than that at same volts and it was lapped, this one isnt.
Fox, if you havnt already upgraded then try and pick up one of the low end Q9 chips but with 12mb cache if you really want to see a performance difference.

to be fair 3.7ghz is a hefty overclock on a 6400 though what did that take 1.6 volts ?

interspaced · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:50

Don't amd processors use cool n quiet technology to lower clock speeds when idle thereby saving power?

Big.Wayne · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:53

interspaced said:
Don't amd processors use cool n quiet technology to lower clock speeds when idle thereby saving power?

Yes they do and INTEL use EIST (Enhanced INTEL speedstep) however for reasons unknown to me a lot of nOObzillas get told to disable Speedstep so in their quest to attain a 3800MHz 65nm quad core render beast they inadvertently create a 400w juice guzzling monster without realising.

chrispystix · 16 Dec 2008 at 19:59

[I think in all honesty I am bored to tears with this thread, it doesn't matter how clear I spell it out for a lot of you your either not interested, just want a dig or just plain stubborn.]

Wayne, You were a shiney ASUS light to me when I joined and everyone was going gigabyte.

I like my quad but it feels dated now and if I was upgrading...Id go dual.

Your point is clear. Dont feel defensive

dirtydog · 16 Dec 2008 at 20:01

C64 said:
I think the idea is that the psu is well within it's load limits to prolong it's life and efficiency.

One day I will understand why people don't know the difference between its and it's. But that day hasn't arrived yet

(not just aimed at you but at most people)

chrispystix · 16 Dec 2008 at 20:03

dirtydog said:
One day I will understand why people don't know the difference between its and it's. But that day hasn't arrived yet

Check out the big brain on dog!