Is it time for Quad Core?

[dirtydog]

using less electric and reduce your power bills, a positive eco friendly move

Yawn!

First of all, bugger eco friendly, I couldn't give a toss about that and I bet nor do most people.

The cost is negligible - even if you run your 65nm quad at full load 24/7 you'd only be talking a few quid a month (more than 45nm dual core, not total cost) or something. 45nm quads are much more frugal. They both use less than previous gen Pentium 4 did, or the current AMD dual cores which use more even than the 65nm quads do.

In other words, the power consumption issue is overblown.

 

[rypt]

Yawn!

First of all, bugger eco friendly, I couldn't give a toss about that and I bet nor do most people.

The cost is negligible - even if you run your 65nm quad at full load 24/7 you'd only be talking a few quid a month or something. 45nm quads are much more frugal. They both use less than previous gen Pentium 4 did, or the current AMD dual cores which use more even than the 65nm quads do.

In other words, the power consumption issue is overblown.

As I had roughly worked out earlier using the TDP values (which are an accurate way of seeing power use), the difference is sub £30 a year.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I moved from an E8400 to a Q9650 and the Quad is much faster. Then again I also changed my motherboard from a £40 MSI to a £160 DFI one, so that could well be the difference!

Dual's are very good imo, you'll notice much more difference in moving from single to dual than you will from dual to quad. I would be happy with a dual, but with my quad I can happily alt-tab between L4D to desktop without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately I had sold off my Dual already so I can't comment on whether that could. (L4D being multi-core capable.) My Quad powers a very capable machine that does all that I need it to, I think most people however would benefit by spending their money on a dual and a fast hard drive/better graphics card to get a generally faster system. Tbh I'm wondering whether I'd benefit from selling my Quad and getting another E8400 (or higher E8*00) and using the profits for a veloci-raptor. How do I gain access to the MM? I heard it's 250 posts (got that) and 3 months...?

 

[dirtydog]

I moved from an E8400 to a Q9650 and the Quad is much faster. Then again I also changed my motherboard from a £40 MSI to a £160 DFI one, so that could well be the difference!

Dual's are very good imo, you'll notice much more difference in moving from single to dual than you will from dual to quad. I would be happy with a dual, but with my quad I can happily alt-tab between L4D to desktop without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately I had sold off my Dual already so I can't comment on whether that could. (L4D being multi-core capable.) My Quad powers a very capable machine that does all that I need it to, I think most people however would benefit by spending their money on a dual and a fast hard drive/better graphics card to get a generally faster system. Tbh I'm wondering whether I'd benefit from selling my Quad and getting another E8400 (or higher E8*00) and using the profits for a veloci-raptor. How do I gain access to the MM? I heard it's 250 posts (got that) and 3 months...?

I wouldn't waste your money, the Velociraptors are overrated in my experience.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I wouldn't waste your money, the Velociraptors are overrated in my experience.

Experience? Have you owned one then? Because they look like they should be really fast at loading and all that, but then I've never actually seen one running, so if you have one/have had one and they aren't that nippy then I won't bother. I may just get two more standard drives and run them in RAID.

 

[dirtydog]

Experience? Have you owned one then? Because they look like they should be really fast at loading and all that, but then I've never actually seen one running, so if you have one/have had one and they aren't that nippy then I won't bother. I may just get two more standard drives and run them in RAID.

I have indeed owned one - check out my comments in the benchmarks thread in the hard drive forum by all means

You would expect the nearly 50% faster spindle speed to translate into noticeable performance gains in the real world but it doesn't work that way. Windows boot time, game loading times, the general responsiveness of Windows - subjectively no better than my Caviar Black 7200rpm drive. The latter costing a fraction of the cost and being much larger.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955589&postcount=897
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991585&postcount=904

 

[GinG]

I moved from an E8400 to a Q9650 and the Quad is much faster. Then again I also changed my motherboard from a £40 MSI to a £160 DFI one, so that could well be the difference!

Dual's are very good imo, you'll notice much more difference in moving from single to dual than you will from dual to quad. I would be happy with a dual, but with my quad I can happily alt-tab between L4D to desktop without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately I had sold off my Dual already so I can't comment on whether that could. (L4D being multi-core capable.) My Quad powers a very capable machine that does all that I need it to, I think most people however would benefit by spending their money on a dual and a fast hard drive/better graphics card to get a generally faster system. Tbh I'm wondering whether I'd benefit from selling my Quad and getting another E8400 (or higher E8*00) and using the profits for a veloci-raptor. How do I gain access to the MM? I heard it's 250 posts (got that) and 3 months...?

You would have found the same performance on the dual, running a 6300 @ 3ghz and 2gb ram, can alt tab to desktop no problem when playing l4d. Team fortress is another kettle of fish though! Could be the lack of RAM on that one though! Seems to take an age to get back into the game.

I was thinking of updating my CPU, tbh before reading this I would have gone Quad, however after reading I will think twice, most likely keep my CPU for atleast another year, still going strong even after 2 and a bit years!!

 

[The Halk]

I notice the speeds.

I noticed when I moved from a 120GB PATA to a 250GB SATA boot drive.
I noticed again when I moved from a 250GB SATA to a 150GB Raptor.
I noticed when my Raptor died and I moved to a 250GB SATA
And I noticed again when I moved to a 750GB SATA

I'm thinking of getting hold of another 150GB Raptor to go in RAID0 along with the now RMA's other one for my new install.

Hard drives are a huge bottleneck.

 

[dirtydog]

I notice the speeds.

I noticed when I moved from a 120GB PATA to a 250GB SATA boot drive.
I noticed again when I moved from a 250GB SATA to a 150GB Raptor.
I noticed when my Raptor died and I moved to a 250GB SATA
And I noticed again when I moved to a 750GB SATA

I'm thinking of getting hold of another 150GB Raptor to go in RAID0 along with the now RMA's other one for my new install.

Hard drives are a huge bottleneck.

Yes they are which is why I splashed out about £185 on a 300GB Velociraptor.

Check out some real world benchmarks, like these:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14583/6

Notice how the Velociraptor is slower to boot Windows than a load of 7200rpm drives.

It loads a Doom 3 level in 34.95 seconds versus 36.22 for a Samsung F1. When you are waiting 35 seconds, do you think you actually notice another second?

And here, it is little faster than the budget Caviar SE16 (aka Blue) or Samsung F1: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14583/7

Up to you but don't expect to be blown away.

 

[[TW]Fox]

You're considering buying a £140 dual core chip after making this thread?

I don't know, I've got no idea, I feel a bit like somebody who thinks he knows about cars and wanders into OcUK motors to ask an innocent 'Astra v Focus' question

 

[linktoinsanity]

I have indeed owned one - check out my comments in the benchmarks thread in the hard drive forum by all means

You would expect the nearly 50% faster spindle speed to translate into noticeable performance gains in the real world but it doesn't work that way. Windows boot time, game loading times, the general responsiveness of Windows - subjectively no better than my Caviar Black 7200rpm drive. The latter costing a fraction of the cost and being much larger.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955589&postcount=897
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991585&postcount=904

Thanks for the info dirtydog, may well go for a Caviar Black then. I noticed the raptor was a little faster in your benchmarks, but not by enough to warrant the huge cost. I may well go RAID on the blacks aswell, probably still cheaper than a single raptor and much better performance (current drives I have show the RAID improvement!)

 

[helmutcheese]

Raid 2x WD RE3 in that case, same speed anyhow.

 

[dirtydog]

Ironically I am recommending a dual in this thread after all, even if just a dual CPU hard drive

 

[Big.Wayne]

Well then, let's try and introduce some figures. As lots of us know, a Q6600 G0 at stock has a TDP of 95W. I just looked up the TDP of an E8x00 - it's 65W

Hey Mattus, the quoted TDP and actual real world TDP is quite different, I am basing my comments on power readings taking from a live running system and the results were quite shocking. A 65nm Quad (ala Q6600) is a power hungry monster, the situation only get worse once they are overclocked . . . . and as we know quite a lot of people overclock and overclock the Q6600, your looking at about 350-400w full load system draw, nightmare!

you could even argue that a quad would complete an encoding or rendering job in just over half the time of the equivalent dual, whilst using ~50% more power. So in total, the quad would actually require less energy to do the task

It's a fair point, for my example video editor who is running back to back conversions/encoding etc you would be quite right, that is it would be more power effiencent to run a quad that even though uses more power completes the task twice as fast, the power cost would be similar but he would get more work done.

First of all, bugger eco friendly, I couldn't give a toss about that and I bet nor do most people

Lol not really worth replying to a comment like that!

 

[e36Adz]

Future Proof, hmmmm . . . .

Never really tackled this one, that is I know the term *Future Proof* very well but I don't think it's a real thing in reality.

I think when you part with your hard earned it's a nice idea to maybe try and maximise your investment and not buy a piece of tech that's EOL or about to be phased out, it makes some sense to pay for extra features that we can't really use but we are promised are emerging technologies, just from my historic experience and beyond the smoke screens of media and forum hype most of the time your wasting your money.

When buying hardware it's my personal mantra that I want at least 90% of the bang right away, buy it, install it, sit back and go "Holy **** what a difference that made!", I'm not talking synthetic benches, I'm talking Night & Day totally gobsmacking noticable, along the lines of swapping out a 17" CRT for a 24" Widescreen . . boom!

The thing I am seeing is a *mass* of brain washed people pulling the most weak excuses out the bag to try and justify their purchases, there is no Night & Day difference and they really seem to struggle with the simple fact they may have been mugged!

Future Proof, oh good grief!

I do see what you are saying, but with a budget of around £100 for a cpu, and bearing in mind I intend to keep it for the next 1-2 years, what exactly would be your choice?

The budget allows me to get a low end quad core and o/c it a bit, I don't see any benefits in getting a dual core over the quad core at all tbh unless its much cheaper or much faster.

 

[Mattus]

Hey Mattus, the quoted TDP and actual real world TDP is quite different, I am basing my comments on power readings taking from a live running system and the results were quite shocking. A 65nm Quad (ala Q6600) is a power hungry monster, the situation only get worse once they are overclocked . . . . and as we know quite a lot of people overclock and overclock the Q6600, your looking at about 350-400w full load system draw, nightmare!

Obviously depends what else you have in the system. 350-400 is probably about right for a heavily OCed quad and a modern graphics card going at full whack, along with other components. According to this site, my overclocked quad can draw 148W, which is admittedly quite a lot (I know that by how warm my room can get!) It says that an E8600 at 4Ghz with 1.3v draws 92W, so there's a 56W difference there. Not small, but not enormous either!

 

[Big.Wayne]

I do see what you are saying, but with a budget of around £100 for a cpu, and bearing in mind I intend to keep it for the next 1-2 years, what exactly would be your choice?

e36Adz, right now I would recommend either an INTEL E5200 if you can buy it under £60 delivered or . . . if you can extend your budget a little the INTEL E8400 (e0) is an awesome chip.

This is of course asuming you fit the general demographic of an OcUK forum user and are not a profesional media producer.

By the time you need a quad you will be able to sell your E5200/E8400 and pick up a new LGA775 quad core for not a lot of mulla.

For todays PC a fast energy effiencient WOlfdale will not fail to impress and you will be making a positive eco friendly purchasing choice and be rewarded with a cleaner conscious and cheaper leccy bills!

Bottom line is: Buy into 45nm technology and the processor will pay for itself over the period of a few years compared to the 65nm quad, do the maths!

 

[dirtydog]

e36Adz, right now I would recommend either an INTEL E5200 if you can buy it under £60 delivered or . . . if you can extend your budget a little the INTEL E8400 (e0) is an awesome chip.

This is of course asuming you fit the general demographic of an OcUK forum user and are not a profesional media producer.

By the time you need a quad you will be able to sell your E5200/E8400 and pick up a new LGA775 quad core for not a lot of mulla.

For todays PC a fast energy effiencient WOlfdale will not fail to impress and you will be making a positive eco friendly purchasing choice and be rewarded with a cleaner conscious and cheaper leccy bills!

Bottom line is: Buy into 45nm technology and the processor will pay for itself over the period of a few years compared to the 65nm quad, do the maths!

You benefit from having the quad now. You might not 'need' it, but as has already been discussed, various games and applications DO show BIG gains with a quad versus a dual.

 

[Big.Wayne]

According to this site, my overclocked quad can draw 148W, which is admittedly quite a lot (I know that by how warm my room can get!)

I wouldn't base a debate on something I had read from a 3rd party website, you will only really know how much power your computer is drawing by plugging it into a power-meter/brick thingie, they cost about £10-£12 and can display all kinds of useful information on the small LCD, you can even enter your kWh tarrif and have the brick display your running costs in £££

says that an E8600 at 4Ghz with 1.3v draws 92W, so there's a 56W difference there. Not small, but not enormous either!

You see, a little prod from me to prove your figures and the wattage has increase by nearly 100% from your earlier post!

Get one of those power meter bricks and you may well see the same percentage increase again!

I'm still fairly new to this whole eco clocking scene but find it as interesting as any other computer related tweaking (Super PI, 3D-Mark etc), the only difference is that to me it seems a lot more relevant to the world we live in today and could prove to be a *meaningful* investment of time with global implications, something that even a killer 3D-Mark score will always fall short on!

 

[dirtydog]

I wouldn't base a debate on something I had read from a 3rd party website, you will only really know how much power your computer is drawing by plugging it into a power-meter/brick thingie, they cost about £10-£12 and can display all kinds of useful information on the small LCD, you can even enter your kWh tarrif and have the brick display your running costs in £££

You see, a little prod from me to prove your figures and the wattage has increase by nearly 100% from your earlier post!

Get one of those power meter bricks and you may well see the same percentage increase again!

I'm still fairly new to this whole eco clocking scene but find it as interesting as any other computer related tweaking (Super PI, 3D-Mark etc), the only difference is that to me it seems a lot more relevant to the world we live in today and could prove to be a *meaningful* investment of time with global implications, something that even a killer 3D-Mark score will always fall short on!

It is so tempting to turn this into a 'climate change' debate Obviously you feel strongly about the issue and like to think you are doing something positive. I don't think it's right to ram it down other people's throats though, especially on a hardware enthusiasts forum like this one.