Is it time for Quad Core?

[Big.Wayne]

if you list X things that use more power than Y that people use in the world today, the list would be exceedingly long.

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 ££££

 

[dirtydog]

Yes thanks I understand the word I just don't see how that applies to me or why you would say that, nm

I explained how. Some quads use less in any given situation than any dual. Other times a quad will use less overall, even if it uses more per second, because it finishes the task quicker. Therefore for you to say that 'duals use less than quads' is disingenuous. ie. it is misleading, it is true some of the time in some situations, but not all the time.

I can certainly understand why a lot of people pay no interest to power consumption with their rigs, I never did before but thats all changed now.

I do pay attention to it, but it isn't an overriding issue and on this occasion the difference is negligible. I'll keep enjoying the benefits of a quad while you fret over pennies on your electric bill though.

 

[redballoon]

care to get back on topic and make some positive quad statements please

Again?

A dual core will be more efficient than the eqv quad if you won't be running anything more demanding than wordpad or multi-task. At all. But so what?

End of story. As you for lacking in sense I think some other posters have already covered it.

Like I said, if you are truely concerned about the environment don't upgrade, you'll save the planet and not indulge in hypocritical sophistry to justify your next (unecessary) purchase. Which, by the way, will only add to the waste of resources your eco-friendly arguments here have produced.

it's possible to make a mistake from time to time, admit it, learn from it and buy yourself a lovely energy efficient Wolfdale...positive eco friendly move

That's enough quotes.

 

[EvilOne]

Wow, all this over a few pence bills lol. Chill people.

 

[[TW]Fox]

How does the power consumption of a Q6600 compare to a clocked 1Ghz Tbird?

 

[bledd]

Debatable, people with machines up to 4 to 5 times the cost of a base 360 cannot play the game due to low frame rate and errors etc, GTA runs perfectly fine on the Xbox 360 okay there are places where it does get slowdowns but the problems experienced on the PC are worlds apart.

it plays smoother and can only get better with newer pc's, it'll always blow on the xbox

 

[linktoinsanity]

How does the power consumption of a Q6600 compare to a clocked 1Ghz Tbird?

why? Are you intending to get one of them instead now?

lol, sorry couldn't resist. I think modern CPUs use less power, but I could be wrong...

 

[MooMoo444]

You say you're trying to get the point across we've bought power hungry, unnecesary hardware.

Look at it from our point of view, all we see is someone trying ever so hard to defend their little dual core.

the world is not about power consumption

ITS ABOUT NUMBER OF CORES **** YEAH

 

[dirtydog]

I look forward to resurrecting this thread in future when it is widely accepted that dual cores are obsolete Just as it is widely accepted that single cores are obsolete now.

 

[Mattus]

I look forward to resurrecting this thread in future when it is widely accepted that dual cores are obsolete Just as it is widely accepted that single cores are obsolete now.

Heh, isn't that a bit unfair? Might as well waltz into a thread from 2004 and say 'that Athlon XP is rubbish, get this Core i7!'

 

[Stonedofmoo]

lol, sorry couldn't resist. I think modern CPUs use less power, but I could be wrong...

They use less power per Mhz than old CPU's, but they certainly don't use less power otherwise we would all be running 100w power supplies by now

 

[[TW]Fox]

why? Are you intending to get one of them instead now?

No, it's just that nobody ever used to care about whether it would cost another £3 a year to run CPU X over CPU Y, so I'm wondering what changed, given even todays most power hungry processors are presumably more efficient than yesterdays.

 

[dirtydog]

They use less power per Mhz than old CPU's, but they certainly don't use less power otherwise we would all be running 100w power supplies by now

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 wonder how much a 65nm quad really uses versus the 130nm P4 Northwood or 90nm P4 Prescott. Especially as Core2 is 100% or more faster clock for clock than that generation.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I wonder how much a 65nm quad really uses versus the 130nm P4 Northwood or 90nm P4 Prescott. Especially as Core2 is 100% or more faster clock for clock than that generation.

Interestingly I turned on my old Prescott 3.4Ghz Pentium 4 the other day. After running CPU-Z it showed the cpu using 1.4V core, compared to my 1.1V Core2 Quad. The modern one running at less volts, surely that's a sign of modern cpus using less power?

 

[helmutcheese]

Voltage is only the carrier for power.

 

[CaptainSensible]

Aren't single cores obsolete because the R&D guys struggle to clock anything significantly above 3GHz without exotic cooling = multi-core everything from now on?

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out that today's PCs have the potential to be much more power hungry than PCs from ye olde days (and the effects of that on the environment or your electricity bill, depending on whatever you care or don't care about).

However, I think you should concentrate on four digit power supplys and having two graphics cards that need a couple of hundred watts each @ full load instead of quad core cpus if power guzzling PCs really bother you; the difference (if you use the newest ones) between a two and four core CPU just isn't that big. I value performance per watt, but it isn't an environmental thing (more performance = lower noise/heat/cooling needs).

 

[dirtydog]

Voltage is only the carrier for power.

A CPU at a given clock speed will consume less watts if it uses less voltage.

 

[Dangerous Dave]

I would get a Q6600, I changed my main pc from a E6600 overclocked to 3.2ghz to a Q6600 overclocked to 3.6ghz on air (it would do 4ghz prime stable but I knocked it back a bit). Games were a bit quicker however the overall feel of the machine was snappier aswell and it was encoding videos more than twice as fast which the machine does a lot as I edit videos for a friend who films weddings etc.

More and more games are going to start to take advantage of quad cores and you should easily get a Q6600 to 3.2-3.6ghz which even with games only supporting dual core will make it quicker than a dual core clocked at 3ghz.

All this talk about energy usage you aren't going to notice it over the course of a year I certainly didn't and the old parts started getting used as a HTPC on almost 24 by 7.

 

[dirtydog]

Aren't single cores obsolete because the R&D guys struggle to clock anything significantly above 3GHz without exotic cooling = multi-core everything from now on?

Not just that. A Core2 Duo is at least 100% faster than any P4, clock for clock.

Multi-threaded apps/games have proven the benefit of multi-threading though, and it is surely the way forward. I doubt we will ever see factory 5GHz or 6GHz CPUs.

 

[skunksta]

After reading the whole 8 pages all i could do was LoL.If i justed payed £1000 for a pc why would i give a %$£" about how much power is used.Sure if i payed so much for a pc the extra £30 a year on my elec bill means nothing.Each to there own i guess