Just how efficient are Quads over Dual cores? link inside

[Perfect_Chaos]

http://www.dragonsteelmods.com/inde...k=view&id=6120&Itemid=38&limit=1&limitstart=1

I just found it, thought it might interest some people looking to upgrade possibly.

 

[IAmATeaf]

Not much in it at all, hmm wonder if all this talk of 'when software that comes out that will make use of quads we'll see a diff' will materialise soon.

 

[jonislost]

Those superpi times seem really low :S my 2140 get 19secs. Is it just pure cpu speed rather than cache + cores?

 

[Pneumonic]

superpi is based on three factors

1. CPU clock speed
2. RAM timmings (and for all those that dont believe that reduce your timmings and see what difference it makes )
3. Also hard disk read/write speed as well (stick your superpi app on a RAM drive and run it and you will see maybe 1/2 second difference on a 1M calc)

 

[eyetrip]

Wether or not a quad is better than running a single application much better than a dual is not qutie as important as being able to run several applications simultaneously without lag/slow downs, etc.

Yes, its nice to have the extra power when running graphics or video apps, but having anti-virus, backups, and all sorts of stuff running without causing any problems is whats important to me, and possibly, many others.

Sure, for those who run few apps, and basically do only gaming and basic stuff, go with dual and save, but for many the fact that Windows can effectively use all four cores is a blessing.

Its and argument nobody is ever going to win.... is quad better than dual? Neither is better than the other, generally speaking, it just depends on usage.

 

[james.miller]

Those superpi times seem really low :S my 2140 get 19secs. Is it just pure cpu speed rather than cache + cores?

its a single threaded app and your e2140 is running at 3ghz. thats 600mhz faster than the q6600, let alone the stock dual core they were testing (e6420 @ 2.13ghz = 870mhz slower than yours). its hardly suprising the times are slower. my e6600 did it in 17 seconds at 3.2ghz. my e2160 @ 3.1ghz does it in about 19

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

but for many the fact that Windows can effectively use all four cores is a blessing.

Even more of a blessing when nehalem comes with HyperThreading

 

[Clarkey]

all they seem to have proven here is that a 2.4GHz is a bit faster than a 2.13GHz :/

 

[Pneumonic]

and that on a multi-card setup a quad @ stock handles it better than a duel

 

[james.miller]

all they seem to have proven here is that a 2.4GHz is a bit faster than a 2.13GHz :/

pretty much