More cores or a power-horse?

[Sarduk]

Hi all,

I am currently deliberating between whether or not I should opt for a 3.0 GHz dual-core or a Quad Core (2.4GHz) Q6600.

The price between both do not concern me much.

I do not do a lot of gaming, but I tend to run many things at the same time (many messengers, Adobe Photoshop, Outlook, maybe a VM once in a while, Firefox, Zune media player, Diskeeper, Logitech Setpoint, couple of misc. apps) and so on.

One of the most intensive things I do (aside from running a VM) is converting large documents into PDFs (10 - 15 minutes currently on my 3700+).

Responsiveness and fast loading of things is key for me, as well as reducing the time for tasks such as the PDF conversion.

Intuition tells me someone will tell me to go with the Q6600 and overclock it. If this is your suggestion; how hard is it to overclock? (I'd be running an Artic Freezer because I like the noise reduction).

Best,

 

[Alex UK]

If your not much of a gamer and you'll be running many applications simultaneously, then it would probably be wise to go for the Q6600. In general, overclocking quad core CPU's is more difficult than dual cores, mainly because of the increased temperatures. However, 3GHz should be achievable with the Q6600, provided you are using an after market cooler as you say.

 

[supernova9]

Quad core is the best for what you need, as for overclocking - are you keeping the same motherboard? If not, go for one with a P35 chipset, they're best out at present for overclocking quads. If you're planning on clocking a quad, you'll really want something like the Tuniq tower/Noctua NH-12F/Thermaltake Ultra-120, which are a bit beefier than the Freezer 7 Pro. I've got the Tuniq and I can't hear a thing, even when fan's at max.

 

[eracer2006]

im planning to buy the better versions of the xeon x3210 which is a q6600 on better sillicon, which will do 3.4ghz on all 4 cores on air.

With the intel quad cores you get both powerhorse and workhorse

 

[jigger]

Not sure if any multi core CPU will make much differance running them app's so i would say the fastest daul core would give more performance, unless you use other proper multi thread software you will have one core working,one core thinking about it and two core's providing moral support.

 

[Sarduk]

Not sure if any multi core CPU will make much differance running them app's so i would say the fastest daul core would give more performance, unless you use other proper multi thread software you will have one core working,one core thinking about it and two core's providing moral support.

This contradicts what everyone else says - you may be mistaken; it is not a matter of how many of my applications multithread, but a matter of how many applications I am running at the same time (which are all those and a few more listed).

 

[Alex UK]

This contradicts what everyone else says - you may be mistaken; it is not a matter of how many of my applications multithread, but a matter of how many applications I am running at the same time (which are all those and a few more listed).

Exactly.

More applications = More cores

 

[The Asgard]

Not sure if any multi core CPU will make much differance running them app's so i would say the fastest daul core would give more performance, unless you use other proper multi thread software you will have one core working,one core thinking about it and two core's providing moral support.

Even if your app isnt multithreaded and most are these days the OS will use all the cores and assign threads to cores automatically.

Currently using a X3210 in Vista running at 3G and Vista feels more responsive with the Quad at 3G than a 6600 at 3.6.

If you in the market for a new CPU the quads are the only way to go.

If you want to OC get some decent cooling and a good P35 mobo like the P5K.

 

[jigger]

This contradicts what everyone else says - you may be mistaken; it is not a matter of how many of my applications multithread, but a matter of how many applications I am running at the same time (which are all those and a few more listed).

Fair comment m8, im sure the fast dual core would be best for what your doing with it though.

 

[jigger]

Exactly.

More applications = More cores

Sorry, just seen that. lol

 

[jigger]

Even if your app isnt multithreaded and most are these days the OS will use all the cores and assign threads to cores automatically.

Currently using a X3210 in Vista running at 3G and Vista feels more responsive with the Quad at 3G than a 6600 at 3.6.

If you in the market for a new CPU the quads are the only way to go.

If you want to OC get some decent cooling and a good P35 mobo like the P5K.

They are the only way to go(not there yet), but i have to disagree with the OS thing m8 in my case anyway, what OS are you using and how much do you get out of the other two core's. last time i checked it was a grand overall total of mybe 20% for me in XP Pro. a few app's(not many) i use do take full advantage,but it dosen't make a massive differance overall, time wise.

 

[eracer2006]

even if your only running a program that uses 2/4 cores, theres still background apps that the OS will put on the remainder two cores, so generally faster.

 

[Netvyper]

Interesting that this arguement still rages. It was around for the initial release of dual cores, and now again for quads.

More cores = better, providing the clock speeds are above a certain threshold. at this time around 2.5ghz.

Reasoning:
1 application, using 1 thread, on 1 core, will complete in a time comparable if not competative with a 3.5ghz single core.

However, your operating system is multi-threaded. It has many many things going on at once, now I reduces the priority of these to try & give what you've got on screen at any time significant priority; but they still require processing time.

so; 1 application getting 100% of 1 core at 2.5ghz looks even more competative; when you give 10-15% of a 3.5ghz single core over to processing sound/network input.

thats why for the average user; a dual core is nice, even if not supported for some of their applications.

For anyone who uses many applications at 1 time, the OS will share these over a suitable number of cores. It also means that a spike on one core is less likely to make the system unresponsive.

For Example; in the case of the OP:
Photoshop would be spreading itself accross all cores; its a multithreaded application. Outlook on 1 core, Firefox on another, a Media player on a 3rd; and all the lower level processes on various cores.

This is a bit of a dumbed down explanation; and obviously takes into account some best case scenarios.