• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Please help me understand ....

EffBee

EffBee

EffBee

Associate
Joined
9 Dec 2006
Posts
1,323
... single core vs multi core CPUs.

I am just starting to spec out a new rig for myself. Nobody seems to be buying single core processors anymore. I don't feel comfortable with AMD anymore even though my current PC is a venerable Athlon XP 2400+ so i will go intel.

The issue is dual core vs quad core and which one.

I use my PC for internet access, a bit of boring old MS Office and similar, and LOTS of gaming. This year I have played Lotro, Vanguard, Oblivion, and many older favourites like rise of nations, C&C generals and MOO2. I watch the occasional DVD on it and very rarely will listen to music.

I am not into overclocking so will not buy a slower processor even it can overclock to the performance of a more expensive processor.

Now, it sems to me that most of the games I play will only use one core. Is this right? If so I should be buying a processor with 2 or 4 fast cores and not focus on the overall potential of the TOTAL combined power of all the cores on the chip. Can anyone comment on this?

Am I right in thinking that the individual cores on any intel dual or quad core processor will each be much more powerful than my existing Athlon XP 2400+?

Am I right that for my usage a dual core processor with the most powerful individual cores I can afford will be better than a similarly priced Quad core processor with probably less powerful cores?

Thanks in advance.
 
How much are you willing to spend on the CPU itself?

Also highly consider overclocking, it really is very straight forward, their's plenty of guides out their and plenty of people here on the forums that are willing to help.
 
stickroad said:
How much are you willing to spend on the CPU itself?

Also highly consider overclocking, it really is very straight forward, their's plenty of guides out their and plenty of people here on the forums that are willing to help.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to spend about £150 give or take, say, £50 for the processor. I would hope to put togther a system excluding screens for £900 to £1200 but I buy ludicrously expensive Lian-Li cases.

Things that are important to me are 1) Stability , 2) Low Noise, 3) Zero ongoing hassle, 4) Long component life, 5) Low heat output (I want a PC not a radiator!)

As a buying philosophy I am very happy to pay a bit extra for components which are known to overclock well, then run them at stock on the expectation of decent stabilty.
 
manveruppd said:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-151-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=793
No competition at that price. You're right in assuming that the individual cores are faster than your current 2400. If you can get an E2180 even better, as they run cooler.
Click to expand...

I think he means £150 +/- £50 (as in, £100-£200).

If you don't want to overclock, and like your ease of use/stability, £1k would get you a nice enough pre-built system. My internet's being naff @work, but ocuk sell some nice looking pre-built rigs that are speedy as hell for your price range.
 
EffBee said:
Now, it sems to me that most of the games I play will only use one core. Is this right? If so I should be buying a processor with 2 or 4 fast cores and not focus on the overall potential of the TOTAL combined power of all the cores on the chip. Can anyone comment on this?

Am I right that for my usage a dual core processor with the most powerful individual cores I can afford will be better than a similarly priced Quad core processor with probably less powerful cores?
Click to expand...

Most games currently will only use two cores at most. But in your position I'd get a quad-core CPU for futureproofing. Crysis, UT3 and other upcoming games will all be very multicore aware and will respond well to quad-core; some existing games like Supreme Commander already do.

For the same price you could get a 2.4Ghz quad-core or a 3Ghz dual-core. I think the disadvantage of the quad-core in some current games is far outweighed by the advantage it will give in the future - all the more so if you do ever decide to overclock.

Am I right in thinking that the individual cores on any intel dual or quad core processor will each be much more powerful than my existing Athlon XP 2400+?
Click to expand...
Much more powerful. Probably at least twice as fast.
 
Thank you for your replies.

I'll look at individual intel products in detail now.

Given that it seems individual cores on dual and quad devices are MUCH better than my current old single core processor, seems sensible to go for quad core processor somewhere around the £150 to £200 mark.

Just need to do a bit of hunting on the web to make sure there are no backwards compatibilty problems with older software and multicore processors. :)

Thanks again.
 
There are very few incompatibilities with intels implemention of multicore, as windows treats it just like a Hyperthreading P4. There were initially some issues with AMD's multicore chips, but even thats rare these days, and there are hotfixes to windows which resolve those issues.

Once an application is threaded it will use as many cores as it has threads, supreme commander uses many threads so it makes fairly good use of multicore. Likewise Oblivion, as it can have its ini file tweaked to increase the thread count in many of the physics functions.

In theory software developers dont need to know if you have 1 core, or 100 cores. If they multithread, and split the code into say 20 threads (purely a hypothetical example). If you have 1 core, windows will schedule the threads accordingly, but if you have 4 cores, windows will automatically distribute the threads to different cores.

Touble is a lot of 'current' generation games spend 99% of their runtime in a single graphics engine thread, and while its possible to offload physics, sound, AI and other functions into different threads the main graphics engine still needs a powerfull single core for best performance. So a 3Ghz dual core may actually outperform a 2.4 quad in many games.

However, its only a matter of time before a good multithreaded graphics engine comes out though, and of course games like Supreme commander use the additional cores to make very advanced AI without bogging down the graphics engine.

Considering how fast the Q6600 is compared to your 2400+, I would say you'll definatly notice the extra performance on current software, and open the doors to new applications and games which are fully threaded.

Dont know if you have thought about it much, but I gather Nvidia will soon release a new card based on a 65nm process, Probably called 8800GT. It wont be quite as fast as a GTX... but its likely to be using a mere fraction of the power, and therefor not be a room heater, or need a nuclear powerstation just to run it :). Should be out at the end of October, or early November. (I know its a CPU thread... but a good CPU needs a good GPU)
 
Thank you Corasik. I'll take all that on board.

I haven't thought much about videao cards yet (although I think it'll be an Nvidia 8xxx something). I tend to think about the components starting from the processor then go through mobo, memory, case and power, etc...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom