Quad Core, any point ?

badbob · 17 Jul 2008 at 14:38

Switching on my duals is responsive. Maybe not if I'm encoding at 100%x2 but that's to be expected, if I want to do multi-tasking while loading out two or more cores then I'd get another CPU.

No way you can tell the difference between switching between normal applications when the computer is idle.

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 14:46

badbob said:
Switching on my duals is responsive. Maybe not if I'm encoding at 100%x2 but that's to be expected, if I want to do multi-tasking while loading out two or more cores then I'd get another CPU.

No way you can tell the difference between switching between normal applications when the computer is idle.

the tasking switching is at cpu level processes & not apps switching by the user as there don't need to be any user apps open for the cpu to still be doing tasks.
Dont tell me that you have less the 2 processes running

badbob · 17 Jul 2008 at 14:52

the tasking switching is at cpu level processes & not apps switching by the user as dont need any user apps open for the cpu to still be doing tasks.

I think with 100% per core "responsivness" during idling not really a major concern :-/ Look how much CPU time services use. Also have AV.

Yes switching between notepad on a quad is more "snappy" :-/

Dutch Guy · 17 Jul 2008 at 14:52

Another point is that if you want to overclock you will have a much harder time with a Quad Core (if the mobo/PSU/Etc) are not top of the range.

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:07

badbob said:
I think with 100% per core "responsivness" during idling not really a major concern :-/ Look how much CPU time services use. Also have AV.

Yes switching between notepad on a quad is more "snappy" :-/

Just think of it as going from a 16bit cpu to a 32bit cpu.
And most of us do a lot more than open a very light app.

Cpu time is not context switching time & process load which is not the same.
It does not tell you how long it took to switch between the processes as Latency is not Load.

10sec on process A, 10sec on process B, but how long did it take to switch from A-B...nope taskmanger did not show you that & load will have little to do with the time it takes to switch from A-B until the load is maxed out.

MikeHunt79 · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:10

remember quads use more power and are harder to cool....

It depends what proggies you run, encoding and real time apps such as Cubase benefit from quad core

badbob · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:17

Final8y said:
Just think of it as going from a 16bit cpu to a 32bit cpu.
And most of us do a lot more than open a very light app.

Cpu time is not context switching time & process load which is not the same.
It does not tell you how long it took to switch between the processes as Latency is not Load.

10sec on process A, 10sec on process B, but how long did it take to switch from A-B...nope taskmanger did not show you that & load will have little to do with the time it takes to switch from A-B until the load is maxed out.

You're ignoring the fact it's a "general PC" Yes if you're a gaming and encoding, and want snappy performace whilst doing really heavy work in the background? But for switching between OE, Opera, Paint? Come on don't be daft.

mmorpheus1 · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:18

i would go with a quad , but if you are thinking of buying wait till next weeks price cuts

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:20

badbob said:
You're ignoring the fact it's a "general PC" Yes if you're a gaming and encoding, and want snappy performace whilst doing really heavy work in the background? But for switching between OE, Opera, Paint? Come on don't be daft.

Im not ignore that fact im just putting some fact forwards & whether it is worth it or not is up to the OP.
And once everything has settled down then there would be no notable lag when opening those lightweight apps from a dual to quad.

death_looms · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:32

To the OP:
For everyday computing, if you just want it to work, get a dual.
If you want an e-penis, get a quad!

With the higher clocks on a dual, I would have thought them to be more responsive. Just pair it up with 4GB RAM and you're flying. It's also cheaper for an E7200! sure you could spend £30 more and get 2 more cores, but generally - you don't need it!

RizlaKing · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:33

If all you want to do is browse the internet send some emails and play solitaire then of course getting a quad is stupid but if you want to play games maybe play with those family vidoe's or use anything remotely intensive then a quad has definate benefits. Why some people feel the need to get superior and patronising about it i don't know this is a forum the OP asked a question and people have given their views thats what they are for if you can't handle any view other then your own, little hint for you stay off the internet..

Kaiju · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:33

If you use programs which take advantage of Quads, then great, but the OP was looking at "Everyday use" and the difference is negligible at best.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

I personally can't see the difference between a Quad and C2D becoming much larger in the future and by then, new technologies will be about.

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:34

I used to be able to get 60% cpu usage scrolling a web page rapidly up & down on the dual but only use get 30% usage on the Quad.

badbob · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:35

Final8y said:
Im not ignore that fact im just putting some fact forwards & whether it is worth it or not is up to the OP.
And once everything has settled down then there would be no notable lag when opening those lightweight apps from a dual to quad.

A "every day" computer does generally use light apps. I'm not knocking powerful CPU's, as my next computer will be a quad maybe octo

But it's stupid the high street retailer fools people in believing a quad is required. Then pair it up 256MB of RAM. With Vista. :rolleyes:

A E8200/8400 will scream along for most users.

RizlaKing · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:38

I have learnt what one person calls everyday another calls rabid use so maybe if the op expanded and what everyday use is for him we could cut out some of the debate.

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 15:38

badbob said:
A "every day" computer does generally use light apps. I'm not knocking powerful CPU's, as my next computer will be a quad maybe octo But it's stupid the high street retailer fools people in believing a quad is required. Then pair it up 256MB of RAM. With Vista.

A E8200/8400 will scream along for most users.

For what the OP is using his computer for a dual is all that is needed but i was just putting some facts forward just like the first replay to the OP.
Then PhoenixUK got the ball rolling about load & use confusing the Load with responsiveness which is like saying that DR2/1066 is no faster than DDR2/800 until you've used 90% of your ram.

Freeman · 17 Jul 2008 at 16:48

My brother and I have similar CPU apart from I have Quad and he has Duel. The only major difference in speed is when rendering in Photoshop Cs3 and other similar programs. Quad owns the Duel in that respect, but other than that they are pretty much exactly the same.

Final8y · 17 Jul 2008 at 17:00

Freeman said:
My brother and I have similar CPU apart from I have Quad and he has Duel. The only major difference in speed is when rendering in Photoshop Cs3 and other similar programs. Quad owns the Duel in that respect, but other than that they are pretty much exactly the same.

You also got to take into account with bottlenecking on other areas of a system can stop some performance gains being noticed.
The amount of Ram & timings & the speed of the Hard drive in RAID-0 can show a big difference in responsiveness in opening apps copying ect.

PhoenixUK · 18 Jul 2008 at 01:40

Alright right now I have 5 firefoxes open, one with about 30 tabs.
8 explorers, 4 calculators, 2 notepads, riva tuner, cpu-z, gpu-z, ventrillo, VLC media player with movie running on full screen, winamp playing music, outlook, anti virus, adobe reader, skype, msn with 5 conversations, DAP downloading, u torrent downloading, and CoD4 running in background on 1680x1050 all maxed out with 4xAA and max AF, also im compresing 1gb files at the same time.

That's on E2200@ 2.95 and 4gig geils @ 885mhz 4-4-4-12.

Switching between ANY of these, ANY time, is no slower than my eye can catch up, it's as fast as I click alt-tab or mouse click any of it, not even 0,2sec waiting.

The only time I have to wait is when i switch from desktop to the game, and that's about 3-5 seconds.

Do you ever multi task THAT MUCH !?

Fraps your difference between E8400 and Q6600 in windows please, or it didnt happen...

Something must be seriously messed up with your system or hardware tbh.

PhoenixUK · 18 Jul 2008 at 01:46

Final8y said:
For what the OP is using his computer for a dual is all that is needed but i was just putting some facts forward just like the first replay to the OP.
Then PhoenixUK got the ball rolling about load & use confusing the Load with responsiveness which is like saying that DR2/1066 is no faster than DDR2/800 until you've used 90% of your ram.

RAM is different story,
And lets be honest here, if your CPU is running 333fsb.
You run ram @ 800mhz in 4-4-4-12, you run 1066mhz @ 5-5-5-18.

The 1066 is not going to be faster, I would even say that the 800 one will win due to faster timings.

And if you were saying it this way on the CPU, the e8400 will be faster due to faster clocks

. It probably is but I'm certainly sure you would not be able to see the difference in windows....