Quad Core, any point ?

[Final8y]

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....

Standard name Memory clock Cycle time I/O Bus clock Data transfers per second Module name Peak transfer rate
DDR2-400 100 MHz 10 ns 200 MHz 400 Million PC2-3200 3200 MB/s
DDR2-533 133 MHz 7.5 ns 266 MHz 533 Million PC2-4200
PC2-43001 4266 MB/s
DDR2-667 166 MHz 6 ns 333 MHz 667 Million PC2-5300
PC2-54001 5333 MB/s
DDR2-800 200 MHz 5 ns 400 MHz 800 Million PC2-6400 6400 MB/s
DDR2-1066 266 MHz 3.75 ns 533 MHz 1066 Million PC2-8500 8533 MB/s
Source: Wikipedia

At this point, mainstream users should go for branded DDR2 DDR2 SDRAM -800 memory. Quicker timings (low CL values) are favorable, but you shouldn’t fork out considerably more money, as the differences are small. DDR2-1066 is important for systems based on AMD Phenom processors, as their memory controllers can utilize the faster memory.

Well when it comes to an Intel CPU then it may not be better but i do have a AMD like i said in my first reply to you & users with a Phenom see a speed increase with 1066 like we have seen testing over at xtremesystems.

 

[Glaucus]

Thing is windows cpu monitor doesn't tell the true story. It's a snap shot averaged out over a period of time. Even if you don't use 100%.

If you get 4 threads that need processing at same time A quad can do it, a dual can't (ignoring Hyper-threading). This is why you can see increase of speed when cpu utilization may only be 2%..

Also with hard drives getting larger there's going to be more and more people wanting to encode or use cpu intensive software is going to increase.

 

[Final8y]

Thing is windows cpu monitor doesn't tell the true story. It's a snap shot averaged out over a period of time. Even if you don't use 100%.

If you get 4 threads that need processing at same time A quad can do it, a dual can't (ignoring Hyper-threading). This is why you can see increase of speed when cpu utilization may only be 2%..

Also with hard drives getting larger there's going to be more and more people wanting to encode or use cpu intensive software is going to increase.

Indeed im doing more now than i ever thought i would be.
I have just done a clean Vista install + hardware drivers..ect & task manager is showing 700+ threads running & badbob's got 500 going on his pic on XP.

 

[FrankJH]

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.
.

You realise of course that most of that is just junk - maybe hogging up ram but using absolutely no processing power at all (Im sure most of the web pages where static, calculators wherent actually calculating, notepads not being used, cpu-z does nothing after its initial opening,)

you would had the same result flicking between two or three tabs in ie while having full screen video, mp3 playing and d/l near enough - the rest is pointless

 

[badbob]

His point is that is what most people have open, extreme conditions. Not everyone has several high CPU load applications at once, at those that do, would have bought a quad specifically for there uses.

Compressing files and games playing will use a considerable amount of cpu overhead, probably two 2 tasks open using % the most common amount people will have.

I'm a power user, and have done a fair bit of work with 4400x2, and with it encoding in the background it's still perfectly usable. And this is what 99% of the population will do, it's the only last 1% that'll play a game and fold at the same time as encoding.

Just buy the fastest dual core you can afford, you'll be perfectly happy with it. If you're into Supreme Commander, FS-X, into Photoshop, CAD, 3D Rendering, or encode music/video all day, then buy a Quad.

 

[Pygor]

Thanks, lots of interesting advice debate, PC only gets used lightly most of the time, not often more than 3 processes running. I did notice the advice to wait a few days on price drops.

Was going to chooses between these 2

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 3.16GHz (1333FSB)

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 LGA775 'Yorkfield' 2.66GHz 12MB-cache (1333FSB)

Motherboard is Asus P5E64PRO with OCZ 4GB DDR3 PC3-10666C7 1333MHz

All the other bits are fairly decent quality. So which one to buy ? if there are real benefits in going Quad fair enough, i just thought there was not much support software wise. I don't do any overclocking.

 

[badbob]

Get the E8500. It'll be more than fast enough. In fact if it's family PC I'd just get a slower PC, you don't need 3ghz dual core for kids homework PC. IBM 4.77mhz will be fine

 

[Greebo]

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!

That's a bit mean. I got a quad not for my e-penis. If I had wanted to grow that I would have a e8500 running at 4.5Ghz.

With my quad I can now encode video and play games at the same time which was impossible to do with a dual core so I had to wait and not use the computer while it was encoding.

And when I don't want to do that and leave all four cores encoding I can now encode a full film in dvd in under 20 minutes.

So having those extra cores to do other tasks in the background while you game is a definite advantage me to.

And somebody best tell AMD and Intel that more than two cores is a waste since they are bringing out 8 and 12 core cpus.

 

[Greebo]

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....

Not true with the Intel platform actually and dependant on the program. Tight timings on ram benefit superpi but higher ram speed and slacker timings is faster in games.

In fact, pretty sure 1066Mhz @ 5-5-5-18 is faster than 800Mhz @ 4-4-4-12 in superpi as well. The tighter timing ram would need to be around 900MHz to give the same real world performance (which most good ram can of course).

 

[FrankJH]

snip.

It was a completely pointless exercise as most of his applications wherent actually being used and its in no way replicating real use

(for instance playing a video full screen AND playing an mp3 how pointless is that? THIRTY + tabs / browser windows most of which would be doing F.A, several editions of calculator not actually doing anything - sorry but in NO way is this real use)

Im more than happy to accept that for you the waiting around for Windows to sort it self out every time you try and do something is inconsequential, however I know it drives me and a lot of other people mad (especially when its something basic) a quad core cuts these times down to zero which is worth it from my point of view a hundred times over

 

[badbob]

sorry but in NO way is this real use

For 99% of the population, YES IT IS. Ask your mother if she plays a game, encodes a video, does a virus scan, re-codes flac at the same time. It'll be a N-O.

If you're "waiting around" on dual for normal use, whilst something is doin in bg with heavy CPU load, then something is wrong with your PC. Probably HD I/O bottleneck, I have a HD dedicated to OS and only the OS. With source-destination working drives. I can shrink a DVD in 3 minutes whilst doing other stuff, granted best not to games but windows behaves normally even with 50% + 50% load.

 

[Strife212]

It doesn't even matter if you are only using 10% of each core on the dual core, it will still be more responsive on a quad because the latency will be lower and more threads are being executed simultaneously.

 

[badbob]

Now you're throwing out tech speak :-/ For a typical family PC & HTPC a good is overkill, I know you want to justify your purchases, but still look at this rationally. A latency difference of a few ns won't make any difference, when most PC's are idling away. Recommending a quad is daft for this use.

 

[Greebo]

Now you're throwing out tech speak :-/ For a typical family PC & HTPC a good is overkill, I know you want to justify your purchases, but still look at this rationally. A latency difference of a few ns won't make any difference, when most PC's are idling away. Recommending a quad is daft for this use.

And I agree. If you have intensive programs running and still want to use your computer it's quad core all the way.

If you just surf/email and game then it's dual core all the way.

END OF DISCUSSION - PERIOD

 

[Final8y]

Now you're throwing out tech speak :-/ For a typical family PC & HTPC a good is overkill, I know you want to justify your purchases, but still look at this rationally. A latency difference of a few ns won't make any difference, when most PC's are idling away. Recommending a quad is daft for this use.

I would say a dual core would be fine, but we are just trying to put some technical facts straight & its not like we did not all have a dual core before to notice a difference & remember similar things being said about single to dual core on desktop responsiveness but most people now say they do notice a difference.

 

[badbob]

Yes that's true but for years we have known of drawbacks of single core PC's, and it's really easy to load out a single core CPU. To do this on a dual you have to do more than the average joe public does on the computer. However if you want to go extreme then why not buy a dual CPU socketed motherboard with two quads? They'll be far quicker than a single quad. Technically it's better so you should get one.

 

[Final8y]

Yes that's true but for years we have known of drawbacks of single core PC's, and it's really easy to load out a single core CPU. To do this on a dual you have to do more than the average joe public does on the computer. However if you want to go extreme then why not buy a dual CPU socketed motherboard with two quads? They'll be far quicker than a single quad. Technically it's better so you should get one.

Once again your taking about the blatantly obvious which if far easer to notice & see & that is LOAD which we are not taking about we are talking about responsiveness because of coarse its easier to LOAD out a Single than a Dual, its easier to Load out a Dual than a Quad..ect..., none of us need lessons on that & there would be no need for prolonged discussion.

 

[Final8y]

Example of responsiveness analogy.

Dual@4Ghz= 4tons 2ton per core because it they have to carry the same load total load as the quad at that given time. with a max 100tons per core capacity
Quad@3Ghz=4tons 1ton per core because they have to carry the same load total as the dual at that given time. with a max 100tons capacity per core

The Quad has lighter cores/acceleration response will get off the start line quicker than the Dual, the Dual will catch the Quad-cores in a straight line after a while & speed ahead because it has more Ghz,
but there is a command to split in 4 opposite directions quickly the Quad-cores are more responsive because of less weight & can make change faster[responsiveness]& go in all the 4 directions at once.this is what happens with multi threads
The dual can only go in 2 direction at once with more weight= less responsive to change of direction.

If all the weight is going in the same direction with no splitting up needed then the Dual would have won in Ghz speed. this what happened in single threaded software & games.

The problem is that there is 100,s of threads going most of the time in the background & 100,s of rapid direction changes happening all the time.
But games get a higher priority so the other threads get put on hold & the dual core can focus on running the single thread app & games once it has finished delivering the low priority threads & parked them & stopped collecting more, so to focus on the app/game.
The Quad was quicker to park the low priority threads because it could carry 4 at a time & begin to load the game up at an earlier time[responsiveness] than the Dual but once in game the dual ran it faster because it had more Ghz & was single threaded game.

Very over simplified.

 

[Devil_Spawn]

if its just email and websites you could practically go for single core...

 

[Gilbretto]

badbob is of course 100% correct.

There is absolutely NO need for a quad core if all you will be doing is surfing the web and using word.

From my experience, going to an overclocking/enthusiast forum and asking for budget/every day advice can be tricky.

It tends to be that people's perception of average use (in forums like these) is completely different from the real world home users.

For every day 'average' use even the slowest dual core will be more than enough. Just give yourself 2gigs of memory and you'll be sweet.

Dont waste your money.