Another Dual- v Quad- core thread... *sigh*

[cyberfish]

For some reason my explorer.exe is taking up 270MB of RAM!? Firefox is 175MB, iTunes 68MB. Is the majority of it disk caching?

Hmm. Isn't there a memory usage breakdown under the "processes" tab? If you can't see the memory in the breakdown, I would assume its disk caching...

Linux does it much more agressively. After some hours of use, it's typical to have <1% free RAM, no matter how much you have.

the more memory you have, the more the OS will use because it can. i mean even when doing just general work it will allocate memory more generously.

That I am not so sure... it's certainly not a general programming practice to probe the amount of free RAM before deciding how much to allocate. People just call malloc() (or "new" in the case of C++) and check for null-pointer or catch an exception (in the case of "new") to see if the allocation suceeded.

 

[solog]

Originally posted by: cyberfish

If I am to buy a CPU now, I would pick the E7200 ($120), and overclock it. I think the E7200, overclocked, has the best price/perf ratio now. A bit slower than E8400, and a lot cheaper. A pentium dual-core is just a bit cheaper, and is a lot slower.

you can get it at Microcenter right now for $100. Fry's has a deal currently for it and an ECS motherboard for $100. There is a guy on these forums that will pay about $30 shipped for that motherboard. Definitely the best deal currently

 

[cyberfish]

I guess we Canadians just always get charged a little more .

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: cyberfish
If you don't saturate the cores (run ALL OF them at 100%, there won't be ANY difference).

For your use, you won't feel any difference between a quad and a dual.

Huh? If you're using a dual-threaded app, like Photoshop, which loads two cores @ 100% each, where is this extra processing power coming from, if you've only got two cores? Remember, he said he wants to be able to use his computer, while Photoshop spends a few hours applying filters to a batch of images. Plus, he wants to use, or at least have Picasa or LightRoom running, while he's using the system for web browsing, etc. Won't he need CPU cycles for that? I can tell you, he will. He's a classic "needs a quad" multitasker.

Also, I find it strange that people are suggesting 4GB ram.

That's because you obviously don't own Photoshop. 4GB is the minimum amount of RAM you'd ever want to seriously try to use with it. BTW, Flipped, supposedly, having 8GB can make Photoshop 2½-3x as fast as only having 4GB. You have to make a 4GB RAM drive (which is easy to do), then tell Photoshop to use the RAM drive as it's scratch disk, but the people who have 8GB and use Photoshop swear by it, since it makes them no longer I/O-bound. Of course, a secondary benefit of the RAM drive is considerably less wear and tear on one of your hard drives, along with the extra speed.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia
BTW, Flipped, supposedly, having 8GB can make Photoshop 2½-3x as fast as only having 4GB. You have to make a 4GB RAM drive (which is easy to do), then tell Photoshop to use the RAM drive as it's scratch disk, but the people who have 8GB and use Photoshop swear by it, since it makes them no longer I/O-bound. Of course, a secondary benefit of the RAM drive is considerably less wear and tear on one of your hard drives, along with the extra speed.

I can speak to whether 8GB vs. 4GB produces 2-3x speedups (I don't doubt it though) as I've never had >4GB in my rigs but I can say that even with <4GB for the relatively smallish sized jobs I do in Photoshop I still run a 1GB ram-drive setup for Photoshop's scratch files because it makes doing everything seem near instantaneous when I am playing around with images.

We're I into doing photoshop things beyond playing around as I do then I'd for sure have an 8GB rig with vista64 and a 3-4GB ramdrive setup as a scratch file.

It is kinda hard to avoid ways of speeding up your computer by putting more ram into it unless you do the trivial thing and just add more ram and expect magic...yeah there's a diminishing rate of returns there as the OS is only going to automatically do so much for you. Setting up ramdrives and intelligently allocating them for specific apps can net you some major gains.

 

[Gillbot]

I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I'm less concerned with how long an operation takes (say, applying filters to a batch of images) than the overall smoothness of the system while the operation(s) is going on.

In that case, you'll be wanting a quad, along with a minimum of 4GB of RAM, and a minimum of two hard drives (not in RAID).

absolutely! a pair of HDD not in raid is invaluable to getting a smooth system...
If you do P2P you need 3 hard drives.
1. For windows and basic programs.
2. For P2P scratch.
3. For running games and storing data.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I actually use 3 hdd's right now. I'm not a monster PS user, primarily just processing and fixing photos.

I've been thinking for a while along the lines of what IDC has specced: "We're I into doing photoshop things beyond playing around as I do then I'd for sure have an 8GB rig with vista64 and a 3-4GB ramdrive setup as a scratch file" along with whatever quad is the best value in a couple of months.

Thanks to all who replied!

 

[Tempered81]

quads are overrated. but the q6600 is a deal at around $160 because you can still get 3.6 out of it w/ 4 cores.

 

[GundamF91]

Go with Quad, the reason is that it's not 3Ghz vs. 4Ghz. It's really 3.6Ghz. vs. 4Ghz. So it's not that big of a difference, and you are going to keep that computer for a few years, so it'll only be more useful as time goes on.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

Well, a lot of software is out there that already is multi-threaded. It really depends on what you are doing. I love it for F@H, and many others for rendering or CAD.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

Well, a lot of software is out there that already is multi-threaded. It really depends on what you are doing. I love it for F@H, and many others for rendering or CAD.

I agree, to a point. IMHO, the whole quad core "movement" is playing into the consumers lack of knowledge about SMP and SMP applications. Everyone assumes more processors = more power but if you do 90% web browsing and email but only 10% CAD or F@H, is the extra cost, power draw and complexity really a benefit?

For more "power users" like many here at anandtech, perhaps, but for MOST people I still say Dual over Quad when you factor in actual useage times vs. cost/complexity of the dual/quad.

I've posted the same reply over and over in most Dual/Quad threads so i'm not gonna waste my energy typing it again. Let's see if I can find it for a lazy copy/paste.

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated. Why pay $300+ for a Q9450 or whatever if you plan to upgrade next year. By then Q9450's will be available in FS/FT for probably less than $150.

As stated earlier, not even 3-4 months ago you were hard pressed to find a decent clocking Q6600 for under $250, now you can get good Q6600's in FS/FT for $150 or less.

Originally posted by: Gillbot
Well, that's where me and Aigo differ. He loves quads, I don't.

I do agree that they have their place but IMHO, their place isn't quite mainstream yet. Unless you can REALLY utilize a quad, it's overkill and a waste of $ for most users. As I tell Aigo: A single core on a 4.25GHz Dual browses anandtech just as fast as a single core on a 3.7GHz quad. Without the software and apps to utilize a quad, most of it sits there idle on the average PC most of the time anyway.

Originally posted by: Gillbot
My HDD might be holding me back but you once again prove my point that Quads aren't for everyone. If you have a certain budget for parts, get a fast C2D and spend the extra $ on other faster hardware. There is no point in getting that "uber" quad if your ram and HDD can't keep up is there? Then again, if you have to blow most of your budget to get that "uber" quad and you opt for low grade components in the remainder of the rig, why bother getting that "uber" quad only to have it limited my the other cheap parts?

I saw ZERO improvement in my Supreme Commander gaming when I went from the C2D to the C2Q. As a matter of fact, I believe my SC Scores were a shade higher with the higher clocked dual. Not every user out there has top tier components, not do we want to upgrade everything in our rig just to utilize a quad. </soapbox>

I have yet to order that HDD. I should do so now before it goes off sale. I got called out to work again so I haven't had time to do much of anything.

 

[Tempered81]

you've got plenty of e8400 -> q6600 converts and likewise q6600 -> e8400 guys too.

They're both great deals. It boils down to +2 cores vs. extra mhz.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
you've got plenty of e8400 -> q6600 converts and likewise q6600 -> e8400 guys too.

They're both great deals. It boils down to +2 cores vs. extra mhz.

Yeah, I agree with you, Jared, as usual. Don't think I'm recommending a quad to everyone, because I'm very definitely not. But, if you happen to need a quad, you sure shouldn't be buying a dual-core, and vice versa.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

Dualcores are overrated as well, at least until software starts catching up.

 

[n7]

Quad.

For multitasking with the sorta programs you are mentioning, no one should be recommending duals...but i doubt people really read your post...

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: n7
Quad.

For multitasking with the sorta programs you are mentioning, no one should be recommending duals...but i doubt people really read your post...

Funny, I was thinking that some of the responders did exactly that. It becomes almost a sport, rooting for the Duals or the Quads, regardless of the OP. The more I think about it, and the more that folks mention the benefits of Quads for my usage, it's become very clear that Quad is the way for me to go.

And maybe Vista x64 & 8 GB RAM, too.

And, while I'm at it, a new disk sub-system.

 

[n7]

8 GB would put a smile on that face. :evil:

And obviously Vista x64...anything else would be wrong these days

 

[apoppin]

You QC guys are gonna *love* this:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=3

 

[WT]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You QC guys are gonna *love* this:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=3

:Q ... Wow ... that is a surprise. I play a lot of CoH @ 19x12 as well, but hadn't bothered to check the performance. I had a hard time justifying a 6700 over an 8400, but after seeing this, I feel I went with the right chip.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: cyberfish
Firefox and MP3 playing use virtually no CPU power.

Speak for yourself. Firefox uses quite a bit of CPU power actually. I get 25-35% usage on my E2140 @ 3.2Ghz. If one thread gets "stuck", I get 50% usage, since one core is using 100% CPU. That's with heavy usage, I have Firefox consuming 1.3GB of RAM too.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You QC guys are gonna *love* this:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=3

Thats a nice article - CoH is more Multi-threaded than UT3 & Supreme command combined. Too bad they don't show a 4.4ghz cpu.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

Dualcores are overrated as well, at least until software starts catching up.

I agree but there are very few worthwhile single core chips out there.

Originally posted by: n7
Quad.

For multitasking with the sorta programs you are mentioning, no one should be recommending duals...but i doubt people really read your post...

I read it.... I fail to see the problem.

Typical apps open: Photoshop CS3, Picasa (maybe replaced with LightRoom), Firefox with up to 5 tabs open, mp3's or videos (ripped from DVD) playing.

Aside from maybe Photoshop, I fail to see anything there that needs the processing power of a quad core. I'm sure firefox, MP3's and playing videos REALLY needs a quad core. :roll:

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated, at least until software starts catching up.

Dualcores are overrated as well, at least until software starts catching up.

I agree but there are very few worthwhile single core chips out there.

Single-core Nehalem with SMT would be pretty sweet, power-consumption and performance-wise. Not that they'd sell it, but it would be a nice tight chip for laptops if they did.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Typical apps open: Photoshop CS3, Picasa (maybe replaced with LightRoom), Firefox with up to 5 tabs open, mp3's or videos (ripped from DVD) playing.

Aside from maybe Photoshop, I fail to see anything there that needs the processing power of a quad core. I'm sure firefox, MP3's and playing videos REALLY needs a quad core. :roll:

Originally posted by: myocardia
If you're using a dual-threaded app, like Photoshop, which loads two cores @ 100% each, where is this extra processing power coming from, if you've only got two cores? Remember, he said he wants to be able to use his computer, while Photoshop spends a few hours applying filters to a batch of images. Plus, he wants to use, or at least have Picasa or LightRoom running, while he's using the system for web browsing, etc. Won't he need CPU cycles for that? I can tell you, he will. He's a classic "needs a quad" multitasker.