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

[Flipped Gazelle]

Won't be building for another couple of months, but am curious as to what the knowledgeable folks here think.

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.

If, for example, you were to compare the performance of a 3 Ghz Quad v 4 Ghz Dual, which CPU would offer the better overall performance in this scenario?

Would Vista x64 change your recommendation?

Many thanks to all who reply!

 

[Markfw]

I vote for the quad...

 

[apoppin]

if you are building in a couple of months, i7 will be a new variable to consider

then .. not now .. too many unknowns but it looks like Neha will top Penryn w/your aps

.. so QC wins the longer you wait

 

[nyker96]

I use all the apps you mentioned CS3/Picasa regularly also thinking LightRoom soon. I also do some video editing on this rig. My E2160@3 is barely okay with this load. I also think if this is your bread and butter and buying new now, get a Quad like Q6600 or Q9xxx. Also another suggestion is if you can go RAID do it, my disc load speed on large files is also a bottleneck I feel. Good luck.

 

[taltamir]

ask us when you build it. "a couple of months" is too vague, that and we can't predict the future, we can only estimate (and there is NO point in estimating now for a future purchase, estimate now for a current purchase).

That being said, unless I got with a budget machine (aka, 50$ processor), I would get a quad.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I'm appreciating the replies, guys! It's pretty much verifying my own thought process.

Taltamir, I understand what you are saying; however, the chances of me choosing to afford the i7 chips are pretty slim. Either way, the dual v quad argument would still be valid.

 

[taltamir]

oh, i wasn't talking about neha... but who knows what the prices will be on the various dual and quad cores from intel and amd by then. the ones currently on the market, not neha.

 

[suklee]

I just got myself a Q6600, and I love it when my task manager shows all 4 cores getting a workout.

 

[cyberfish]

I just got myself a Q6600, and I love it when my task manager shows all 4 cores getting a workout.

That would be because of load balancing. No matter how many cores you throw at it, all of them will be used. That is not to say it will be faster than if it was done on a single core. It's done to keep all the cores at similar temperatures (processes are moved between cores once in a while).

I have a dual core (E6300 @ 3.36ghz) and I think works well enough for my purposes (gaming and development). Single core won't do because I want to be able to browse the web and IM without lag when I am compiling programs (could take several minutes or hours for larger projects), but I don't see much use for quad cores. Plus, dual cores are dirt cheap these days, and quad cores still come at a premium.

Also, IMHO, there is very little point in going future proof with computer parts beyond two or three months. Don't buy it just because you may need a quad core in a year or two, because in a year or two, you will be able to buy an octa-core with the money you save now by going dual instead of quad.

 

[cyberfish]

wow. no on this forum?...

 

[Tempered81]

just [/Q minus the "uote"]

 

[suklee]

yep just use [ q ] and [ / q ]

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: cyberfish

I just got myself a Q6600, and I love it when my task manager shows all 4 cores getting a workout.

That would be because of load balancing. No matter how many cores you throw at it, all of them will be used. That is not to say it will be faster than if it was done on a single core. It's done to keep all the cores at similar temperatures (processes are moved between cores once in a while).

I have a dual core (E6300 @ 3.36ghz) and I think works well enough for my purposes (gaming and development). Single core won't do because I want to be able to browse the web and IM without lag when I am compiling programs (could take several minutes or hours for larger projects), but I don't see much use for quad cores. Plus, dual cores are dirt cheap these days, and quad cores still come at a premium.

Also, IMHO, there is very little point in going future proof with computer parts beyond two or three months. Don't buy it just because you may need a quad core in a year or two, because in a year or two, you will be able to buy an octa-core with the money you save now by going dual instead of quad.

That's why I listed which apps I typically use simultaneously... I'm less interested in how mulitthreaded a single app is than I am if the whole shebang will run better on a quad core.

BTW, I'm currently running an Opteron 165 @ 2.5 ghz.

As for price.... @ Newegg, a retail E8400 is $170, retail Q6600 is $190. There's not much of a price differential.

Really, it comes down to usable power. Mhz v Cores. My suspicion has been that, in my specific case, # of cores may prevail. 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.

 

[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).

 

[cyberfish]

yep just use [ q ] and [ / q ]

Ah, thanks =).

That's why I listed which apps I typically use simultaneously... I'm less interested in how mulitthreaded a single app is than I am if the whole shebang will run better on a quad core.

If you don't saturate the cores (run ALL OF them at 100%, there won't be ANY difference). Out of all the programs you listed, only photoshop will be CPU-bound. Real time video decoding should be nothing for modern CPUs (even more so if you have a video card), even Celerons can do it (it's different from video transcoding, because when watching a video, CPU doesn't need to decode it faster than it's being played). Firefox and MP3 playing use virtually no CPU power.

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

IMHO, ppl only REALLY need a quad for 1) scientific computations (they scale infinitely to CPU power) 2) compiling large programs (different files, or compilation units, can be compiled simoutaneously, and 3) transcoding multiple videoes at once.

That is to say, I think 99% of the people don't really need quad cores.

As for price.... @ Newegg, a retail E8400 is $170, retail Q6600 is $190. There's not much of a price differential.

Sure, but it's 3.0ghz vs 2.4ghz, and 45nm vs 65nm. To make it fair, compare it to Q9650 (3.0ghz and 45nm), at $554. That's what I meant by price premium - it's more than twice as expensive, but not twice as powerful. By manufacturing cost, it should be a bit lower than $170*2 = $340.

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.

 

[cyberfish]

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

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the task manager (ctrl+alt+del) showing more than 2GB ram being used? (without opening up 4 instances of Crysis).

I have 2GB myself, and I rarely use 1GB, never 2GB.

I am more of a developer than a gamer, though. But I doubt any current game will use more than 2GB.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cyberfish
Also, I find it strange that people are suggesting 4GB ram.

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the task manager (ctrl+alt+del) showing more than 2GB ram being used? (without opening up 4 instances of Crysis).

I have 2GB myself, and I rarely use 1GB, never 2GB.

I am more of a developer than a gamer, though. But I doubt any current game will use more than 2GB.

HardOCP?

?do i remember you from there? .. not B3D ,,

anyway ... it's for the future .. we beat this to death in video and had many pages on the 2GB barrier and largeaddress .. Vista64 will definitely use more than 2GB; and there are those who are heavy multi-taskers on Vista 32

plus is it SO cheap .. it couldn't hurt

 

[cyberfish]

hmm sure. it's cheap I got my 2x1gb DDR2-800 CL4 ballistix for $25 some weeks ago. I think future proofing is pointless, but I guess $25 can't hurt .

Imagine you got 4GB for $200 one year ago. It costs $60 now, and your "future" hasn't even arrived yet.

and there are those who are heavy multi-taskers

You need to be a REALLY heavy multi-taskers to use 4GB ram, considering my firefox with 15 tabs open only uses 135MB RAM.

There should be very little RAM usage difference between 64-bit and 32-bit OSes. The only difference would be size of pointers, since in 64-bit systems they have to be 8 bytes for 64-bit addressing.

The performance difference between 32 and 64 bit will be negligible, because programs will need to be compiled for 64-bit to take advantage of the wider bus and more registers. No or very little current programs/games are. Even then, the performance difference would be <5% at best, with exception of scientific programs using 64-bit variables. Switching to 64-bit will only get you incompatibilities and headaches.

I run 32-bit Windows for gaming and 64-bit Linux for development. There is no point in running 64-bit Windows, and I run 64-bit Linux only because my current project (a chess AI) can benefit greatly from 64-bit (since the chess board has 64 squares... and many instructions that would take 2 instructions on 32-bit would only take one in 64-bit). That is a very very special case scenario, though.

 

[gplracer]

I just got a Q6600. I went in the bios and changed the fsb from 266 to 333 and booted the computer at 3.ghz. It was just that easy. I am sure I will play around with the voltage and probably end up between 3.2 and 3.4ghz. I think the quad is better if you do stuff that will use the cores or if you planning on keeping it for a while. I got 4gb of ram because the price difference was only $30. I figured why not?


BTW Markfw900 voted for the quad and he as both. That should tell you something.....

 

[cyberfish]

Current C2D's are overclockable to 3.8-4.0ghz. Even my E6300 can go 3.5ghz (but I am running it at 3.36ghz because of the heat, and I only have a $15 cooler).

Yeah, I agree RAM is cheap enough to just get 4GB and forget about it.

BTW Markfw900 voted for the quad and he as both. That should tell you something.....

I am a scientist. Claims need to be baken up.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: cyberfish
Also, I find it strange that people are suggesting 4GB ram.

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the task manager (ctrl+alt+del) showing more than 2GB ram being used? (without opening up 4 instances of Crysis).

I have 2GB myself, and I rarely use 1GB, never 2GB.

I am more of a developer than a gamer, though. But I doubt any current game will use more than 2GB.

Don't have a screenie available, but a week or 2 ago task manager showed 2.2 GB in use.

Actually, right now I'm at 2.06 GB... Photoshop, Picasa, Firefox, PowerDVD.

I get your point re the E8400 vs Q9650, however, I'm looking at it from a different perspective: I've seen more people debate E8400 v Q6600 and, given their pricing and performance, they are natural alternatives to each other. As you go higher up the ladder, the law of diminishing returns applies.

@ myocardia, yeah, I'm thinking the same thing.

 

[cyberfish]

Are you sure it's not just disk caching? Vista introduces the concept of caching harddrive using RAM (which has been in Linux for many years). From what I've seen, 1GB for caching is about the point of diminishing return. You gain very little by moving to 4GB. At this price point tho, I guess I would just go for 4GB, too.

I get your point re the E8400 vs Q9650, however, I'm looking at it from a different perspective: I've seen more people debate E8400 v Q6600 and, given their pricing and performance, they are natural alternatives to each other. As you go higher up the ladder, the law of diminishing returns applies.

True, but for your purposes, the dual core will be both faster and cheaper.

I guess I just love cheap stuff .

I have
E6300 @3.36ghz (from an old comp, ~$90 now?)
GA-EP35-DS3L ($90)
9600 GT ($100)
2GB DDR2-800 CL4 crucial ballistix ($25)

Beat that in terms of perf/price .

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: cyberfish

I guess I just love cheap stuff .

I have
E6300 @3.36ghz (from an old comp, ~$90 now?)
GA-EP35-DS3L ($90)
9600 GT ($100)
2GB DDR2-800 CL4 crucial ballistix ($25)

Beat that in terms of perf/price .

Can't beat it, because I'm running older stuff

Opteron 165 @ 2.5 ghz
3 GB DDR400
Biostar TForce 6100-939 (incredible mATX board)

Maybe I should keep what I have until it dies...

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: cyberfish
Can anyone show me a screenshot of the task manager (ctrl+alt+del) showing more than 2GB ram being used? (without opening up 4 instances of Crysis).

Here you go
http://img357.imageshack.us/my.php?image=taskmanvz3.jpg

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

 

[minmaster]

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.