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

[n7]

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

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

Fantastic read.

I didn't even realize a couple of those games benefited from quads...but they do.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's the salient, right there. It seems to me that in my particular case, cores are a better solution than Ghz. Of course, I also realize that a goodish amount of RAM and a proper disk susbsystem are necessary, also. In particular, I wish that hdd performance were better.

I remember when mainstream dual-core CPUs were introduced, Techreport coined (and abused) the term "creamy smoothness" to describe the computing experience. Even when an application did not take full advantage of dual-core, the overall system responsiveness and performance benefited. I am looking (hopeful) for a similar experience with quad.

 

[classy]

Quad quad quad

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: 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.

I saw and still stand behind my statement.

while Photoshop spends a few hours

a few hours != 24 hours. Could he benefit from a quad, perhaps but I still think the whole quad bandwagon is getting out of control. If a user actually took the time to break down how much time a quad is FULLY utilized vs. the time three of the cores sit idle, I think it would be self explanatory that the quads processing power is wasted 90+% of the time.

It's typical that everyone here reads "gaming rig" or "Dual vs. Quad" and they instantly recommend quads nearly every time. If the user plays games or uses photoshop one hour per day and surfs the rest of the time, their money could be much better suited towards other hardware as opposed to IMHO being wasted on a quad that will be sitting idle for all but one hour per day.

 

[Tempered81]

yah unless you're specifically looking for a 24/7 server/folding/encoding box.

edit: add 24/7 Company of Heros rig too.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

while Photoshop spends a few hours

a few hours != 24 hours. Could he benefit from a quad, perhaps but I still think the whole quad bandwagon is getting out of control. If a user actually took the time to break down how much time a quad is FULLY utilized vs. the time three of the cores sit idle, I think it would be self explanatory that the quads processing power is wasted 90+% of the time.

It's typical that everyone here reads "gaming rig" or "Dual vs. Quad" and they instantly recommend quads nearly every time. If the user plays games or uses photoshop one hour per day and surfs the rest of the time, their money could be much better suited towards other hardware as opposed to IMHO being wasted on a quad that will be sitting idle for all but one hour per day.

There's probably no justification to buy anything faster than the absolute lowest clockspeed dual-core chip too. After all if that quadcore is sitting idle for all but 1hr per day then that dual-core is sitting idle for all but 2 hrs per day, and that means you should just buy an 800MHz single-core P3 and get your full 24hrs worth of computing per day.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Gillbot

while Photoshop spends a few hours

a few hours != 24 hours. Could he benefit from a quad, perhaps but I still think the whole quad bandwagon is getting out of control. If a user actually took the time to break down how much time a quad is FULLY utilized vs. the time three of the cores sit idle, I think it would be self explanatory that the quads processing power is wasted 90+% of the time.

It's typical that everyone here reads "gaming rig" or "Dual vs. Quad" and they instantly recommend quads nearly every time. If the user plays games or uses photoshop one hour per day and surfs the rest of the time, their money could be much better suited towards other hardware as opposed to IMHO being wasted on a quad that will be sitting idle for all but one hour per day.

There's probably no justification to buy anything faster than the absolute lowest clockspeed dual-core chip too. After all if that quadcore is sitting idle for all but 1hr per day then that dual-core is sitting idle for all but 2 hrs per day, and that means you should just buy an 800MHz single-core P3 and get your full 24hrs worth of computing per day.

It's my opinion, take it for what it's worth. I just hate to see people drawn in by the quad-core hooplah. I fell for it once myself. I've been paying for it in upgrades since.

 

[apoppin]

Well, i just *failed* to get a e0 e8500 from NewEgg. Julie agreed to the RMA without the restocking
:heart:

of course i didn't open it .. but now i *need* a E0 for my x3 crossfire; i require at least 4.5Ghz

so .. i guess that means e8600 for fifty bucks more

BUT

IF i was able to get a guaranteed Q9550 e0 that would hit 4.0 Ghz, i would consider it .. but i would hate to have what i have now ... 3.33Ghz and 2 *useless* cores for 99% of even new games

i guess i am going for e8600 from Newegg $275

 

[Tempered81]

go for it, you might get 4.2ghz with the stock cooler and 1.15v like the guy in the other thread. ;P

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
go for it, you might get 4.2ghz with the stock cooler and 1.15v like the guy in the other thread. ;P

i did; i went for the e8600 .. $275 shipped from the 'egg [after Julie was nice enough to waive a *mandatory* 15% restocking fee]

but then i want 4.5Ghz .. i have a Thermalright ultra-120 CPU cooler with the fastest Scythe120MM
- i will feel cheated below 4.0Ghz with an ASUS Rampage and 2x2GB PC8500

my e4300 was at 3.25Ghz at stock voltage and 1/4 v got it to 3.33Ghz
- i could do more but i want to resell it with a clear conscience; it runs pretty cool with my Thermalright which barely fits in my case.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: n7

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

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

Fantastic read.

I didn't even realize a couple of those games benefited from quads...but they do.

and why do you think im in love with the Q9650 platform.

give ya a clue, X3370 is also a Q9650 platform.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7

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

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

Fantastic read.

I didn't even realize a couple of those games benefited from quads...but they do.

and why do you think im in love with the Q9650 platform.

give ya a clue, X3370 is also a Q9650 platform.

WOW ! And the X4 got trounched even by the C2D's, and absolutely raped by the C2Q's. 72 vs 179 3 ghz each !!!!

 

[Salaminizer]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7

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

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

Fantastic read.

I didn't even realize a couple of those games benefited from quads...but they do.

and why do you think im in love with the Q9650 platform.

give ya a clue, X3370 is also a Q9650 platform.

WOW ! And the X4 got trounched even by the C2D's, and absolutely raped by the C2Q's. 72 vs 179 3 ghz each !!!!

The Wolf: Well, let's not start sucking each other's d*cks quite yet.

You do realize that they were getting that crazy scaling with the 4870x2 ONLY right? No other reviews I have seen have the quads vs. duals getting such large gains in games. I am sceptical and probably some other shenanigans are going on.

Another review from the same site but with the gx2 does not show the quads dominating as such:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=737

 

[Tempered81]

It's COH in particular that has amazing scaling. the others show the predictable 2-5% for extra cores & 2-5% for IPC improvements @ 45nm.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7

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

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

Fantastic read.

I didn't even realize a couple of those games benefited from quads...but they do.

and why do you think im in love with the Q9650 platform.

give ya a clue, X3370 is also a Q9650 platform.

WOW ! And the X4 got trounched even by the C2D's, and absolutely raped by the C2Q's. 72 vs 179 3 ghz each !!!!

WtF, they only tested DC to 3.6Ghz
. . . we have dual core that can do 4.6 Ghz


i don't play CoH .. what about the other hundreds of games that show more benefit with a faster dual with a multi-gpu platform?

and let's try it with an X3

i will next week, OK .. with a maxed out e8600 over 4.0Ghz and HD4870x3 .. Does CoH has a demo with a benchmark or am i stuck buying the game?


this is silly .. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=7

You get 12 FPS more with the Quad at the SAME speed as the dual
- 140 vs 128 .. now let's OC BOTH those puppies and i bet the dual *creams* the Quad
:roll:

are you quad guys insane?

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=10

139 FPS with a Quad 3.6 vs 133 with a Dual at the SAME speed

lets see UT3 with a Dual at 4.6 Ghz and a Quad struggling to make 4 Ghz- fair is fair

not this article and their conclusions on cherry picked games and slow ass Duallys

 

[WT]

It seems we have stirred apoppin to action. TO ARMS !!! TO ARMS !!

I'm not insane, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night ..

Oh, back to the numbers - I'll gladly hold onto my worthless extra two cores at this point. They can join my worthless extra voltage that the PSU is holding in reserve. I'd love to see another site run a similar test setup to give us something to compare to, but alas the numbers do look just a bit odd to me.

PS - I played CoH last night - still love that game regardless of how many FPS I get.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: WT
It seems we have stirred apoppin to action. TO ARMS !!! TO ARMS !!

I'm not insane, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night ..

Oh, back to the numbers - I'll gladly hold onto my worthless extra two cores at this point. They can join my worthless extra voltage that the PSU is holding in reserve. I'd love to see another site run a similar test setup to give us something to compare to, but alas the numbers do look just a bit odd to me.

PS - I played CoH last night - still love that game regardless of how many FPS I get.

I know, I get the feeling that things must have slowed way down in the video forums. Now we get threads of "dual vs quad" angst all of a sudden. Some folks just need to feel like they are raging against the machine every single day. It is kinda painful to watch, hopefully it is only a phase here on the CPU forum as I really hope we don't lapse into what this place was like a couple years ago.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: WT
It seems we have stirred apoppin to action. TO ARMS !!! TO ARMS !!

I'm not insane, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night ..

Oh, back to the numbers - I'll gladly hold onto my worthless extra two cores at this point. They can join my worthless extra voltage that the PSU is holding in reserve. I'd love to see another site run a similar test setup to give us something to compare to, but alas the numbers do look just a bit odd to me.

PS - I played CoH last night - still love that game regardless of how many FPS I get.

heck, i stayed at a Motel 6 in San Jose for NVISION
:Q

i am getting my OWN worthless dual core e8600 today - lacking 2 cores
- i am a gamer .. and i think LegionHardware screwed up CoH by not testing O/C'ds numbers - the ONLY "poster child" for quad core

if you DON'T Overclock, Quad is the way to go; or if you are not a gamer
- if you DO O/C and have a beefy graphics multi-GPU set up [as i do - 4870x3] - i think a Quad would be terribly insufficient below 4.0 Ghz
- how would i remedy that without spending $550?

nope it is not slow in video

 

[soydios]

With Lightroom, quad-core will be your friend when batch processing. I currently use Lightroom with a dual-core and it uses both cores; quad would be nice. Not to mention the whole system will be faster considering the constant load you have on it.

 

[Tempered81]

check this out (as far as mhz is concerned)
crysis:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...647744&image_id=839048
ut3:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=647744&page=1

 

[RussianSensation]

The Quad vs. Dual core conspiracy benchmarks continue:

Crysis 1680x1050 2AA, Medium Settings
Q6600 2.4ghz = 31fps
E8400 3.0ghz @ 4.2ghz = 23 :Q

COD4 1680x1050 4AA, Max
Q6600 = 83fps
E8400 4.2ghz = 81fps

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
The Quad vs. Dual core conspiracy benchmarks continue:

Crysis 1680x1050 2AA, Medium Settings
Q6600 2.4ghz = 31fps
E8400 3.0ghz @ 4.2ghz = 23 :Q

COD4 1680x1050 4AA, Max
Q6600 = 83fps
E8400 4.2ghz = 81fps

No offense Russian, but what a retarded article.

His Q6600 stock vs. E8400 stock crysis results:
Q6600:41
E8400:32

PCGamesHardware:
Q6600: 41
E8400: 48
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...00_and_GE-6400/?page=2

XbitLabs:
Q6600:54
E8500:72
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0

How could Overclockersclub's stock Q6600 be beating a 4.2 or 4.5ghz E8400, or even a stock 3ghz E8400? Perhaps have a look at his conclusion:

http://www.overclockersclub.co...ews/intel_e8400/16.htm

"Conclusion:
...the E8400 is a no show when competing against the quads, as was my expectation. Here comes the fuel for that bonfire. When it came time to test the gaming performance, I was skeptical of the two cores being better than four when gaming theory that gets spouted about time and time again. In fact, I have argued on the side that Quad cores are used in games. There does seem to be some truth to this theory when I ran the gaming tests..."

Hrm. Would like to see another review site repeat that test


On a side note, check out this stock E6750 and stock E2160 beating a 2.4g Q6600 in COD4 4xAA:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/E...rt_cod4_1920_aa_af.png

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

No offense Russian, but what a retarded article.

Hence the conspiracy article!

You don't know who to trust anymore!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
The Quad vs. Dual core conspiracy benchmarks continue:

Crysis 1680x1050 2AA, Medium Settings
Q6600 2.4ghz = 31fps
E8400 3.0ghz @ 4.2ghz = 23 :Q

COD4 1680x1050 4AA, Max
Q6600 = 83fps
E8400 4.2ghz = 81fps

No offense Russian, but what a retarded article.

His Q6600 stock vs. E8400 stock crysis results:
Q6600:41
E8400:32

PCGamesHardware:
Q6600: 41
E8400: 48
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...00_and_GE-6400/?page=2

XbitLabs:
Q6600:54
E8500:72
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0

How could Overclockersclub's stock Q6600 be beating a 4.2 or 4.5ghz E8400, or even a stock 3ghz E8400? Perhaps have a look at his conclusion:

http://www.overclockersclub.co...ews/intel_e8400/16.htm

"Conclusion:
...the E8400 is a no show when competing against the quads, as was my expectation. Here comes the fuel for that bonfire. When it came time to test the gaming performance, I was skeptical of the two cores being better than four when gaming theory that gets spouted about time and time again. In fact, I have argued on the side that Quad cores are used in games. There does seem to be some truth to this theory when I ran the gaming tests..."

Hrm. Would like to see another review site repeat that test


On a side note, check out this stock E6750 and stock E2160 beating a 2.4g Q6600 in COD4 4xAA:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/E...rt_cod4_1920_aa_af.png

i can't compare anything with a QC yet, but i will try to run the same benches with my x2 and x3 configurations and also my 280GTX to see what FPS i get with a highly OC's Dually - my e8600 did arrive today and it IS a e0 stepping

i am benching 5 GPUs on 2 platforms this weekend
.. all weekend

i will pass relevant info along

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

It's been quite interesting to see how this thread has evolved...