Dual vs Quad - Lab Benchmarks Vs Reality?

[taltamir]

watching a rickroll video is not what I described, I described opening a session with many saved tabs. It takes some time and gives 100% CPU use on all cores. Go ahead and try it. Open google chrome, set it to save your open tabs between sessions. open a ton of links, and then click on the wrtench icon and select "exit". Then next time you run it, it will open all previously open tabs and windows. And that: 1. takes some time. 2. scales 100%. It should in fact scale to at least as many tabs you have (so opening 100 tabs should scale to at least 100 cores, possibly more since it often opens 2 or 3 processes per tab).

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with VIDEO. It is HTML and java rendering mostly. (and who watches HD porn inside a web browser? you watch it in media player classic home cinema, like every other video)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50%.

at 12x10 resolution no AA/no AF

who cares?

show me 19x12

Do you want the game to be CPU capped at 19fps or at 29fps? Throw a 4x SLI GTX 295 in there and it will still run like dog shit with a dual core CPU.

you are just talking or you have some links?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: taltamir
watching a rickroll video is not what I described, I described opening a session with many saved tabs. It takes some time and gives 100% CPU use on all cores. Go ahead and try it. Open google chrome, set it to save your open tabs between sessions. open a ton of links, and then click on the wrtench icon and select "exit". Then next time you run it, it will open all previously open tabs and windows. And that: 1. takes some time. 2. scales 100%. It should in fact scale to at least as many tabs you have (so opening 100 tabs should scale to at least 100 cores, possibly more since it often opens 2 or 3 processes per tab).

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with VIDEO. It is HTML and java rendering mostly. (and who watches HD porn inside a web browser? you watch it in media player classic home cinema, like every other video)

Alright I just tested this. The time it takes to start Firefox with 7 tabs open is about 2 seconds. The tabs open are:
1) gmail
2) this thread
3) fallout 3 forum
4) fallout 3 benchmark on PCGH
5) anandtech CPU forum
6) anandtech GPU forum
7) anandtech Phenom II gaming benchmark

Maximum CPU was about 55% when loading.

If it's taking 100% CPU and a considerable amount of time to load, then I suspect something weird is up. Do you have any weird antivirus plugins that scan every page? That would explain a lot.

 

[taltamir]

i said at least 20, not 7... I often open more then 200...

I also said only chrome scales 100% to infinite cores. not firefox.

 

[taltamir]

i just opened 30 wikipedia pages in chrome, then shut it down and turned it on... 100% CPU usage, took about 3 seconds... which is much better than it would have on a dual core, or firefox. makes even more of a diff if I had hundreds of pages open.

wiki is also small light pages... often I have heavy pages open.
I upgraded to 8GB of ram, because my browsers alone take 3.5GB

 

[tigersty1e]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: tigersty1e

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50% in GTA4.

Fixed.

Moving from the same speed duo to the same speed quad will increase fps.

But in the real world, duos clock higher than quads.



Just get the core 2 duo. Once games start to get optimized for quads, there will be a cheaper faster quad.

Just look at all those people that bought the Q6600 back when it was 266. From then to now, they really didn't use it for games. But now we have the Q9550 that clocks higher.

IN AT's last PhII review, 3 of the 4 games tested performed better with the 3 Ghz Q9650 than the 3 Ghz E8400. Sometimes dramatically so.

Reread my quote. I'll repeat.

I said moving from the same clocked duo to the same clocked quad will increase fps. Considering the Q9650 is 2 E8400 slapped together, I'm not surprised at the results.

Give me a 4.0 GHz duo and compare it to a 3.0 Ghz quad.

 

[tigersty1e]

Bottom line is this.

You don't encode videos, run your spyware and defrag, stress test your cpu, install your games at the same time you game. When you game, all you do is game. If not, you're a fool.

Get a duo. When the fastest quad for your socket/system (lga 775) is about to be discontinued by Intel and you don't/or won't upgrade to the i7/i5, then get the quad. When that time comes either you'll be on the i7 already or the quad will cost peanuts and more games will be optimized for the quads.

 

[taltamir]

Give me a 4.0 GHz duo and compare it to a 3.0 Ghz quad.

4ghz duo vs 3.6ghz quad you mean...

 

[taltamir]

You don't encode videos, run your spyware and defrag, stress test your cpu, install your games at the same time you game. When you game, all you do is game. If not, you're a fool.

Torrents are the most convinient example of other things...
Spyware / other shit is the most COMMON exaple of background tasks that most people don't have the knowledge or skill to get rid off...
Anti virus - something that is NEVER used in benchmarks, but is always there for most people.
Auto windows defrag - always on unless specifically disabled
windows indexing - always on unless specifically disabled.

Real life is very different from benchmarks... I wanna see a game benchmarked with all this crap in the background.. every single one of the things I listed... and maybe a few i haven't.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: taltamir

You don't encode videos, run your spyware and defrag, stress test your cpu, install your games at the same time you game. When you game, all you do is game. If not, you're a fool.

Torrents are the most convinient example of other things...
Spyware / other shit is the most COMMON exaple of background tasks that most people don't have the knowledge or skill to get rid off...
Anti virus - something that is NEVER used in benchmarks, but is always there for most people.
Auto windows defrag - always on unless specifically disabled
windows indexing - always on unless specifically disabled.

Real life is very different from benchmarks... I wanna see a game benchmarked with all this crap in the background.. every single one of the things I listed... and maybe a few i haven't.

Good point. I ALWAYS have Avira, AIM, Steam, VENT, Fraps, GPUz and RealTemp while i am gaming.

 

[nOOky]

4.5 duo versus 3.6 quad

I run Teamspeak, a game, maybe Realtemp and whatever Windows services are running. I disable my anti-virus unless I am doing a scan. I find it incredible that someone would need 200 tabs open in Firefox or any browser at once. Good God that's more than I have ever had bookmarks in my life.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Give me a 4.0 GHz duo and compare it to a 3.0 Ghz quad.

4ghz duo vs 3.6ghz quad you mean...

for me it is a 4.33Ghz C2D vs a 4.0Ghz C2Q
(which ends up in actual gaming as 4.25G vs. 3.9G)
- i will take the quadcore ANYTIME for gaming

practically, it is very close - except when you *need* the "extra" 2 cores
- when you do and you are stuck with your dually, you feel like you are on the freeway trying to merge with a 4-banger, thinking:
"i could have had a V-8"
:Q



All my testing with a *single* GPU says Quad core is as yet UNnecessary
BUT - with 4870 CrossFireX-2 and/or X2, q9550s does make a difference over e8600 when both are high clocked and apparently if i could get over 4.0 Ghz it would also be useful in improving overall gaming performance.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: taltamir
watching a rickroll video is not what I described, I described opening a session with many saved tabs. It takes some time and gives 100% CPU use on all cores. Go ahead and try it. Open google chrome, set it to save your open tabs between sessions. open a ton of links, and then click on the wrtench icon and select "exit". Then next time you run it, it will open all previously open tabs and windows. And that: 1. takes some time. 2. scales 100%. It should in fact scale to at least as many tabs you have (so opening 100 tabs should scale to at least 100 cores, possibly more since it often opens 2 or 3 processes per tab).

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with VIDEO. It is HTML and java rendering mostly. (and who watches HD porn inside a web browser? you watch it in media player classic home cinema, like every other video)

I think you would be correct in saying that loading anything often takes 100% CPU. But as far as I am concerned, I am willing to take a few more seconds wait for loading. To each his own I guess I usually keep my computer up 24/7 unless they need rebooting for updates / maintenance, so I don't shut down my browsers that often. In the event I do need to, just couple more seconds, not minutes. The OP did have those keywords "budget gaming machine", and how fast browser reopens tabs has little relevance to it IMO.

 

[konakona]

oops DP... sorry.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Zerohm

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust.

People still use anti-virus software?

I thought that only came as preloaded software for noobs buying prebuilts

And I'm not sure but if you are gaming wouldn't your web browser (with its many tabs, for the seriouz multi-taskers ) be idle along with your music player (unless you don't actually listen to in-game sound)?

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: taltamir
i said at least 20, not 7... I often open more then 200...

That's it?

I open over 2000 every time I launch. I never close a tab.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: taltamir

You don't encode videos, run your spyware and defrag, stress test your cpu, install your games at the same time you game. When you game, all you do is game. If not, you're a fool.

Torrents are the most convinient example of other things...
Spyware / other shit is the most COMMON exaple of background tasks that most people don't have the knowledge or skill to get rid off...
Anti virus - something that is NEVER used in benchmarks, but is always there for most people.
Auto windows defrag - always on unless specifically disabled
windows indexing - always on unless specifically disabled.

Real life is very different from benchmarks... I wanna see a game benchmarked with all this crap in the background.. every single one of the things I listed... and maybe a few i haven't.

Do torrent clients hog the CPU that much? unless it was that notoriously broken Azereus (now called Vuze) I doubt thats the case. utorrent is totally unnoticeable in my system.
I don't have any numbers, but I think Nod32 takes minimal amount of resources.
I thought auto-defrag and indexing halts once the user initiates an intensive activity on the computer? Correct me if I am wrong.

Not trying to nitpick, just saying

 

[taltamir]

not everyone uses utorrent and nod32 . I do, I know plenty of people who run norton and azureus.

Interesting about the halting of indexing and defrag... I don't know if they do... or if they do so reliably (windows has a very poor way of seeing if someting is or isn't in use. it constantly gives me grief with things like hdd shutting down while torrenting due to lack of use, or problems with sleep mode, etc... so i tend to disable those features)

 

[BladeVenom]

This was about a budget gaming rig, so just get a E5200 and overclock it. By the time most games need a quad core, quad cores will be as cheap as the E5200 is right now.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
This was about a budget gaming rig, so just get a E5200 and overclock it. By the time most games need a quad core, quad cores will be as cheap as the E5200 is right now.

he said "budget" - not a cheap "placeholder" - and he defined his parameters in his first post:

So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

Q6600 is a good deal and can get over 3.4Ghz pretty often; balance that with an e8400 at 3.8Ghz

 

[Wartzay]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Zerohm
So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

In the scenario you are describing, I think quads do have an advantage over duals, but the main bottleneck in everyday multitasking performance is the hard drive; it just really kills performance. Quads are more forward-looking, though.

Just to expand on that point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs&fmt=22

 

[apoppin]

Dual vs Quad - Lab Benchmarks Vs Reality?

If you are a gamer as i am, after comparing 8 modern maxed out mostly DX10 games at 19x12 and 16x10 with 4870 and GTX280, mostly you do not need a Quad over a dual - especially if you get a nice OC on your dual; a couple of games benefit, from quad core however, and this trend is growing

HOWEVER, after comparing 13 modern maxed out mostly DX10 games at 19x12 and 16x10
if you SLi GTX280 or 260, or CF4800s .. you NEED to have a very fast Quad .. at least 3.4 Ghz and the faster the better if it is TRiSLi or CrossFireX-3, like i do
- in a LOT of new games, Quad core simply walks all over even a faster-clocked dual core - it makes the *sole* difference between "playable" and "choppy" in WiC, for example

now i know

 

[taltamir]

my take on it... any game that doesn't need a quad core, doesn't need those last 600mhz advantage the dual core has over a quad. and if your game DOES need a quad, you would be happy you have one. I went from an E8400 @ 3.6ghz to an E6600 @3ghz. My experience with games that perform better with a dual core hasn't changed, they are still silky smooth despite having a slightly lower measured FPS, my experience with games that need a quad has vastly improved.

 

[taker777]

Some duals have advantage over quads in peak performance
but for multi tasking major things Quads prevail

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
This was about a budget gaming rig, so just get a E5200 and overclock it. By the time most games need a quad core, quad cores will be as cheap as the E5200 is right now.

I think if *I* were building a budget gaming system right now and trying to decide on a processor, thinking between a dual and quad I'd get an AMD Phenom tri-core in a heartbeat. They are priced like dual cores, plenty fast for single threaded apps, can overclock very decently overall, and many will allow you to unlock the 4th core. You really get the best of both worlds with the tri core, and if you're lucky your cheap tri core can become a fully functioniong quad. There are plenty of people here on this site that have a nice sub-$150 processor running well over 3GHz with four fully functioning cores. Those chips are pretty hard to beat in bang for the buck right now, even if they don't unlock they are still a very capable chip.