How big an impact do quad core processors have on muti-tasking when compared to dual core?

[garritynet]

For the average joe/jane, the non-power user, how much of an impact do those two extra cores have?

I know that most programs don't take advantage of even two cores, much less three or four, but I always assumed that the big draw to mutiple core processors was the ability to do multiple things at once without taking a huge performance hit.

Can anyone here put the value of multi-tasking peformance in context for someone who has never experienced a quad-core system?

 

[AstroGuardian]

Let's start from the beginning. Jane/Joe will mostly run some MS Office applications, antivirus in the background, web browser and maybe listen for some music all at the same time using Vista. Let's put double of that workload and still a dual core processor should be just fine. If Jane/Joe start using more power user apps, than it's more likely that the amount of RAM and I/O performance will become bottleneck on their regular user systems.

Even with this kind of work, the usage of a quad core processor will contribute to general performance. However that amount of performance advantage will not be beneficial and will be overkill, not mentioning the dollar value of the quad core processor.

 

[jeffw2767602]

the q6600 however is a tremendous value and can get to 3Ghz with ease in most cases without a voltage adjustment. at $179 it is the BEST value hands down in the CPU world. the normal user will be able to utilize this chip for years.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: garritynet
For the average joe/jane, the non-power user, how much of an impact do those two extra cores have?

I know that most programs don't take advantage of even two cores, much less three or four, but I always assumed that the big draw to mutiple core processors was the ability to do multiple things at once without taking a huge performance hit.

Can anyone here put the value of multi-tasking peformance in context for someone who has never experienced a quad-core system?

I was able to do multiple things at once with my 2.3Ghz (OC'd) Sempron 3100+. By multiple I mean Azureus with 5 torrents, copy files across harddrives, burning DVD, 6 PDFs open, editing 2 office files, excel'ing, listening to music, browsing the internet with 3 windows with 10+ tabs each, virus scanning, and instant messaging while sending a file to a friend.

Quad core is not necessary.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: garritynet
For the average joe/jane, the non-power user, how much of an impact do those two extra cores have?

I know that most programs don't take advantage of even two cores, much less three or four, but I always assumed that the big draw to mutiple core processors was the ability to do multiple things at once without taking a huge performance hit.

Can anyone here put the value of multi-tasking peformance in context for someone who has never experienced a quad-core system?

I was able to do multiple things at once with my 2.3Ghz (OC'd) Sempron 3100+. By multiple I mean Azureus with 5 torrents, copy files across harddrives, burning DVD, 6 PDFs open, editing 2 office files, excel'ing, listening to music, browsing the internet with 3 windows with 10+ tabs each, virus scanning, and instant messaging while sending a file to a friend.

Quad core is not necessary.

Some would argue neither is half the stuff you listed yourself as doing

Seriously though the distinguishment needs to made between "necessary" and "won't provide any benefit".

A 4-door sedan is not necessary for commuting to work, a moped will do most people just fine. But you can't argue against the added safety benefits that sitting inside a metal cage provides you when you drive into a tree, building, off the road, etc.

Is a quad-core necessary? No, but neither is gaming, torrents, email, etc. Hell is HDTV necessary? TV at any resolution probably isn't necessary...doesn't mean having one is not beneficial to your end-user life experience. Yes?

 

[Munky]

For the average user a dual core is plenty. Even back when I had a single core cpu I could do web browsing while playing music while opening pdf/office documents. The extra cores of a quad will be of no benefit unless you do enough heavy multitasking to load the first 2 cores, and none of the "typical" uses I described put a heavy load on a cpu.

 

[hclarkjr]

buy the quad, i just recently went from a dual core to quad core system and can tell you first hand there is a difference. windows will use as many cores as you have.

 

[jeffw2767602]

At $179 you can't afford not to buy a q6600 . Maybe even grab a used one on the forums for $140-$160. The cost efficiency on a q6600 is ridiculously awesome. Even if you aren't going to be using all 4 cores now, it will pay off in the future when applications being using more resources in the future. Again I think this chip is one of the best values in CPUs I have seen.

 

[BoboKatt]

Best jump I ever did was from my old AMD single core XP to an AMD x2. The ability to unrar a huge archive and still do something else, a few things at that, was a huge upgrade for me.

Having moved to a quad core, the only difference I note over my other core2Duo is when I encode video (my DVD's to MP4) to make a video collection playable from my computer connected to my TV. THEN.. is when I notice the difference. On my everyday use of my computer... no matter what I do, my "older" e6850 dual core was more than enough.

However, hard to stand up against the cost of a Q6600 as others have said. There is simply no reason NOT to get one.

If you watch your resource/performance meter on your computer and have a quad... my everyday usuage is always localized mainly to the first and maybe 2nd core. The last 2 only come to life or get a workout only when I encode. Period.

 

[dguy6789]

Read the sticky at the top of this forum.

 

[dbcooper1]

Unless you do something(s) specifically CPU intensive, you're likely to be I/O bound unless you also get a second, or additional drive as well and spread tasks across physical drives not just partitions on the same drive. This is true to some extent even on a dual core. While anti virus, spyware, spam etc. will utilize an additional core, it's a disk intensive task by it's nature when scanning.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dbcooper1
Unless you do something(s) specifically CPU intensive, you're likely to be I/O bound unless you also get a second, or additional drive as well and spread tasks across physical drives not just partitions on the same drive. This is true to some extent even on a dual core. While anti virus, spyware, spam etc. will utilize an additional core, it's a disk intensive task by it's nature when scanning.

You raise perhaps the best point in this entire thread.

SSD's are probably the best bang for the buck (despite the large number of bucks involved) way to seriously improve (as in heaviside step function improvement) the end-user's computing experience.

 

[sindows]

Just bite and get the quad, after all almost nobody is using a single core chip except for me

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: sindows
Just bite and get the quad, after all almost nobody is using a single core chip except for me

i second this. im such a power user now though i end up just waiting till i go to a friends house to use my dual core gaming rig there for my power usage needs lol. its just that much faster. definitely buying a nehalem once i get the money for it.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: garritynet
For the average joe/jane, the non-power user, how much of an impact do those two extra cores have?

I know that most programs don't take advantage of even two cores, much less three or four, but I always assumed that the big draw to mutiple core processors was the ability to do multiple things at once without taking a huge performance hit.

Can anyone here put the value of multi-tasking peformance in context for someone who has never experienced a quad-core system?

I was able to do multiple things at once with my 2.3Ghz (OC'd) Sempron 3100+. By multiple I mean Azureus with 5 torrents, copy files across harddrives, burning DVD, 6 PDFs open, editing 2 office files, excel'ing, listening to music, browsing the internet with 3 windows with 10+ tabs each, virus scanning, and instant messaging while sending a file to a friend.

Quad core is not necessary.

Some would argue neither is half the stuff you listed yourself as doing

Seriously though the distinguishment needs to made between "necessary" and "won't provide any benefit".

A 4-door sedan is not necessary for commuting to work, a moped will do most people just fine. But you can't argue against the added safety benefits that sitting inside a metal cage provides you when you drive into a tree, building, off the road, etc.

Is a quad-core necessary? No, but neither is gaming, torrents, email, etc. Hell is HDTV necessary? TV at any resolution probably isn't necessary...doesn't mean having one is not beneficial to your end-user life experience. Yes?

What I mean is all that stuff I did, I did all at the same time, without any lag, on my single core slightly overclocked Sempron. Further, it was only reaching 80% usage on 4x256 mhz. Aside from gaming there was no reason for me to upgrade to my current rig. Hence I say "quad core is not necessary".