I want a true quad-core processor

[batmang]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
No, the Q6600 is two dual-core pieces of silicon bound together in one CPU package. It's every bit as "real" of a quad-core as Phenom. Phenom has 4 cores in one package, so does the Q6600.

You worded it much better than I did. The Q6600 does share cache though, the Phenom doesn't. It doesn't really matter IMO, I'm just going by some specifics. You can't go wrong with the Q6600 or the Phenom series. As v8envy said, no performance hits have come out of the Q6600 sharing cache. We all know the Q6600 overclocks well and performs better clock for clock compared to the Phenom's. They are both cheap decent quad cores IMO. Either or, I don't want this turning into some Q6600 vs Phenom thread.

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I want to build a new rig, and I'm looking for a fast processor. I would like to go quad-core. What is the current situation with Intel's processors?

Why do you want a quad?

Heavy parallel processing. I do cpu-intensive work.

why not get a 16-way then?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Toadster

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I want to build a new rig, and I'm looking for a fast processor. I would like to go quad-core. What is the current situation with Intel's processors?

Why do you want a quad?

Heavy parallel processing. I do cpu-intensive work.

why not get a 16-way then?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[richwenzel]

it all depends on what your definition of is, is....

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Right, all this argument over "true" or not is silly. The move to dual/multi core was all about providing the processing power of two (or more) CPUs in one socket. The so called "true" duals or quads might have some tangible advantages, but it certainly isn't anywhere near the advantage of moving from dual to quad, or one CPU to two (or more).

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Do you know when will the 45nm quad-core processors will be available?

Well they are available now, but not. If you're looking for a desk system (socket 775) the Q9650 is all you can buy right now. However, if you're willing to move the server side (socket 771) there are 45nm quads (Xeons) from about $230 (@ 2.0 Ghz) up to over well over $1000 (@3.16 Ghz).

The rest of the desktop 45nm chips are supposed to be out soon, but I haven't seen them on etailers' sites yet.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: zsdersw
There is no such thing as a "true quad-core", because there is no "false quad-core". A CPU is either quad-core or not. I suppose you could consider a dual-core CPU to be a "false quad-core", because it doesn't have 4 cores in one package, but that perfectly illustrates the fallacy of using the term "true" to describe Intel's current quad-core CPUs.

I say "true" quad-core because I've heard the statement that current quad-cores are just two dual-core processors joined together, which doesn't sound so impressive.

BTW, I'm a programmer but I know a few things about hardware. However, I'm not familiar with all the new hardware that's available out there and what's the best for me. I'm planning to build a pc with the latest technology at a reasonably price (around $400 or less for the CPU). I want something that will run fast and will not become obsolete too quickly (if that is possible in this field). I will do a lot of encoding and CPU intensive tasks, although those tasks might no be multi-threaded. However, I will be doing a lot of multitasking.

Do you think a dual-core would be a better choice? Should I wait a couple of months? I really want to take advantage of new technological developments...

The magic 8-ball sez ... maybe Do you have a total budget, software or system preference?

Adobe Premiere will encode in parallel across four cores. The MainConcept encoder as well. Others, I am not so certain they truly run in parallel (i.e., may be running as a 'balanced load' across four cores).

Mutli-tasking = mucho ram = 64-bit OS

There are a multitude of single-socket "1p" motherboards that will accept either an Intel or AMD processor which has ""four cores"". These include mATX and ATX form factors. Quality stable boards start at $100.

There are also double-socket "2p" motherboards that will accept 2 processors (for a potential of '8-core' parallel processing). Your choices are more limited and include Tyan System Boards and Supermicro AMD and Intel

Prices start at $250 to "Get the fk outa here!"

You typically may run a '2p' motherboard with a single processor and expand to the second cpu socket when practical or necessary for 8 cores.

Do you need 'goodies' such as RAID (separate card?), RAM drive, eSATA, Firewire, bunches of USB ...? Does onboard video work for you? Any monster gaming involved?

edit: couldn't spell 'parallel'

 

[Arcadio]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: zsdersw
There is no such thing as a "true quad-core", because there is no "false quad-core". A CPU is either quad-core or not. I suppose you could consider a dual-core CPU to be a "false quad-core", because it doesn't have 4 cores in one package, but that perfectly illustrates the fallacy of using the term "true" to describe Intel's current quad-core CPUs.

I say "true" quad-core because I've heard the statement that current quad-cores are just two dual-core processors joined together, which doesn't sound so impressive.

BTW, I'm a programmer but I know a few things about hardware. However, I'm not familiar with all the new hardware that's available out there and what's the best for me. I'm planning to build a pc with the latest technology at a reasonably price (around $400 or less for the CPU). I want something that will run fast and will not become obsolete too quickly (if that is possible in this field). I will do a lot of encoding and CPU intensive tasks, although those tasks might no be multi-threaded. However, I will be doing a lot of multitasking.

Do you think a dual-core would be a better choice? Should I wait a couple of months? I really want to take advantage of new technological developments...

Do you need 'goodies' such as RAID (separate card?), RAM drive, eSATA, Firewire, bunches of USB ...? Does onboard video work for you? Any monster gaming involved?

I do need a fast hard drive, maybe using RAID, although I've heard RAID is not really worth it. Onboard video is a big NO, even though I won't be doing too much gaming.

I just want a fast system under $1200