Quad vs Duo Core?

[reidthaler]

I'm still pretty confused about Quad vs Duo. What I've read and see in benchmarks is that Photoshop does better with a faster clockspeed, so for the money, that would point to Duos (E8500 3.16 is $190 vs Q6600 for $10 less) especially when you look at 45nm (E8500) vs 65nm (Q6600), and FSB 1333MHz (E8500) vs 1066MHz (Q6600)

Does a quad core perform better overall on a computer system that still point to going with quad over a Duo? What am I missing? Money is not a free flowing as it used to be.

I'm not a gamer and not interested in OC particularly, more interested in a stable, quiet system, but open to the idea if it's not a hassle and doesn't create instability.

I'll building with an Asus P5Q Pro, 8 GB RAM, Antec P182 case

Most people in other forums are pointing to the Quad, Specifically the Q6600, even though it's slower, 65 instead of 45 nm, and lower FSB than the E8500!?!?!

Thanks!

Reid

 

[Cogman]

Hey, welcome to anandtech. This is actually a common subject so I will reference you to some of the other threads with this exact same question in mind

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2229724
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2118607
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2185524
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2184807
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2190959
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2111864
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...223150&messid=29464940

And there are many more...

Quads are good at multitasking, If you like to have 100 windows open at once, then a quad is for you. More and more programs are becoming multithreaded (use more then one core), but it still isn't the majority.
Generally speaking, video processing/multimedia applications benefit a fair amount from quad cores while games usually benefit more from faster single cores (probably not always going to be the case).

 

[reidthaler]

Thanks! I'll give those a look. I think I'm a multitasker. While I have a lot of windows open, I generally am doing only one thing.

I know Photoshop is quad optimized, and photo work is what I do

Reid

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: reidthaler

Thanks! I'll give those a look. I think I'm a multitasker. While I have a lot of windows open, I generally am doing only one thing.

I know Photoshop is quad optimized, and photo work is what I do

Reid

I wouldn't say that PS is quad "optimized". Some filters benefit from quad, but as you pointed out in your OP, clockspeed is really where its at for CS3.

I plan on going quad soon, as I feel it benefits my particular brand of multitasking (with PS) better than dual.

I'm also contemplating going SSD for the scratch disk.

Next version of PS will also be able to offload some tasks to the GPU. That should be very interesting...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I wouldn't say that PS is quad "optimized". Some filters benefit from quad, but as you pointed out in your OP, clockspeed is really where its at for CS3.

That's very true, and also from the research I've done on the subject, even CS4 isn't going to be quad-optimized. It will definitely be both 64-bit (or at least capable), and will be able to use the GPU (video card, in other words) for processing, as long as the card supports CUDA. <<--That means you'll want an nVidia card, if you're planning on upgrading to CS4.

I'm also contemplating going SSD for the scratch disk.

Why? SSD's are slow as dirt, compared to RAM. Get 8GB, or even 16GB of RAM, and use a RAM drive as your scratch disk. If you have a 64-bit OS, they're free to setup. If you don't, for $49, you can buy a software called SuperSpeed, which will allow you to use the RAM above 32-bit Windows' limit for your RAM drive. Idontcare linked to it in this thread.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I wouldn't say that PS is quad "optimized". Some filters benefit from quad, but as you pointed out in your OP, clockspeed is really where its at for CS3.

That's very true, and also from the research I've done on the subject, even CS4 isn't going to be quad-optimized. It will definitely be both 64-bit (or at least capable), and will be able to use the GPU (video card, in other words) for processing, as long as the card supports CUDA. <<--That means you'll want an nVidia card, if you're planning on upgrading to CS4.

I'm also contemplating going SSD for the scratch disk.

Why? SSD's are slow as dirt, compared to RAM. Get 8GB, or even 16GB of RAM, and use a RAM drive as your scratch disk. If you have a 64-bit OS, they're free to setup. If you don't, for $49, you can buy a software called SuperSpeed, which will allow you to use the RAM above 32-bit Windows' limit for your RAM drive. Idontcare linked to it in this thread.

Rumour is that only Nvidias Quadro cards will be compatible with CS4, while all of ATI/AMDs 4000 series will be compatible Linky. Course if that is true Nvida may reconsider, but Quadro cards are $$$.

 

[Denithor]

Stupid question: how do I set up a RAM drive?

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Stupid question: how do I set up a RAM drive?

http://www.mydigitallife.info/...-2000-and-2003-server/

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

@ Myocardia - good point on SSD vs RAMDisk.

@ PlasmaBomb - not quite. Nvidia details Adobe CS4 GPU acceleration (Techreport link). In fact, if you read the article you linked to, the ATi 4000 series accelerates Premiere, in addition to 3000/4000 series acceleration for PS4. Also, the article makes no mention of Quadro exclusivity for acceleration of PS4.

 

[Denithor]

Another stoopid question: other than IE cache and PS scratch drive what else would you use a RAMdrive for? Would this perhaps make encoding video faster or something? Obviously you don't put anything on that volume that you want/need to keep unless you want to back it up before each reboot.

I wonder if this could speed up F@H crunching?

Any advantage to the SuperSpeed drivers ($50-75) versus the freebies available out there?

EDIT: With RAM prices where they are right now, I could easily add another 4GB to my rig just for use as a RAM drive if there's any real advantage to doing so.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Denithor
EDIT: With RAM prices where they are right now, I could easily add another 4GB to my rig just for use as a RAM drive if there's any real advantage to doing so.

Except that WinXP 32 bit wouldn't recognize the additional RAM... unless the RAMDisk software can circumvent this...?

EDIT: I see on MS website that SuperSpeed Plus 9 claims that it can indeed go over the 4 GB limit.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Except that WinXP 32 bit wouldn't recognize the additional RAM... unless the RAMDisk software can circumvent this...?

EDIT: I see on MS website that SuperSpeed Plus 9 claims that it can indeed go over the 4 GB limit.

And I have a copy of Vista Ultimate sitting in the desk...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
@ Myocardia - good point on SSD vs RAMDisk.

Yeah, RAM disks are unbeatable, when it comes to speed, especially if you factor in their extremely low cost. There's a guy who posts @ XS that was saying that going from 4GB to 8GB of RAM made his Photoshop sessions go from ~45 minutes to ~10 or 15 minutes. IIRC, he didn't say that he was using a RAM disk, but it's obvious that he was, since Photoshop isn't 64-bit, so the app itself can only use 2GB of RAM (slightly more, if you modify some things). Only using a RAM drive for the scratch disk could give you anywhere near a 300% speed improvement.

Originally posted by: Denithor
Another stoopid question: other than IE cache and PS scratch drive what else would you use a RAMdrive for? Would this perhaps make encoding video faster or something?

Well, the only things I can think of where it would make a difference is PS, databases, and gaming (alot of games cache data). The guy from XS says it makes a huge difference with Photoshop, Idontcare says it makes a huge difference with a database, and I'm saying it would make somewhat of a difference with gaming, at least for the games that cache data, which more and more seem to be doing. BTW, F@H isn't didk-intensive at all (at least it wasn't not very long ago), so it shouldn't make much/any difference there.

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
EDIT: I see on MS website that SuperSpeed Plus 9 claims that it can indeed go over the 4 GB limit.

Well, more importantly to me, Idontcare says it works perfectly for him with 32-bit XP. I'm not sure which version of SuperSpeed he's using, but maybe he'll pop in and tell us. You could always PM him, if you're considering buying it.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Denithor
Another stoopid question: other than IE cache and PS scratch drive what else would you use a RAMdrive for? Would this perhaps make encoding video faster or something?

Well, the only things I can think of where it would make a difference is PS, databases, and gaming (alot of games cache data). The guy from XS says it makes a huge difference with Photoshop, Idontcare says it makes a huge difference with a database, and I'm saying it would make somewhat of a difference with gaming, at least for the games that cache data, which more and more seem to be doing. BTW, F@H isn't didk-intensive at all (at least it wasn't not very long ago), so it shouldn't make much/any difference there.

How would you redirect the game's cache onto the ramdrive? Because the whole game won't fit onto the ramdrive unless you buy a server board with lots & lots of ram.

And since there's a good discussion going here, I'll ask the question again I asked elsewhere: would this be a potential workaround for the cache write problem on MLC SSDs? Simply create a 2-4GB ramdrive and point the Windows pagefile & IE/etc temp file cache onto the ramdrive?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Denithor
How would you redirect the game's cache onto the ramdrive? Because the whole game won't fit onto the ramdrive unless you buy a server board with lots & lots of ram.

Some games let you configure where the cache file resides, by editing a config file. If it doesn't have that option, you would just need to configure your Windows swap file/pagefile there-- that's where nearly all games store their cache.

And since there's a good discussion going here, I'll ask the question again I asked elsewhere: would this be a potential workaround for the cache write problem on MLC SSDs? Simply create a 2-4GB ramdrive and point the Windows pagefile & IE/etc temp file cache onto the ramdrive?

Definitely. That's the only way to use an SSD, in my opinion.

 

[Denithor]

So a $30 ramdisk could actually make one of those 64GB SSDs for like $100 into a fairly decent deal...hmm...

EDIT: Wonder if we could get anyone (AT--hint hint) to do a test using a ramdisk for the windows/ie cache to check for improved performance with the mlc drives?

 

[Gillbot]

Gah... I think we need a dual vs. quad FAQ or something.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

People would simply ignore it like the pinned EIST thread.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Rhonda the Sly
People would simply ignore it like the pinned EIST thread.

Yeah, I think you are right. There are so many Dual/Quad threads now and despite many of these arguments being hashed over and beaten to death, we see a new one at least weekly.

 

[myocardia]

Hey, at least they aren't daily, like the "Is my insert Intel processor here running too hot?" Oh wait, I wasn't supposed to spell too correctly, was I? That was an accident, really.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Just because I'm in the spirit:

"Bought 4GB of memory but Windows only sees 3.5GB!!!"