Vista & multitasking on dual/quad procs?

[downhiller80]

I've currently got an AMD64 3000+ with 1GB of ddr, a 75GB raptor system drive and a couple of 500GB data drives.

I'm planning on upgrading my cpu/mobo/ram. Ram at least 2GB, possibly 4 since I hear vista really benefits from large amounts of memory with it's superfetch or whatever it's called.

Processor though, I'm torn on whether to get a dual or a quad. I know that hardly any software takes advantage of quad (or even dual for that matter). My question is this - will VISTA take advantage of the extra cores. I.e. if I have 20 programs open at once, will it spread them across the 2/4 cores?

Everyone on here seems to think that there's little benefit to quads unless you're running video encoding or crysis etc. But surely our OSs are clever enough to spread multiple apps across multiple cores, thusly greatly improving performance?

For instance, at the moment I have running:

2-3 IE7 windows (each with a few tabs)
Firefox & Opera (I'm a web dev)
Navicat (mysql tool)
Newsleecher
Excel
VLC (watching the topgear I missed last week)
Winamp (paused, but even so)
MSN (4 conversations)
Word
Homesite+
Paint Shop Pro 8 (I never got on with photoshop!)
Ultramon (multi-monitor utility)

This is a fairly typical load for me. I DON'T play games much, but partly because my PC is so outdated - I'd like to, but I don't want to spend silly money on SLi 8800s etc.

So, dual or quad?

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: sebfrost
My question is this - will VISTA take advantage of the extra cores. I.e. if I have 20 programs open at once, will it spread them across the 2/4 cores?

Yes.

 

[sutahz]

By the looks of it dual core should do you fine. Nothing wrong w/ going quad though. Of your list of apps Paint Shop Pro I would think to be the most cpu intensive app. I dont know VLC and Navicat, but those sound to be the only other 2 that would greatly benefit from a new processor/their own core. Everything else eats up RAM but isnt taking up cpu cycles.
As I understand it, Vista has been designed around multicores while XP has just been adapted to use them.
You don't need SLi/CrossFire for gaming. 8800GT is a great buy, or wait for the next great buy.

What is newsleecher, video on demand? Maybe your video card can't decode it w/o help of the cpu.
===============
In support of Cheex statement. If i could give you a link I could but this is off memory, but its very accurate. The new Penryn (or however its spelled) cpu's benefit 0 from 1600FSB and so says Intel. DDR3 is useless. W/ DDR2, it takes taking the ram from insync (533FSB(266x2)) to 800MHz (a 50% 'overclock' from FSB) to make it so the latency introduced from being out of sync provides some.. SOME.. real world benefits (going from 533 to 667 decreases performance). Even if you req taking the ram past DDR2 JDEC specifications of 1066, you can buy DD2 RAM that goes above that spec (DDR1 officially stops at 400MHz, but you can find plenty of ram that advertises itself past that freq.) JDEC sets the standards, can't stop companies from going beyond that.
Oh 1600/4 = 400x2=800MHz=DDR2-800(pc2-6400) so current cheap-ace 'ol ddr2 can run the super high FSB of the new Intel chips at stock speeds. Even DDR2-800 can overclock (as timings don't mean shiz)

 

[downhiller80]

PSP is pretty low intensity actually.

Newsleecher takes a LOT of CPU (60% at the moment). I've got a 12Mb net connection and I'm downloading at 1.25MB/sec currently. Shouldn't even tickle my 500GB drive, but uses a shitload of CPU, any idea why?

VLC takes about 25% when playing a normal file, 60%+ if playing a 720p file, and it simply can't manage 1080p files

 

[Arkaign]

With current prices, there are only two logical choices :

Cheap ($150ish or less) Dual-Core processor, with possibly a bit of overclocking.

or

Reasonable ($250+) Quad-Core processor, will last longer

 

[Cheex]

My suggestion would be to get a Quad core CPU and also get 4GB of RAM.

Keep in mind that even if apps aren't taking up clock cycles, they all use RAM (you can't have too much).
Get a 4GB (2x2GB) kit and upgrade to 8GB before DDR3 starts getting more mainstream because then, DDR2 price are going to skyrocket!!
Just like DDR when DDR2 became mainstream. DDR prices still haven't come back down.
Plus, DDR2 will still be very 'high-end' until 2009-2011 anyway.

Bottom Line:
Quad-core with 4GB RAM

 

[downhiller80]

Cheers for the feedback.

One more thing - will I find cooling a C2Q significantly louder than cooling a C2D, I like to have a quiet system.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: sebfrost
will I find cooling a C2Q significantly louder than cooling a C2D.

Doubtful.

 

[taltamir]

get a faster dual... So what if vista spreads out 20 programs? then you get 10% usage on each core instead of 20%... its irrelevant unless you have an intensive application that maxes it out...

Currently Crysis claims to do that (i dont know if it really does) and video editing uses 4 cores... Most things use one core and a few use two. But an intensive game could use 100% of one core while all the other processes are managed by the second core, so there are some benefits.

 

[Amaroque]

How long do you plan on keeping the system?

If you plan on using it for several years or more w/o upgrading, I'd go with the quad.

If you're going to swap it out in 2 years or so, perhaps a faster dual would be better.

 

[masteryoda34]

Originally posted by: sebfrost
Cheers for the feedback.

One more thing - will I find cooling a C2Q significantly louder than cooling a C2D, I like to have a quiet system.

I have a Q6600 system with a Zalman 9500 fan on it and the system is extremely quiet and keeps decent temps.

 

[tallman45]

Go with a faster Dual Core, the CPU cache useage is far more efficient when it is shared between just the 2 cores

A QC has 2 separate CPU caches so there is often redundant and old date residing in one of the caches. Since there is no way to force a process to run on any set of cores, the separate caches is a drawback

Unless you specifically have an application that can use all 4 cores, stay with a Dual Core

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: tallman45
Go with a faster Dual Core, the CPU cache useage is far more efficient when it is shared between just the 2 cores

A QC has 2 separate CPU caches so there is often redundant and old date residing in one of the caches. Since there is no way to force a process to run on any set of cores, the separate caches is a drawback

Unless you specifically have an application that can use all 4 cores, stay with a Dual Core

Anyone who is proficient at opening task manager has all the skills they need to set the core affinity for any process. You can lock them to a particular "dual-core" of the quad as well.

Here's 595,000 hits on the subject by Google search setting processor affinity

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: tallman45
Go with a faster Dual Core, the CPU cache useage is far more efficient when it is shared between just the 2 cores

A QC has 2 separate CPU caches so there is often redundant and old date residing in one of the caches. Since there is no way to force a process to run on any set of cores, the separate caches is a drawback

Unless you specifically have an application that can use all 4 cores, stay with a Dual Core

Anyone who is proficient at opening task manager has all the skills they need to set the core affinity for any process. You can lock them to a particular "dual-core" of the quad as well.

Here's 595,000 hits on the subject by Google search setting processor affinity

Correct, That is a way around the problem,

to OP , it takes a bit of planning but performance will certainly be better

 

[Rhoxed]

Originally posted by: sebfrost
PSP is pretty low intensity actually.

Newsleecher takes a LOT of CPU (60% at the moment). I've got a 12Mb net connection and I'm downloading at 1.25MB/sec currently. Shouldn't even tickle my 500GB drive, but uses a shitload of CPU, any idea why?

VLC takes about 25% when playing a normal file, 60%+ if playing a 720p file, and it simply can't manage 1080p files

probably your codecs, i have a 3800+ x2 that had problems running 1080p movies also, untill i changed codecs from CCCP (ffdshow) to Core AVC and COREAVC uses about 30% of my CPU with 1080p movies now.