What would be the better CPU for me?

[Heller]

So, mainly this computer would be used for very light gaming (occasional game of css, hl2 etc)

The main purpose of this computer would be to convert dvd's using this software,

http://www.vso-software.fr/products/convert_x_to_dvd/

Would it be better for me to o/c a quad core to say, 3.2ghz or grab an e8400/ e6600 to around 3.5ghz?

my setup is as follows,

Abit IP35-E
Crosair XMS 2X1GB PC 6400
600W PSU
XFX 7900GT
160GB SATA II HDD
External 500GB mybook.

 

[lopri]

That thing doesn't look like anything CPU-heavy to me.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: lopri
That thing doesn't look like anything CPU-heavy to me.

well, whats weird is, on my old rig (x2 3800+) is took a good 1.3 hours to convert, now on my laptop with a core 2 in it,(t7500) 2.2ghz, it takes no longer then 35 mins, would it be reasonable to expect with a cpu ~ 3.5ghz it would be done in about 20 minutes?

 

[krnmastersgt]

It's not about the frequency of the cpu or the cores, for what you want to do I'd suggest a quad since 4 cores they get the work done twice as fast. Also I don't see why theres such a large difference in the speed but from what I understand more cores is better for encoding although both of those are dual cores so theres no reason for a large speed difference.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
It's not about the frequency of the cpu or the cores, for what you want to do I'd suggest a quad since 4 cores they get the work done twice as fast. Also I don't see why theres such a large difference in the speed but from what I understand more cores is better for encoding although both of those are dual cores so theres no reason for a large speed difference.

well from what i've read, you simply cannot put a x2 3800 and a core 2 in the same category

 

[krnmastersgt]

Well I guess not, and the speeds speak for that, theres another thread talking about a good cpu for encoding, and aigo thinks quad is the way to go, so get the Q6600 or wait for the Q9300

 

[Mondoman]

However, the quad core will only help if the software is smart enough to use multiple cores as they are available.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
I'd suggest a quad since 4 cores they get the work done twice as fast.

please show a link of a benchmark where this is the case

edit: nm found one myself, this is the closes program i could find to being 100% multithreaded optimized. 98.9%

http://www23.tomshardware.com/...6&model2=882&chart=435

 

[krnmastersgt]

It's not a simple benchmark, twice the cores = twice the work done at once, even though the cores in a dual core might be able to finish faster than a quad core they have to do twice the amount of work, a quad core is going to be faster for encoding assuming the software can use all 4 cores.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
assuming the software can use all 4 cores.

this is what i was referring to... a software that does that. But it appears that rendering objects in 3dstudio max 9 is fully multithreaded optimized.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
assuming the software can use all 4 cores.

this is what i was referring to... a software that does that. But it appears that rendering objects in 3dstudio max 9 is fully multithreaded optimized.

I really wish that software developers would make full use of multi core/SSE4 so that theres a more fair comparison amongst Wolfdales and Kentsfields and allow people to more readily choose which is the best choice for them :/

 

[Tempered81]

yeah it would be nice if games did it. then everyone would move to quads and duals would be a thing of the past... to go from 2 to 4 cores and not see but a 5% framerate increase is crap. If you could jump from an e6600 to a q6600 and go from 50fps to 100fps in Crysis, then everyone would do it. This is the case for object rendering in 3dstudio max 9. You try to render a cgi scene and it takes you 60 seconds on your e6600, if you pop in a q6600 it takes you about 30 to 31 seconds to render the same scene.

If you could do that for a game or winrar, sales would be through the roof.

instead if you have an e6600 and have 50fps in crysis, a q6600 will give you 52 and an e8400 will give you 54 (@ 2.4ghz).

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
yeah it would be nice if games did it. then everyone would move to quads and duals would be a thing of the past... to go from 2 to 4 cores and not see but a 5% framerate increase is crap. If you could jump from an e6600 to a q6600 and go from 50fps to 100fps in Crysis, then everyone would do it. This is the case for object rendering in 3dstudio max 9. You try to render a cgi scene and it takes you 60 seconds on your e6600, if you pop in a q6600 it takes you about 30 to 31 seconds to render the same scene.

If you could do that for a game or winrar, sales would be through the roof.

instead if you have an e6600 and have 50fps in crysis, a q6600 will give you 52 and an e8400 will give you 54 (@ 2.4ghz).

So true, I haven't paid attention to the computer industry until just recently, anyone know how long the transition from P4 to dual core took?

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

How often will you be ripping/encoding DVDs? If you're not going to be running this software all day, or do not have any time constraints, I'd get the E8400. The Q6600, E6600, and E68400 come in at $277.99, $229.99, and $224.99, respectively. Most would consider the E8400 the best buy providing you won't be doing anything that can use more cores. Even if you are rendering/encoding/whatever it's still worth considering dual-cores because of their price. I s'pose I can be a bit of a cheapass though.

 

[krnmastersgt]

The OP did say the main purpose for the comp was to rip/encode, although he'd have to find out if the software he has can utilize 4 cores, otherwise yeah the E8400, however if it can use 4 cores, definitely the Q6600.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

So true, I haven't paid attention to the computer industry until just recently, anyone know how long the transition from P4 to dual core took?

No clue how long it took dual-cores to penetrate the mainstream market but we're beyond the computational needs of most people with quad-cores. or the needs of a lot of people a single or dual-core processor and onboard graphics will do just fine. I took a trip down to Best Buy recently and most of their stock is E4400s and I believe I saw some E2140s. There was also two high-end models with a 9500 (or 9600) and another with a Q6600. I'm curious to see where this all goes. Intel announced octo-core for Nehalem (native, at that!) but I'm not sure it will have any practical application for most people. It'll be quad-cores all over again except largely more useless, not that I'm against progress. Of course, the professional market and big spenders might eat it up and it'll be good to know it can be done. Proof of concept, or whatever people say. I'm up for octos anytime.

He said the main purpose for the PC is encoding but I'm not 100% sure he wants to encode so fast he gets ticketed or just would like to make sure he can do it on this (new?) computer too. Then there is frequency of use, sure the Q6600 might be faster but if he is only doing a few DVDs a week then why spend the extra money? If he's going to be doing it often on a time frame a Q6600 or Q9450 will be a better buy. I looked up whether his programs uses multiple cores and apparently versions up to 2.2.3 and below are single-core. v3 Beta RC2 2.99.x.600 supports multi-core processors. I also found that if your ConvertXtoDVD key is less than a year old you can get a key for v3 free.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: Rhonda the Sly

So true, I haven't paid attention to the computer industry until just recently, anyone know how long the transition from P4 to dual core took?

No clue how long it took dual-cores to penetrate the mainstream market but we're beyond the computational needs of most people with quad-cores. or the needs of a lot of people a single or dual-core processor and onboard graphics will do just fine. I took a trip down to Best Buy recently and most of their stock is E4400s and I believe I saw some E2140s. There was also two high-end models with a 9500 (or 9600) and another with a Q6600. I'm curious to see where this all goes. Intel announced octo-core for Nehalem (native, at that!) but I'm not sure it will have any practical application for most people. It'll be quad-cores all over again except largely more useless, not that I'm against progress. Of course, the professional market and big spenders might eat it up and it'll be good to know it can be done. Proof of concept, or whatever people say. I'm up for octos anytime.

He said the main purpose for the PC is encoding but I'm not 100% sure he wants to encode so fast he gets ticketed or just would like to make sure he can do it on this (new?) computer too. Then there is frequency of use, sure the Q6600 might be faster but if he is only doing a few DVDs a week then why spend the extra money? If he's going to be doing it often on a time frame a Q6600 or Q9450 will be a better buy. I looked up whether his programs uses multiple cores and apparently versions up to 2.2.3 and below are single-core. v3 Beta RC2 2.99.x.600 supports multi-core processors. I also found that if your ConvertXtoDVD key is less than a year old you can get a key for v3 free.

woah, have my phone #, social and adress too?!

The only reason i planned to go for the Q6600 is the fact that i'm able to get a g0 q660 for $160 shipped, vs the e8400 @ ~230 shipped?

 

[Blacklash]

If you can get a Q6600 G-0 for 160usd buy it. Many folks are doing 3.6-3.8GHz with these chips and 3.0GHz on stock voltage with the stock cooler.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: Blacklash
If you can get a Q6600 G-0 for 160usd buy it. Many folks are doing 3.6-3.8GHz with these chips and 3.0GHz on stock voltage with the stock cooler.

Yup, thats what i thought, just had to confirm my decision with you guys.