# The quad or dual thread.. money for money..



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

"any fool knows four is better than two or two is better than one".. but to the average user is it.. ???

i have a dual core E8400 intel cpu.. its comes clocked at 3 gig out of the box and costs £150 quid rough UK prices.... 

the quad core equivalent would be the QX9650.. literally two E8400s sat side by side it comes clocked at 3 gig and costs £640 UK prices..

can we compare a £140 cpu with a £640 cpu.. we could if money was no object and apart from power usage and heat generation the quad cpu is the better cpu.. no real dispute there..

but the dual or quad argument isnt as simple and the world we live in to most people isnt a money no object one.. so what do we compare.. 

lets compare price for price..

my E8400 dual compares with what..??  in truth there isnt an exact comparison with 45nm chips.. the nearest would be the Q9300 but it still costs significantly more.. perhaps the Q6600 clocked at 2.4 gig is a better quad to compare with..

lets compare quad at 2.4 gig with dual at 3 gig..  which is the best buy for the average user..

in reality it isnt just quad versus dual.. its slower quad versus faster dual..  so is four cores at 2.4 gig better than two cores at 3 gig.. ???

4 x 2.4 =  9.6 at first glance or to the average none tech user its a no contest.. four cores at 2.4 gig must be better than two cores at 3 gig 2 x 3 = 6.. 

so why do i think it isnt.. software utilization of those multi cores is the problem..  some is coded to use four cores most isnt.. a lot still only uses one core.. some half uses more than one core but dosnt perform any better than one core..

my take is we are being scammed into thinking more cores is better.. period.. when in fact it isnt..  when two cores first appeared nothing was coded for multicore.. now more software can use two cores we are being scammed into four cores.. the hardware is still in front of the software..

if users have software that truly is coded to use four cores.. four cores at 2.4 is probably better than two cores at 3 gig.. but being as most software isnt even coded to take full advantage of two core i would claim that two cores at a higher speed is the better option for the average user.. 

exactly what the average user is can be argued and no doubt will be.. overclocking  is a different subject..  the thing i question is the almost universal belief that a quad cpu is the one to buy if the average user can afford it..

is the Q6600 a better option than the similar money E8400 for example.. or should quad be simply ignored until more software makes use of it.. ???

trog


----------



## mandelore (Mar 23, 2008)

I got a quad to future proof myself. I aint getting nothing after this for a very long time, and id rather invest in a really good quad now and not on a lesser cpu which id have to upgrade later.

Hell, very few programs i run games etc bring my cpu usage above 35%. 

BUT. I enjoy benching and a quad gets me better results


----------



## PaulieG (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> "any fool knows four is better than two or two is better than one".. but to the average user is it.. ???
> 
> i have a dual core E8400 intel cpu.. its comes clocked at 3 gig out of the box and costs £150 quid rough UK prices....
> 
> ...



Wow, that was quite a soapbox. . Well, in part I agree with you. I've owned the Q6600, e8400 and now a x3220. I'd say the ONLY thing that I've noticed that is better with Quads is the ability to multitask. There is no disputing this. With a Quad, you can do a ridiculous number of things at one time without things slowing down at all. The same cannot be said for dual core chip. That being said, I am again considering a dual core chip, because I find that very rarely do a ton of multitasking.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 23, 2008)

Well I was tempted to buy a Q6600...but in the end decided against it and went with an E8400. Why? Well 2 reasons. 

Firstly, I'm a gamer and none of the games I play use 2 cores properly, let alone 4. 

And second, I want energy efficiency as well as a huge overclock. Neither of these can be achieved on a quad, and the latter, only with exotic cooling which I won't be spending my money on.

I paid £135 for my E8400 (not including £8 shipping) and I don't regret my decision, just need to wait for it to arrive tuesday


----------



## WhiteLotus (Mar 23, 2008)

I have often thought this, Why buy a quad when hardly no programs will utilize it. So i'm not, untill someone PROVES to me that unless i'm running 10 programs at once (which to be honest who does?) i'll see performance gain, Quad CPUs for now are a waste of money in my eyes.


----------



## Disparia (Mar 23, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> that unless i'm running 10 programs at once (which to be honest who does?) i'll see performance gain



/me raises hand


----------



## Duxx (Mar 23, 2008)

Great thread, well put together as well.  I consider myself an average user, and well i couldn't pull the trigger on the weekend sale over at Clubit on the Q6700. Its just unnecessary.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Mar 23, 2008)

Jizzler said:


> /me raises hand



really???? what the hell do you do man?!?!?

i have WMP, firefox, Filezilla, MSN and the usual firewall, anit-virus running. that is all.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Wow, that was quite a soapbox. . Well, in part I agree with you. I've owned the Q6600, e8400 and now a x3220. I'd say the ONLY thing that I've noticed that is better with Quads is the ability to multitask. There is no disputing this. With a Quad, you can do a ridiculous number of things at one time without things slowing down at all. The same cannot be said for dual core chip. That being said, I am again considering a dual core chip, because I find that very rarely do a ton of multitasking.



the multitasking benefit is one of the things in dispute with me.. i tend to put it in the "any fools knows" category.. 

i think folks just do it for the hell of it when they buy a quad.. he he

one multitask test i tried with my dual was load six big games use up all my ram then run a super pi.. i didnt have any problems it still scored more than any 6600 quad would doing nothing else.. 

but if anybody can think of better multitask tests it would help to prove or disprove the mostly taken for granted multitask benefits..

this was my last attempt.. 







the movie isnt captured by my screen capture software.. it is playing thow.. its only in the window cos its the only way i could show what was being used.. 

the movie and the mp3 on there own show 2% cpu usage.. the joke being i could turn one of my dual cores off and still get similar results..

i am trying to generate some real info on the whole matter.. no other reason for the thread..

trog


----------



## Hawk1 (Mar 23, 2008)

Nice thread. As the primary purpose of my machine is for gaming/listening to music/surfing and watching the occasional movie (and not all at the same time), I don't think a Quad would do much for me other than extend my e-penis with lower pi scores and higher 3dmark's. Aside from Supreme Commander, that I occassionally play, I don't think I would benefit from spending the money on a quad. My dual goes nicely to 3.6Ghz (and beyond if necessary at any point), so getting another dual just to go to 4Ghz+ is also not worth it.

Not only that, but I figure I better save some money for next year's Nehalem, with a change of MB/RAM/CPU, that is if its worth it. If more good games/programs actually start using multi-cores, and there's is a real world difference in fully changing the core components of my system (rather than GPU alone), then I will go with that. Otherwise, again, its just an e-penis extender for me.


----------



## mullered07 (Mar 23, 2008)

this was my argument when 64bit processors became the mainstream, i have a 64bit proc with no software that the average user would use everyday to utilise 64bit cpu's and with only xp64 bit out at that time which was poor and had little/none driver support for a long time.

having said that my athlon 64 3200+ was faster than my 32bit 3200+ but that was probably down to architecture than anything to do with 32vs64bit 

although now ive just ordered Vista home premium x64 (yes im going legit lol  ) cause i want to utilise more than 3.5gb of ram in the near future.

ok so went a little off topic there but i hope you got my point, eventually the software will catch up with the hardware but by that time the hardware of now qx6600 etc will be low end anyways, so ill stick with my e4300@3ghz until i upgrade again and that is prolly going to be dual core again. 

my life is soo much better now i have a dual core cpu, as i run multiple instances of IE, wmp, av, and whatever else tickles my fancy at any given time , would it run better with a quad ? no. you just cant do it on a single core though


----------



## kylew (Mar 23, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Well I was tempted to buy a Q6600...but in the end decided against it and went with an E8400. Why? Well 2 reasons.
> 
> Firstly, I'm a gamer and none of the games I play use 2 cores properly, let alone 4.
> 
> ...



I see your point, especially considering the overclock you can get with an E8400, I have a Q6600, overclocked to 3.96Ghz (on air), which is a huge overclock to me, but I appreciate that not every Q6600 will go that high, though it's the best overclocking core 2 CPU I've had. I've had an E6600, which would only clock to about 3.5Ghz, and a E6750 which did slightly better at 3.6Ghz.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Mar 23, 2008)

But do the clocks result in a better performance, or just increases your e-bench-penis?


----------



## kylew (Mar 23, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> I have often thought this, Why buy a quad when hardly no programs will utilize it. So i'm not, untill someone PROVES to me that unless i'm running 10 programs at once (which to be honest who does?) i'll see performance gain, Quad CPUs for now are a waste of money in my eyes.



Meeeee!  I do a lot of multitasking, I use a lot of CAD software too, I have multiple CAD apps open at the same time occasionally, and I usually have quite a few firefox tabs open at the same time so a quad is a must for me.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Hawk1 said:


> Nice thread. As the primary purpose of my machine is for gaming/listening to music/surfing and watching the occasional movie (and not all at the same time), I don't think a Quad would do much for me other than extend my e-penis with lower pi scores and higher 3dmark's. Aside from Supreme Commander, that I occassionally play, I don't think I would benefit from spending the money on a quad. My dual goes nicely to 3.6Ghz (and beyond if necessary at any point), so getting another dual just to go to 4Ghz+ is also not worth it.
> 
> Not only that, but I figure I better save some money for next year's Nehalem, with a change of MB/RAM/CPU, that is if its worth it. If more good games/programs actually start using multi-cores, and there's is a real world difference in fully changing the core components of my system (rather than GPU alone), then I will go with that. Otherwise, again, its just an e-penis extender for me.



some more taken for granted things.. its needed for supreme commander.. 3dmarks will always be higher.. 

given the two examples dual at 3 gig quad at 2.4 gig.. 2003 would core way lower with the slower quad.. 2005 would also score lower.. 2006.. about the same or slightly slower with the quad.. 

we take far tooo much for granted.. some things can be put to the test and proven or disproven thow..

trog


----------



## Disparia (Mar 23, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> really???? what the hell do you do man?!?!?
> 
> i have WMP, firefox, Filezilla, MSN and the usual firewall, anit-virus running. that is all.



Scripting/web design, programming, video editing and effects, etc.

In the old days when barely anything was multi-threaded I could set some video to encode and jump into a game. Was on a dualie so encoding time and FPS didn't suffer all that much. Now so many things are multi-threaded that I can't wait to move up to a quad-core.


----------



## mandelore (Mar 23, 2008)

lol im still having to train myself away from single threaded behaviour 

keep having to remind myself i dont have to close down X Y or Z to play this that or the other


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 23, 2008)

*2* 13378 - Trog100 - E8400 @ 4.4ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1287 Mem 3dmark - XP

I match this score with 3ghz when i had my single 3870 everything else @ stock.

*1* 19444 - CY:G - E8400 @ 4.3ghz 3870 X2 @ 900 Core 1098 Mem

i can get that round about 3.6ghz with a single 3870 mild card oc.


*1* 23955 - Nitro-Max - Q6600 4.3ghz 3870 X2 @ 900 Core 1000 Mem - XP

matching 8400 speeds nearly.

I know this is software dependent but look at the results when you do have the software with 4 core utilization.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

mandelore said:


> lol im still having to train myself away from single threaded behaviour
> 
> keep having to remind myself i dont have to close down X Y or Z to play this that or the other



i am bit like that.. its an age thing i think.. he he

mind u.. u dont just have quad.. u have something akin to what intel would give us in two years time.. a super quad.. two E8400s sat side by side and massively overlcocked..

trog


----------



## Disparia (Mar 23, 2008)

mandelore said:


> lol im still having to train myself away from single threaded behaviour
> 
> keep having to remind myself i dont have to close down X Y or Z to play this that or the other



Yeah, I hate closing down things. Though sometimes it can be overwhelming, 10-12 windows/apps open on each monitor 

But I've been doing it since my first dualie - a pair of a P2-333's running BeOS, NT4, and Win9x (for those apps/games that wouldn't run in NT4).


----------



## trt740 (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> the multitasking benefit is one of the things in dispute with me.. i tend to put it in the "any fools knows" category..
> 
> i think folks just do it for the hell of it when they buy a quad.. he he
> 
> ...



No trog it does multitasking well , just not aswell as a quad. The question is how good is good enought. That I cannot answer. I can tell you from owning alomost every chip made by both Intel and AMD in the last 3 years, in everyday use I cannot see very much difference in a E8400 at 4.0ghz, AMD 6000+ at 3.5ghz to my current Qx9650 4.0ghz (total overkill). If I didn't know which one was in the machine I most likely couldn't guess. I do see some difference in windows start up time and the system does seem milla seconds less snappy sometimes with a dual core chips but really it is hard to tell. Burning a DvD I see some time difference but nothing worth mentioning, video rendering/encoding I do see a difference but thats about it (big difference here).


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> *2* 13378 - Trog100 - E8400 @ 4.4ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1287 Mem 3dmark - XP
> 
> I match this score with 3ghz when i had my single 3870 everything else @ stock.
> 
> ...



2006 is a bunch of single threaded game tests.. they use one core.. the separate cpu part of the test is coded for multicore.. odd mix really..

a single core cpu at say 4 gig would score way higher in the games tests than a quad at 3 gig.. the quad would make up the difference in the multicoded cpu test..

a good example of a quad not being much use in things that aint coded to use the extra cores to be honest but being of great use in things that are..

so u are part right.. look at the cpu test.. yep.. look at the game tests.. nope.. take yer pick..

mind u look at the sandra cpu test.. thats a good example of bullsh-t.. i recon they just run one core and multiply it by how may u have.. he he he

trog


----------



## ex_reven (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> 4 x 2.4 =  9.6 at first glance or to the average none tech user its a no contest.. four cores at 2.4 gig must be better than two cores at 3 gig 2 x 3 = 6..



Isnt it two cores at 1.5Ghz each?


----------



## DaMulta (Mar 24, 2008)

CPU 1 and 2 game

CPU 3 rip DVDS

CPU 4 Fire Fox

and so on,

Having more cores is best IMO


----------



## kylew (Mar 24, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Isnt it two cores at 1.5Ghz each?



Nope  the clock speed is per core, so your CPU is two cores at 3Ghz each, if that's what you meant


----------



## ex_reven (Mar 24, 2008)

kylew said:


> Nope  the clock speed is per core, so your CPU is two cores at 3Ghz each, if that's what you meant



Oh good.


----------



## kylew (Mar 24, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Oh good.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 24, 2008)

Trog has a wealth of knowledge and shares it with us daily.... yet, people hardly listen to what he is saying, nor do they fully understand. people are lost in the numbers game... when... in all reality what trog is saying is true. more IS NOT always better UNLESS the software is written to make full use of whichever processor your using. benching means nothing at all really. it just puts a number of achievement on the thousands of dollars we have all spent on our computers.  if you designed your computer based on what you were gonna use it for, you wouldn't need half of what most people have. people are going overkill on the overkill these days. 

just ask yourself this.... Do I reallly need 4 of everything just so i can use the internet, watch videos, listen to music and play simple games? do i REALLY need to spend all my money on my computer just so i can sit in front of it day to day because i have no money left to go outside and live?


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

This is getting boring now people buy what they want to buy if it makes them happy leave them to it thats what i think..:shadedshu


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

I do agree with you FITs you dont need all that power for browsing the web this is why i use speedstep etc i clock my cores down to 1.6ghz which is just fine.

But upgrades are needed. Somtimes we think we need it when we dont. we just want it cos its the best thing since sliced bread.

My dads a classic case he has a xp 3000 chip which will play any of todays games some better than others true but it will meet the requirements.
However his graphics card wont With out upgrading.

Needing somthing and Wanting somthing has a totally different meaning.


----------



## kylew (Mar 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> Trog has a wealth of knowledge and shares it with us daily.... yet, people hardly listen to what he is saying, nor do they fully understand. people are lost in the numbers game... when... in all reality what trog is saying is true. more IS NOT always better UNLESS the software is written to make full use of whichever processor your using. benching means nothing at all really. it just puts a number of achievement on the thousands of dollars we have all spent on our computers.  if you designed your computer based on what you were gonna use it for, you wouldn't need half of what most people have. people are going overkill on the overkill these days.
> 
> just ask yourself this.... Do I reallly need 4 of everything just so i can use the internet, watch videos, listen to music and play simple games? do i REALLY need to spend all my money on my computer just so i can sit in front of it day to day because i have no money left to go outside and live?



A lot of people would consider your system overkill. I don't think it's about no one is listening to trog, just because they don't do what he's said doesn't mean they aren't listening, people buy what they want. When you can get a quad for the same price as certain dualcores, a lot of people will buy what has more. Considering most quads will overclock to 3Ghz it's a bit of a no-brainer to some. You also don't have to have multi-threaded software to take advantage of a quad core, setting affinities is a very good way of making use of all your cores, so in that case more is deffinately better on a clock for clock basis.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

trt740 said:


> No trog it does multitasking well , just not aswell as a quad. The question is how good is good enought. That I cannot answer. I can tell you from owning alomost every chip made by both Intel and AMD in the last 3 years, in everyday use I cannot see very much difference in a E8400 at 4.0ghz, AMD 6000+ at 3.5ghz to my current Qx9650 4.0ghz (total overkill). If I didn't know which one was in the machine I most likely couldn't guess. I do see some difference in windows start up time and the system does seem milla seconds less snappy sometimes with a dual core chips but really it is hard to tell. Burning a DvD I see some time difference but nothing worth mentioning, video rendering/encoding I do see a difference but thats about it (big difference here).



yes how good is good enough.. i havnt tried every cpu but i have moved from a single core amd 939 amd cpu at three gig to a dual core amd chip at 3 gig.. even being a none believer i expected to seem some difference in having two cores at the same speed..

now assuming windows is doing things one could say everything is multitasking.. windows takes resources just being windows.. 

my first big surprize.. running a quick super pi run at 3 gig scored the same with my dual core chip as it did with single core chip.. now one of those two chips should have helped take the windows load and i should have seen a better if not by much super pi score.. i didnt.. hmmm.. 

ever since then i have been looking for any advantage i have gained from having two cores instead of one.. i have tried turning one of my cores off and doing my normal things.. so far i see no real gain from running two cores as opposed to one.. this kinda leads me to doubt the benefits of having four of the buggers..

my system is just as "snappy" with just one core running.. my games play nice even the old chesnut supreme commander..

if someone offered me free of charge a QX9650 in exchange for my E8400 i would say thank u very much and take it..  if someone offered me a Q6600.. i would sake u must be f-cking joking..

let me be really cruel.. i try not to be.. how about a phenom quad at 2.2 gig..  would that be better than the E8400 for the average user..

if and only if i resemble the average user i know multicore is a scam.. people say they cant do things with just one core.. i can.. how do i differ.. 

i play games.. i play mp3s.. i browse.. i download.. i really can do all these things with just one core running.. why is my emperor running round naked while everybody else's emperor has a fancy suit.. he he..

i have two damn grafix cards one stays switched off.. i even run speed step.. my system dosnt even lose it "snap" with that.. 

with just one core i could play 25 mp3 tunes all at once or watch (play) ten divx movies.. and still be browsing like i am now.. in theory.. i aint got that many eyes or ears..

please convince me i need some more cores.. i feel left out.. 

trog


----------



## kylew (Mar 24, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> This is getting boring now people buy what they want to buy if it makes them happy leave them to it thats what i think..:shadedshu



Considering the current price of a Q6600, I wouldn't blame anyone who bought one considering how they overclock too. I think it's worse when some one goes over-overkill on their graphics set up, like SLI GTXs, crossfire/tri-fire etc when they play their games at 1280x1024, especially when a 3870 or 8800GT will play nearly all games at 1920x1200 maxed in game settings.


----------



## viczulis (Mar 24, 2008)

Nice one Trog 
What your saying makes alot of sense to me.


----------



## DaMulta (Mar 24, 2008)

Somthing else to think about.

If your buying this new machine how long are you going to keep it? More and more people are wanting QUAD CPUs. Which means that more and more programs will start to use them. 360 games run on more than one core, so when they get ported over, they will use more and more cores. The same can be said about PS3 ports, but it is even more different. 

Do you just game and are going to upgrade in a year, then a dual core is for you.

Do you game, rip dvds at the same time, work machine, benchmarks, or just going to keep it for 2 years or more for gaming? Then a quad core is for you.

Do you use this as a main work machine, and plan to keep it for 4 years or more? Then a Server Board with dual Quad is for you.

IMO


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 24, 2008)

i use my quad alot more than i thought i would... for gaming the e8400 is the bomb diggity, no doubt better than a Q6600, but for raw number crunching (F@H, Photoshop, EXCEL 2007 database work (which eats a SH*TlOAD of my time, stupid work) my quad is much, much quicker...

@ trog... it depends on your system and how u use it, games? the QX9### series is better b/c of cache, the q6600 beats out an e6850 because of cache even at lower speeds... the E8400 is a good chip for anything except for raw crunching, which is what my system spends the large majority of its time doing...

You dont NEED more cores for games (yet) you need them for POWAH, so that your macro finishes massaging the 600,000+ entry database of historical bond prices thats due tomorrow, and you can go dork around on TPU.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 24, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> i use my quad alot more than i thought i would... for gaming the e8400 is the bomb diggity, no doubt better than a Q6600, but for raw number crunching (F@H, Photoshop, EXCEL 2007 database work (which eats a SH*TlOAD of my time, stupid work) my quad is much, much quicker...
> 
> @ trog... it depends on your system and how u use it, games? the QX9### series is better b/c of cache, the E8400 is a good chip for almost anything except for raw crunching, which is what my system spends the large majority of its time doing... But yeah... Skulltrail for games is stupid.



Trog is right and so are you. Trog My QX9650 at 4.2ghz would kill your e8400 . I know I had one, but is it worth the extra 550.00 I payed it just depends what your doing. This is really a useless thread Trog I say this because you constantly bring this up and it alway ends up with the same answer. It depends. I for one have ordered a E8500 so whats that tell you. I always intened to sell this quad, and I'm only paying 40.00 more for a Oem E8500 shipped then most people are paying for a E8400 shipped (E8500 are binned higher). I will make some money on this chip aswell or if the E8500 is really slower at 4.5ghz 24/7 then I will sell it.. At a 40 percent discount the Qx9650 will sell and at 280.00 for a E8500 OEM I should get atleast 310.00 .Also getting a E8500 is like finding a UFO and that  is gonna stay that way for the near future. PS just burned a DVD from DVD to hardrive and hardive to DVD in 12 minutes while I was surfing. Please don't take this wrong Trog your a good guy but get off this topic for a while


----------



## Disparia (Mar 24, 2008)

Yup. Everyone buy want you need/want/etc.

I just wish it was as easy as adding GPU's. Can throw 4 onto board easily.

A 4P board and 4 quad-core cpus is a minimum $5K investment (for Opteron, $10K when talking about Xeon 7000 series).


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

this thread like every other potentially usefull topic gets ruined by people not reading whats already been said.. plus the fanboy kinda thing always kicks in.. logical arguement goes out the window.. 

money for money whats best for the average user fast dual or slower quad.. two chips were used for comparison.. 

what do we end up with my my £640 quad will kill your E8400  or similar.. he he..

one thing i should learn is what we need is meaningless in this place.. what "enthusiasts" need is total overkill.. they dont need reality they need their obsession feeding.. he he

boy racers yep.. they race PCs not motor cars being the only difference..

i am nearer the average user then most in this forum.. i upgrade big time every couple of years.. not cos i really need to just cos its winter and i get bored.. since my last upgrade things have changed.. i have to get up to speed quick.. i study hard and learn whats what.. i pass on some of what i learn while learning..

there are some normal people that read this place..  quite lot i would think..mostly they dont say much.. these are the people i would like to help via this thread.. feeding obsessions aint my style.. 

my system is about as far as it will go till new technology arrives.. i am now well and truly overkill for my needs.. enough overkill to last me a couple of years for what i "need".. 

its fun while it lasts.. but for me it can only go so far.. thank god it aint permanent.. 

trog


----------



## trt740 (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> this thread like every other potentially usefull topic gets ruined by people not reading whats already been said.. plus the fanboy kinda thing always kicks in.. logical arguement goes out the window..
> 
> money for money whats best for the average user fast dual or slower quad.. two chips were used for comparison..
> 
> ...




Trog I said that in response to your prior comment. no matter peace my brother


----------



## philbrown23 (Mar 24, 2008)

well I have a quad coming in and I also have a dual, so when the quad comes in I will run all of the 3dmarks with each and everything at stock settings to see if this is true. I think that it's all on user choice not what people tell you to do.


----------



## Disparia (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> this thread like every other potentially usefull topic gets ruined by people not reading whats already been said.. plus the fanboy kinda thing always kicks in.. logical arguement goes out the window..
> 
> money for money whats best for the average user fast dual or slower quad.. two chips were used for comparison..
> 
> what do we end up with my my £640 quad will kill your E8400  or similar.. he he..



Well, "money for money" and "average" mean different things to different people so it'll always end up "my X is better than your Y _for what I do_".

Personally I'd be better off with the slower quad. Others would take the faster dual. And we'd all be happy


----------



## Wile E (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> "any fool knows four is better than two or two is better than one".. but to the average user is it.. ???
> 
> i have a dual core E8400 intel cpu.. its comes clocked at 3 gig out of the box and costs £150 quid rough UK prices....
> 
> ...


Now see. This is a much better thought out and typed explanation/debate than just the "multi core is a scam" argument you provided in the other thread.

Now, this is a point I can agree with, albeit with a couple of possible exceptions. One being someone that needs their machine to last for years. This is pure speculation, but I believe multi-threaded apps will start to explode onto the scene in the next year or 2, making current quads the clear performance leader compared to current duals. (Again, keep in mind that this is the individual that is buying now, but not upgrading for a few years).

Now the others that benefit from quads might not fall into the realm of the average user, so your argument may be correct on that account, but the others that would benefit from it are those that massively mutlitask, encode a lot of video, rendering, Photoshop, and basically any kind of A/V content creation. A quad reigns supreme in those situations. Although these things are becoming more and more common for the average user to partake in.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Now the others that benefit from quads might not fall into the realm of the average user, so your argument may be correct on that account, but the others that would benefit from it are those that massively mutlitask, encode a lot of video, rendering, Photoshop, and basically any kind of A/V content creation. A quad reigns supreme in those situations.



agreed... (great post)

building a bit on that... why would'nt the 'average' user, who does not do any of those things, pay $30 or so more for a quad, knowing that they now have the added option of doing all those things that much faster (if they were ever so inclined)?  

Also, why would the 'average' user not pay $30 more to ensure that their new computer is top-of-the-line cutting edge? Technology moves so fast, things are becoming increasingly more multi-threaded. Dual core is the past, quad is the future.  Its that simple.

I agree with Wile E, and I would like to point out that it is YOU trog, who plans on upgrading your Dual core, who is the enthusiast/boy racer.  You know youre gonna be swapping out CPU's and so, for now, a really quick dual core is optimal.  You have the best price/performance for the current moment.  When that is no longer the case, you are at liberty to upgrade to the next, most optimal solution.  

Average people arent swapping out CPU's, they want something that lasts as long as possible so they wont need to.  There is no doubt that a quad will last you longer than a dual because it will become faster as time goes on. Therefore, IMO you get more money out of your quad than your dual.  The 'scam' is really not scamming anyone... 

Especially for 'average people' this is a much better investement.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

Jizzler said:


> Well, "money for money" and "average" mean different things to different people so it'll always end up "my X is better than your Y _for what I do_".
> 
> Personally I'd be better off with the slower quad. Others would take the faster dual. And we'd all be happy



very true but a certain amount of valid information is required before any sensible choice can be made.. 

the available information is loaded 95% in favour of the quad at any speed being the best choice.. i simply try and level the scales a little.. bring out something nearer the truth..

its what discussion forums should be about..  sadly they really are ruled by consensus option.. the truth oft gets lost..

as for the average user.. lets say the bulk of the market the sales team aim at.. the less knowledgeable masses.. the "any fool knows four is better than two" people..  the concept aint hard to sell.. he he.. 

peace trt740.. i used your words cos they suited (with cash value added) what i wanted to say.. no other reason.. the sentiment was mostly being expressed by others.. 

trog


----------



## Disparia (Mar 24, 2008)

Ahhh... ok.

In that case then, maybe recommend the quad to handle all that crapware the average user will get on their Dell, HP, Acer, etc.  

Not a problem for me, whenever we get new boxes in at work, network boot to a clean Windows installation with a automatic disk format to obliterate the restore partition.


----------



## imperialreign (Mar 24, 2008)

I bought a quad over a dual for a couple of reasons -

primarily, future proofing.  Sure, the number of applications that can really make use of 4 cores is still only a handful, that number will grow with time.  Hopefully, considering the way the market is now, I won't have to upgrade the CPU for a good 4-5 years . . . but we'll just see about that.  Probably closer to 2 

secondly, x64 capability.  As it stands, I probably won't upgrade XP nor Vista to 64 cause there just seems to still be too many problems with both OSes; but, IMO, Vista could potentially come into it's own - if not, there's always the next WIN incarnation.

thirdly, I do a lot of multitasking from time to time - not usually, but every now and then I make use of the abilities.  I do work with Photoshop now and then, and I do a lot of work with audio as well.  It isn't unusual for me to have 7-10 different windows chilling in the taskbar.

and last - <sarcastically> the e-peen scale.  Cause we all know owning a quad is like owning a Ferrari.  Sure, it looks great, and it sounds great - it can smoke 'em too when needs be - but, for the most part, it's just overkill.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 24, 2008)

my comments:

E6850 / E8400 are 3GHz stock duals.

These can be had around the same price as the Q6600, which is 2.4GHz.

Stock vs stock, the dual cores are faster - but the Q6600 will always OC to 333FSB for 3GHz on stock volts as well. I've done this with over 10 of them, all on stock cooling. They all work fine.

The one thing to keep in mind is the stock FSB - the Q6600 is a 266, while the others are 333. In the end, they will get the same overclocks unless your system can go beyond 400FSB (which is more common on high end boards these days) If your system is capped at 333-400, why bother with a dual? same price gets you the same clocks, with two more cores.

Its very simple - gamer or benchmarker? grab the fastest stock, or fastest overclocking chip you can get. This currently means a 45nm dual core. Doing video encoding, lots of multitasking, or want to get the best future proofing from a low FSB overclocking board? grab a Q6600.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> my comments:
> 
> E6850 / E8400 are 3GHz stock duals.
> 
> ...



overcooking has to come into things.. most of us do it.. what u cant do thow is just overclock one of the two comparison chips.. if u are gonna over clcok the 2.4 gig quad by 25%.. 2.4 to 3.. u have to do the same with the dual 3 up it by 25% to be fair..

lets talk a reasonable easy overclock on air for both chips.. whatever we do we end up with faster dual or slower quad.. the money for money quad just wont do the same speed as the money for money dual.. 

one interesting thing is software developments.. now if software makes some attempt to catch up with hardware we could simply do nothing and get all the future performance we need from better software..

sadly if past history is anything to go by this will never happen.. the bottom line being there is no financial incentive for software to catch up.. 

past history tends to suggest we all buy new more powerfull hardware to run it.. not the other way around.. take vista.. does that make our old hardware go faster.. does it buggery.. it does the opposite.. 

i think the.. "my slower mostly unused quad today will pay future dividends cos software will make it so" line of argument is totally flawed.. it is a fundermental part of the multi core scam thow.. 

trog


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 24, 2008)

why is it flawed?  why is it a scam? software today does things that software before it just couldnt... 

excel 2003 vs 2007 is an insane difference.

so are a ton of other apps...


----------



## Deusxmachina (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i think the.. "my slower mostly unused quad today will pay future dividends cos software will make it so" line of argument is totally flawed.. it is a fundermental part of the multi core scam thow..



This reminds me years ago when HDTVs started being somewhat mass-produced, and most everything I read on TV forums were people spending large amounts of money to be "future proof."  I questioned many of those people at the time, and a large majority didn't even have any soon intention of buying an HD receiver to actually make use of the sets (other than watching DVDs in progressive instead of interlaced) because a cheap receiver was around $300 then, nor were all that many programs even broadcast in HD.

I mentioned that by the time most would actually make use of the HD capability of their sets, more and better ones will have been made, at cheaper prices, and the price saved then would likely be enough to buy an entire new TV 3-5 years later, and they'd still have the older one to use for whatever as well.  

And that's pretty much what happened.  Even worse for those buyers, LCD and plasma came about, making CRT TVs even less desirable now (despite usually having a better picture, though).

Point is, future-proofing can be great, but cost must be considered as well as function.  If there's only a small difference, well, that's probably a no-brainer.  Let's say a quad is $100 more, $100 isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things or in the realm of toys that we buy just because we want to, but it is 10 or even 20% of a typical system's price.  When most programs can use quads AND they are mass-produced more so prices are lower, not only will CPUs be even faster then, but by that time the money saved now might be like having gotten a currently cheaper CPU for free.

Someone who is a serious multitasker with video or similar, quad is probably the way to go.  But I'm talking a serious user.  I have an e2140 in my HTPC.  It was $70 new.  OC'd to I think 2.8 right now.  It can go higher, but I haven't bothered testing that stability more because it already is more than fast enough for playing 1080 HD, encoding another, and recording others at the same time.  A quick quad might be faster in there, but would I even notice?  Probably not.  I've run it at the stock 1.6 at times just to test, and can't say I notice much difference then either unless I'm using a stopwatch on the encoding speed.  

On the dual-core I'm typing this on, there are 100 files uploading and downloading, an SD video playing, a 1080 HD video playing, 50 browser windows I'm messing around in, etc, and it doesn't even break 50% CPU usage.  Would I even notice if a quad was in this thing?  Except in rare circumstances, probably not. 

The law of diminishing returns kicks in.   Is 8gb memory better than 2 or 4?  Sure.  Will most people notice?  Nope.  The problem for quads is that dual-cores are already so good.

Anyway, for 2 or 4 core, as usual, it comes down to "it depends."


----------



## Grings (Mar 24, 2008)

I also opted for the dual, because i really dont see the point until games show a proper improvement (i didnt like supreme commander anyway, before anyone says it) yes, multitasking may be slightly better with a quad, but i dont subscribe to this whole 'you can encode video while gaming' nonsense, yes, you can, but your sata controllers working overtime, and game performance suffers as a result, regardless of how many cores you have.
The other reason i opted for an 8400 was that i already had 2 machines with dual cores (well, i did once i'd freed up my old 4400, i still have my opteron rig thats not in my specs) and on the rare occasion i want to encode video, i can do it on one of them instead, leaving my gaming rig free to use, hence i dont care how long it takes


----------



## Wile E (Mar 24, 2008)

Grings said:


> I also opted for the dual, because i really dont see the point until games show a proper improvement (i didnt like supreme commander anyway, before anyone says it) yes, multitasking may be slightly better with a quad, but i dont subscribe to this whole 'you can encode video while gaming' nonsense, yes, you can, but your sata controllers working overtime, and game performance suffers as a result, regardless of how many cores you have.
> The other reason i opted for an 8400 was that i already had 2 machines with dual cores (well, i did once i'd freed up my old 4400, i still have my opteron rig thats not in my specs) and on the rare occasion i want to encode video, i can do it on one of them instead, leaving my gaming rig free to use, hence i dont care how long it takes


If you have a fast array, game performance doesn't suffer while encoding. Trust me.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 24, 2008)

Grings said:


> I also opted for the dual, because i really dont see the point until games show a proper improvement (i didnt like supreme commander anyway, before anyone says it) yes, multitasking may be slightly better with a quad, but i dont subscribe to this whole 'you can encode video while gaming' nonsense, yes, you can, but your sata controllers working overtime, and game performance suffers as a result, regardless of how many cores you have.
> The other reason i opted for an 8400 was that i already had 2 machines with dual cores (well, i did once i'd freed up my old 4400, i still have my opteron rig thats not in my specs) and on the rare occasion i want to encode video, i can do it on one of them instead, leaving my gaming rig free to use, hence i dont care how long it takes



Grings...this is getting scary...do we read each others minds or something? lol, next thing I know you'll be ordering a Mars


----------



## Mussels (Mar 24, 2008)

one point that needs to be made i think... most of us with quads here, got them before the E8x00 series came out, in my case even before the E6850. regardless of how many cores, a 3.6GHz CPU from the core 2 line is still kicking ass today - the extra cores and cache are merely a bonus.

Value for money is constantly changing, everyone will go on about htis until the consensus is that the Q6600 just isnt worth it, and the QX9650 is too expensive... and then the cheap 45nm quads will be out, and the argument will start again.

These arguments can never be settled! each person needs to decide what performance they need (need, not want) and go from there based on current prices and CPU choices.


----------



## Grings (Mar 24, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Grings...this is getting scary...do we read each others minds or something? lol, next thing I know you'll be ordering a Mars



Well my main rig has changed somewhat recently, the infinitys back on my asus board (the msi has water) and i went back to the geforce in this rig (i may change back to the 3870 and put a waterblock on it however, watercooling the 8800 is too much hassle)

Funny thing is though, i actually ordered a foxconn mars before i got the msi, but it went out of stock, and i couldnt be arsed to wait (aria said 6 weeks, so i got the msi), Good luck with the mars though, they are (imo) the best of the p35's


----------



## hat (Mar 24, 2008)

Dual core was good because it offered much bettter multitasking. You could do things in the background and still game, or lets say a 3GHz P4 vs a 3GHz PD and no multitasking you would still get a performance increace beccause the one core would be loaded up and there was nothing there to pick up the slack, but with dual core core 1 could be maxed out and core 2 is running other things.

Right now dual core is the best. Best bang for the buck and generally best performance except in EPENISMARK.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 24, 2008)

hat said:


> Dual core was good because it offered much bettter multitasking. You could do things in the background and still game, or lets say a 3GHz P4 vs a 3GHz PD and no multitasking you would still get a performance increace beccause the one core would be loaded up and there was nothing there to pick up the slack, but with dual core core 1 could be maxed out and core 2 is running other things.
> 
> Right now dual core is the best. Best bang for the buck and generally best performance except in EPENISMARK.


Encoding


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 24, 2008)

wwwwhhhhaaaaateevver,  

When dual-cores came out people were saying "I could have an AMD single core at 3.0Ghz and save or a dual core X2 at 2.4 GHz and spend $100 MORE, no multithreaded games blah de blah..."  I get better/same performance... I am so awesome because i have a single-core.  Dual core is overkill.  I still type at the same speed with my pII as you do with your Athlon 64 X2.... overkill, no need... Blah blah i still like my old hardware.

Now all those people went to dual cores and are saying the same garbage... and when HT nehalem comes out, theyre gonna say "no need for HT, not enough support, im sticking with my penryn quad at 4Ghz."

No one with a quad is saying any of this, because they know there are tons of applications that benefit.  You download compressed things? you use winrar? guess what? its alot faster... When you have to decompress 6 gigs of stuff... you notice.  Office, Photoshop, even some internet browsers (Maxthon 2) are fully multithreaded, Video?.  And the list is growing... soon GAMES!!!  faster = better.

If you just bought a $200 dual-core, you need this type of denial to convince you that you made the right investment... which is fine, have fun with your tiny, shrinking e-weewee.

Similar topics for discussion:
1.  Why your inline four is better than my V6.
2.  Why size doesnt matter.


----------



## X800 (Mar 24, 2008)

Hmm this been an nice reading moment  .
I allways buy the best i can afford at the moment , it depends how many numbers(£,$,€) is on my (your) account  and should buy after that.I would allways buy the best and it would not affect e-penis or the numbers system would crunch so i could brag about it.I like a system that is capable to do what ever i doing to encode, palying games or multitasking and have no (hickups). Now i have an amd x2 cpu and its not enough no more so i building a new systen with a quadcore and ill go intel this time becuse amd has nothing to match intels cpus with.I was allso thinking about get an dualcore but then again a quadcore is the future with more demanding programs and games  .And a quad would allways  dualcore  .


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

All this debating and people are still gonna buy what they want regardless of what they actually need.

Small e-penis V's Big e-penis i know id rather have a big one. or is the Q6600 middle size now?


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

one thing has been said .. duals have become that good quads are redundant.. the speed of the dual does play a part.. if u have a powerfull enough single core u dont need muticore.. it u dont have a powerfull enough single core u do need multicore.. 

as for winrar.. i never compress anything big but i do uncompress big things.. 6 gig files being big i think by anybodies standard.. what do i see.. i see two cores running at 15%.. i have a strong suspicion if i had four at the same speed i would see four cores running at 7%.. 

i download big newsgroup files.. what do i see.. not even enough cpu usage to kick speed step into action properly.. and average of 2% cpu usage in little blips.. 

playing a divx movie.. 3% cpu usage.. an mp3 tune.. 1% cpu usage.. i play a game i see two cores running at 50%.. i browse.. well how about 0% cpu usage with the odd little 15% spike when a new page is loaded.. 

multitasking has been around long before multicores arrived.. we all kinda say one decent gpu is better than two lesser ones.. how come we dont apply the same logic to multi cpus..

mind u one of my two grafix cards is switched off.. one is enough i certainly dont need four..  the bottom line is the industry needs to keep selling us new hardware simply to stay alive.. but with gpus or cpus.. the software to use em efficiently is lacking.. deliberately lacking because there is no financial gain to alter things is my guess.. the hardware sellers are in some ways caught in a trap.. to keep this multi whatever scam going they need to shut up doubters like me.. but if better software improves our existing (already overkill) hardware that works against em..

trog

ps.. and lets not forget why this entire multi thing has been foisted upon us.. not cos its better.. simply cos the buggers find it cheaper to keep selling us multiples of the same old stuff sooner than create something newer and better..


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> All this debating and people are still gonna buy what they want regardless of what they actually need.
> 
> Small e-penis V's Big e-penis i know id rather have a big one. or is the Q6600 middle size now?



its an age thing nitro.. u will grow out of it.. he he he

but i recon the Q6600 is definitely in the mid sized penis range.. what u need is some software viagra 

rog


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> its an age thing nitro.. u will grow out of it.. he he he
> 
> but i recon the Q6600 is definitely in the mid sized penis range.. what u need is some software viagra
> 
> rog



When? im 31 now 

Oh and middle sized is better than small were can i get my viagra?


----------



## X800 (Mar 24, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> When? im 31 now
> 
> Oh and middle sized is better than small were can i get my viagra?



 Yes where is our viagra so we can more fun


----------



## Deusxmachina (Mar 24, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> Similar topics for discussion:
> 1.  Why your inline four is better than my V6.



It would indeed be a similar discussion because once again "it depends."  Unless maybe that V6 is from a Buick Grand National, then maybe there wouldn't be much room for discussion. 

Trog already wrote what I was going to about winrar and the like.  Programs like that often already look to get maxed out by the hard drive.  Same thing applies to bandwidth on DVD drives.  The drives themselves are the limiting factor.

Games are more GPU-limited than CPU-limited.

Anyway, quads are the future, certainly, but for most people are unneeded in the present, and for most people in the now the choice simply depends on if they want to pay the early-adopter price or not.  There already is some overlap, though, which is why this discussion isn't cut-and-dried.    

A big thing about Core2Duos is they were so good for the price compared to basically everything else out there at the time.  It could even be said they completely embarrassed basically everything else out there at the time.  Quads haven't really entered that zone yet.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

my inbox is full of strange dudes trying to sell me the stuff and every other damn thing connected to "keeping my bitch in heat".. including how to add three inches.. 

trog


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

> A big thing about Core2Duos is they were so good for the price compared to basically everything else out there at the time. It could even be said they completely embarrassed basically everything else out there at the time. Quads haven't really entered that zone yet.



i think u are right there about Core2Duos being so good.. i strongly suspect a core/single would have done the same thing thow.. the change of architecture being the key not the duo bit.. he he

trog


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i think u are right there about Core2Duos being so good.. i strongly suspect a core/single would have done the same thing thow.. the change of architecture being the key not the duo bit.. he he
> 
> trog



I think the amount of memory changes the need for a dual or aquad, with 4gb of memory you see 15% per core load when encoding, what happens at 1GB? you might then be in need of spare cores to handle the workload that cannot be stored on the memory. 

this argument seems to come up more frequently these days. in the past multi cpu's was a server thing, then the dual core desktop cpu's came out. With them came the argument of do you really need dual? the answer then was no just as it is now with quads. the fact remains that once veryone jumped on the dual bandwagon, so did the programmers. 

Now no one here would recomend you buy a single core if you can affor a dual. this is because of multitasking, encoding, and multithreaded applications/games.

if eveyone jumps on the quad bandgwagon, sure they could have gotten more MHZ for their money on a dual, but with ocing most connies are limited by the mobo fsb, so odds are that you'll hit close to the same clocks on more cores on the same mobo. this meand that you're not really losing anything by buying a quad, what you are doing is increasing the demand for quads which in turn will make programmers notice. Once the programmers see the pertinence of quad core multithreading, they'll add it. 

so buying a dual will grant you more performance per MHZ, but buying a quad won't hurt you, but will increase the demand for quads and thus increase.how soon quad-multithreaded applications come out.

so I wouldn't call it a waste, I'd call it an inverstement into the market.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> my inbox is full of strange dudes trying to sell me the stuff and every other damn thing connected to "keeping my bitch in heat".. including how to add three inches..
> 
> trog



  Does that come with a quad?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 24, 2008)

well - still being at the lower end of the spectrum with my trusty 939 X2 3800+ I still find that in most cases that its more then enough to run what i want

its just less'up-to-date' as the newer cpus especially intels with their speed step & all the other bling etc

I usually use my machine for a lot of gaming mainly CoD4 & MMORPG's (& maybe a few other FPs's) with some photoshop & video editing on the side.

so quad core for me is pretty ideal as i tend to multitask to a moderate level, & if the prices are more or less the same for a a E8400/Q6600 then why not? sure nothing much supports quad now but theres no denying that there are some distinct benefits to having quad core even though it might not be to everyones taste.

IMHO its better to future proof then to have everything as is.

I bought my X2 3800+ back in the days when AMD were no longer shipping hence all 939 was going ludicrously dirt cheap. until now really major gripe that ive had with my machine is my old now retired X1800XT which i swapped out with a G92 8800GTS

it bottlenecks yes - a major issue that is currently out of my hands as i dont have the funds to overhaul

but in light of that my gaming experience has taken a leap despite under performing.


so the question should be 'how good enough is good enough?'

& also since my OCD can get the better of me - most of my argument about dual core is already void


3 cheers for extreme OCD

OCD + $$$ = Quadcore


----------



## Deusxmachina (Mar 24, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> I think the amount of memory changes the need for a dual or aquad, with 4gb of memory you see 15% per core load when encoding, what happens at 1GB? you might then be in need of spare cores to handle the workload that cannot be stored on the memory.



I don't think much would change with 1gb memory.  Encoding video is for the most part all about CPU speed.  

My question would be why that encoding is using four cores but only 15% from each instead of 100% of each.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 25, 2008)

Deusxmachina said:


> I don't think much would change with 1gb memory.  Encoding video is for the most part all about CPU speed.
> 
> My question would be why that encoding is using four cores but only 15% from each instead of 100% of each.



everything the cpu does has to pass throught the memory, try it first before commenting plz. what people would "think" matters not at all to me, what actually happens when encoding does matter to me. 

as it stands I don't do any encoding, I do alot of image transfer and editing, and alot of media compression. both of those activitiues suffer greatly with less memory.


----------



## Deusxmachina (Mar 25, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> everything the cpu does has to pass throught the memory, try it first before commenting plz. what people would "think" matters not at all to me, what actually happens when encoding does matter to me.
> 
> as it stands I don't do any encoding, I do alot of image transfer and editing, and alot of media compression. both of those activitiues suffer greatly with less memory.



I said "think" to be nice.

The amusing part here is you chastise my saying "think," but let's see what you wrote ONE post ago: "I think the amount of memory changes the need for a dual or aquad... when encoding...."

And now, ONE post later, you said: "as it stands I don't do any encoding..." while also saying, "try it first before commenting plz."

Funny how you didn't chastise yourself for your own answer.  Your own answer "should matter not at all to you."

For video encoding, memory basically doesn't matter unless you run out.  This is why most people only bother putting 1gb in their HD HTPCs.  I just converted a 1080p h.264 file into an xvid just for you.  It used about 100mb of memory.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 25, 2008)

trog100 said:


> as for winrar.. i never compress anything big but i do uncompress big things.. 6 gig files being big i think by anybodies standard.. what do i see.. i see two cores running at 15%.. i have a strong suspicion if i had four at the same speed i would see four cores running at 7%..



On winrar, it depends on how they were compressed. I personally compress lots of files, and download lots of heavily compressed files and often see over 80% usage on my system (three cores maxed out, dribbles on the 4th)

THe reason is that lots of people choose 'store' in winrar, which is only a container file and does no compression at all. set it to maximum and you'll notice a lot smaller files (10-15% in most case for me) and a lot more CPU usage.

As yogurt mentioned too, ram and HDD can cripple it - if you're opening from say Drive C: and pasting it to drive C:. that means it goes .rar -> temp files -> destination, making three accesses on the same hard drive. That could easily choke the drive, causing you slower speeds (and thus lower CPU usage) Running out of ram does the same thing, as it does smaller tasks/has to wait for ram to be freed again.

This is another example of usage - your files dont need it, so it doesnt matter to you. My files do, so it does for me.

you are a very anti multicore person, but keep in mind that some of us do see benefits from it. Because you dont see it it may not be worth it to you, but try and emphasise that rather than generic statements about how multicore is a scam, it was forced upon us and no one needs it.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> On winrar, it depends on how they were compressed. I personally compress lots of files, and download lots of heavily compressed files and often see over 80% usage on my system (three cores maxed out, dribbles on the 4th)
> 
> THe reason is that lots of people choose 'store' in winrar, which is only a container file and does no compression at all. set it to maximum and you'll notice a lot smaller files (10-15% in most case for me) and a lot more CPU usage.
> 
> ...



i dont say no one needs it mussels.. dont misquote me.. i say its wasted on the average user.. the average user dosnt need it.. the scam part is.. the average user is being told he does need it and will benefit from it.... 

read what i say before u make comment.. 

trog


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2008)

I need MORE POWAH MORE MORE MORE!...

what the average user needs is MORE cores, which are FASTER with MORE multithreaded software, and better power management.  Oh... and SSD Raid set-ups, preferrably no less than 1TB in size.  And a GFX card with a Socket like an MB so that you can upgrade the gpu at will, with GDDR4/5 ram slots so you can add more/faster memory when needed.

Fat clients FTW! to each his own supercomputer!

Then, i can have core 8 powering all the shiny, glassy graphics on my vista (go processlasso!) and cores 1-7 running all my apps in their full multithreaded glory @ 5GHz.  

Btw, I put all of vista's services on one core using processorlasso's afinity changer, so now core 3 gets to deal with bloat, while cores 0-2 get to play with my apps uninterrupted.  

all im saying is that my quad keeps me warm at night.  Literally, I am warmer at night.


----------



## MilkyWay (Mar 25, 2008)

So what your saying is it is user dependent, only some users will need quad core and others will only need dual core cpu.

The average home user dosnt need quad core but some people who use 3d modelling or do heavy duty tasks like that might benefit.
At least servers have their own cpu that can be more than 4 core. Multiple sockets tho.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2008)

it is user dependent, we're way past the point of beating a dead horse.  We are now stomping on the stain in the ground where the dead horse used to be.

People being mislead as to what they _need_ is a scam, trog is right there.  But if youre being _told_ what to buy by a saleperson and then you _buy_ it just because they said so, then youre an idiot, and you will be scammed.

Arguing whether or not tha average user needs a quad is like arguing whether the average driver needs a truck.  Some do, some dont, for [whatever] reasons. 

Ultimately what it comes down to is computer literacy.  If you know, and you make an educated decision based on your needs, then you cant go wrong.  If you were told you needed a quad, and you bought one based solely because Intel/AMD/Best Buy said so... then you need to knee yourself in the face.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 25, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> it is user dependent, we're way past the point of beating a dead horse.  We are now stomping on the stain in the ground where the dead horse used to be.
> 
> People being mislead as to what they _need_ is a scam, trog is right there.  But if youre being _told_ what to buy by a saleperson and then you _buy_ it just because they said so, then youre an idiot, and you will be scammed.
> 
> ...



computer literacy is what this thread is about.. or should be.. the average user by your defintions is an "idiot".. he is computer illiterate.. he is at the mercy of the saleman or *more accurately the internet review sites*.. 

he dosnt need a knee in the face.. he needs some usefull information.. if he ignores this usefull information then perhaps some knee face contact might be appropriate.. he he

debate.. in between the fanboy i have one so it must be better stuff might provide some clues.. money for money dual or quad.. lets not forget its faster dual or slower quad.. intel dont give chips away for bugger all..

i will go back to my original post.. the quad version of my E8400 for example costs £640 UK pounds.. my dual version costs £140 UK pounds..  two cores at 3 gig or four cores at 3 gig..

i aint gonna try and say the £640 quad a aint better chip than the £140 dual.. of course it is.. that aint what the thread is about..

money for money.. quad at 2.4 gig as opposed to dual at 3 gig..  which will benefit the average user most.. and i recon we could all have a good guess at what the average user means.. he aint all that rare a beast..

lets also not forget there are many people who do actually read this place looking for information..  far more silent readers than vociferous posters..

trog


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2008)

trog100 said:


> computer literacy is what this thread is about.. or should be.. the average user by your defintions is an "idiot".. he is computer illiterate.. he is at the mercy of the saleman or *more accurately the internet review sites*..
> 
> he dosnt need a knee in the face.. he needs some usefull information.. if he ignores this usefull information then perhaps some knee face contact might be appropriate.. he he
> trog



good point.  There is no doubt that a large chunk of reviews favor the quad based on multithreaded benchmarks, which are not representative of current reality.  

There really should be an 'average guy' review site... you know when they go through like word processing, email, maybe some pr0n surfing and espn.com over the course of a day, and tell you the best system for the money.. including the power bill you have to foot to own one, in real guy terms... 

As far as these chips go... if you were to give me a quad core q6600 and I had enough for a 19" monitor, or I could get a e8400 with a 20" monitor, i would take the e8400 with the 20" any day... because i think that extra inch of screen would affect me much more than the performance difference between those two processors...


----------



## trog100 (Mar 25, 2008)

how about the average gamer.. most of then seem to think they need a quad.. i could ask why do they think they need a quad.. ??

try this one.. some super cards and a super quad.. all drool over hardware and at least part of 2006 is optimized for the quad cpu..

pure core speed versus twice as many cores.. 

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA_QuadSLI_with_the_ASUS_EN9800GX2/?page=3

my dual at a faster speed beats the lot of em.. how come ????

lets not demean the average user to much.. he he he..

but my two cpu cores and two grafics cards score higher in 2006 than the four cpu cores and quad grafix cards do in the above example.. two cores going faster can quite clearly out perform four cores going slower.. 

trog

ps.. there is some pretty expensive hardware being used in the above example.. he he he


----------



## ex_reven (Mar 25, 2008)

trog100 said:


> how about the average gamer.. most of then seem to think they need a quad.. i could ask why do they think they need a quad.. ??
> 
> try this one.. some super cards and a super quad.. all drool over hardware and at least part of 2006 is optimized for the quad cpu..
> 
> ...



...gamers who buy quads give me the shits lol


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 25, 2008)

Trog, you know my views on this subject so I aint gonna bore you or any other poor members with them again, however, I cannot disagree with your views/comments in post No1 but yet again I see that you do not mention multi-tasking, is that because you choose to ensure there is less debate in favour of a quad or because you do not beleive that multi-tasking is relevant to the argument? one thing is for sure, as you have said, there are not that many apps that are multithredded, even less games but everyone of us multi-tasks to a certain degree, granted some more than others but whether it's a dual core at 3gig or a quadcore at 2. whatever gig, if you have 4 or more apps open actually doing things at the same time, them things are gonna get done quicker with 4 cores (usually), that said........I am thinking of getting an E8500 unless there are some Q9550's on the shelves in the UK by the weekend!


----------



## trog100 (Mar 25, 2008)

i have mentioned multitasking tatty.. its a hard one not easy to prove or disprove.. i put it in the "any fool knows" category as yet.. 

i have ask for some kind of test ideas.. i honestly aint trying to avoid multitasking.. its a big part of what i refer to as the scam.. that and future proofing..

to me simply running windows is multitasking.. tons of services and junk is all being run at the same time..  i know i can play an mp3 and a divx movie plus all the other windows junk running and still bung off a slightly over 11 second super pi run with only two cores.. 

trog


----------



## edro (Mar 26, 2008)

One person wrote early on "this is getting boring."   I guess it’s not so boring. It is now 4 pages and still the conversation is hot.

Another person wrote "this is a useless thread."  I don’t think so. A lot of opinions have been expressed.  It is possible that some opinions are merely speculation but I suspect that the majority of the opinions come out of people’s experiences and that is interesting to me. It adds more perspective even if I disagree with them. Thus this is an informative thread.

There are some problems, I think. One is that people don’t always hear what another person is trying to say. Perhaps some things could have been said more clearly but usually it seems that certain points were overlooked and thus a reply might miss the mark of addressing what was said. 

Another thing, and this is difficult for me to determine, is that sometimes it appears that people are speaking without respect for another person. No matter how much I disagree with someone’s opinion I can still treat them with respect.  

Just wait until you have adult children and they decide to do things differently that you taught them to do. What am I going to do? Put them over my knee? Of course not! I love my adult children and in fact have learned much from them myself. I guess I’m not always right. 

Well, this was off subject. I’d weigh in on this topic but I’m afraid that I’m not an average user and I’m also not sure that I could defend my position since I’m really not sure about what my new build can do for me.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 26, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Trog, you know my views on this subject so I aint gonna bore you or any other poor members with them again, however, I cannot disagree with your views/comments in post No1 but yet again I see that you do not mention multi-tasking, is that because you choose to ensure there is less debate in favour of a quad or because you do not beleive that multi-tasking is relevant to the argument? one thing is for sure, as you have said, there are not that many apps that are multithredded, even less games but everyone of us multi-tasks to a certain degree, granted some more than others but whether it's a dual core at 3gig or a quadcore at 2. whatever gig, if you have 4 or more apps open actually doing things at the same time, them things are gonna get done quicker with 4 cores (usually), that said........I am thinking of *getting an E8500* unless there are some Q9550's on the shelves in the UK by the weekend!



you bastard I cannot find one and they are all over europe


----------



## edro (Mar 26, 2008)

*Not an average user*

I'm going for the quad but I'm not an average user. 

Right now I use 3 computers via VNC to do all my tasks. One PC is mostly for rendering, another is a combo super tivo (3 recorders) and doubles as a HTPC, also some other menial tasks. Last, my “thin client” which accesses both those machines, sets up for the editing/encoding/rendering and spins it off to my workhorse.

What I’m planning to do is to replace my “thin client” with a “super duty” which will make video editing much faster, I can spin off the render/encoder job and start on another one, or watch a movie, also my new build would be the media server for other home users. 

To do this I will have a hardware RAID 5 array (4x750gb) plus a 250gb for OS and apps all running on a quad core.  

1.  I should be able to retire my old workhorse (Athlon 64 3000+) which I often max out at 100% for most of a day (or even days) to encode a large job. 

2. I can get rid of this “thin client” (5 year old P4 2.2ghz notebook) and start using a monster video editing machine (the new quad build). 

3.  I will still keep the dedicated recorder PC but will be able to add another recording card or 2 (eg. Hauppauge MCE 150) since I won’t need it as a HTPC anymore. 

Thus I’ll be replacing 2 heat generating computers with 1 and have better control over things, I think.. 

It is a plan. Even if it doesn’t work out the way I hope there won’t be any real loss. I’ll have a quad core PC. I can always go back to using the recorder PC to double as a HTPC (switch monitors around). But I suspect that I'll be able to encode one job while in another software instance I will be editing video (editing is CPU intensive since it "half encodes" as I edit), also serve up media to others, and check on email..  Hopefully all without having to wait. 

Oh, and since I'm getting a penryn I'll have the 47 instructions from the SSE4.1 subset. Hopefully my video editing software will catch up soon. Due to personal limitations I won't build again until maybe 4 or more likely 5 years from now so this one has gotta last. The next gen socket isn't here yet and so this is the last 775, again, I want to make it last. Is that future proofing? I really don't know what that means. I just can't afford another build anytime soon. This is it.    (fixed income ya know. I budgeted for this build and went $400 over since I wasn't planning on a hardware RAID.)


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 26, 2008)

trt740 said:


> you bastard I cannot find one and they are all over europe



  makes a pleasant change!


----------



## hat (Mar 26, 2008)

I can't believe this thread hasn't died yet! For some people a dual core is faster, for some people a quad core is faster. I can't see myself getting a quad core unless I get a good video card for my birthday and I can't think of anything for Christmas and my parents bug me about it "you have to get something" so throw in a Phenom I guess =/


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 27, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Well I was tempted to buy a Q6600...but in the end decided against it and went with an E8400. Why? Well 2 reasons.
> 
> Firstly, I'm a gamer and none of the games I play use 2 cores properly, let alone 4.
> 
> ...



I'd be curious to know about your impressions when you get the E8400 and start gaming with it. I still haven't decided between Q6xxx or E8xxx. I don't multitask much. I just want the computer to be fast when launching and runing an application or a game. I guess the E8xxx makes sense, but I can't help thinking that new games will be coded to use quads, e.g. one core for the AI, one for the physics etc. But if this doesn't happen soon, there's no point in buying a quad now unless I start multitasking a lot, which I doubt.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I'd be curious to know about your impressions when you get the E8400 and start gaming with it. I still haven't decided between Q6xxx or E8xxx. I don't multitask much. I just want the computer to be fast when launching and runing an application or a game. I guess the E8xxx makes sense, but I can't help thinking that new games will be coded to use quads, e.g. one core for the AI, one for the physics etc. But if this doesn't happen soon, there's no point in buying a quad now unless I start multitasking a lot, which I doubt.



if you arent upgrading the CPU anytime soon, the quad is a safe bet - the moreso if you cant OC beyond 400 FSB on your mobo (same MHz in the end)

If your ram/mobo will get you past 450 or so (900MHz ram and up) then you might as well grab an e8400.

Currently i feel that we're video card limited, my mini rig at 3.2GHz feels just as fast as my 3.6GHz main system, and most apps dont use all four cores - maybe 2-3x a week do i actually run into a situation where i need/use a quad core (winrar, encoding, supreme commander)


----------



## trt740 (Mar 27, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> makes a pleasant change!



It's because the freaking Euro is so damn high in value. Intel wants that currency . I got that from a giant companys CEO who sell Cpu to the US gov. They can hardly get cpus. Thats why the USA can hardly get a Cpu.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 27, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I'd be curious to know about your impressions when you get the E8400 and start gaming with it. I still haven't decided between Q6xxx or E8xxx. I don't multitask much. I just want the computer to be fast when launching and runing an application or a game. I guess the E8xxx makes sense, but I can't help thinking that new games will be coded to use quads, e.g. one core for the AI, one for the physics etc. But if this doesn't happen soon, there's no point in buying a quad now unless I start multitasking a lot, which I doubt.



Gaming? A small increase at 3Ghz (same speed as my old E4400 overclocked), but not that much, but I never intended to leave it at stock. My E4400 would never go above 3Ghz stably, which is why I replaced it.

I don't encode, and the only game that properly uses more than 2 cores is SupCom which I don't play, and Alan Wake which isn't here yet.

I'm with trog in thinking this dual/quad stuff is a myth, for most people. It's not necessary, BUT it does speed up encoding and stuff specifically designed for it, which is few and far between, especially in the gaming world.

I just want 4Ghz


----------



## Wile E (Mar 27, 2008)

If it's useful to someone, it can't be a myth/scam.

Saying multi-core is a scam/myth is every bit as bad as saying that a quad is better for everyone.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 27, 2008)

Darknova said:


> I'm with trog in thinking this dual/quad stuff is not useful for most people. It's not necessary, BUT it does speed up encoding and stuff specifically designed for it, which is few and far between, especially in the gaming world.



Fixed.

Urgh, I've only been up for like 10 minutes, gimme a break


----------



## Wile E (Mar 27, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Urgh, I've only been up for like 10 minutes, gimme a break



lol. It's ok. You just triggered it, it was more a comment made in a general sense.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2008)

trt740 said:


> It's because the freaking Euro is so damn high in value. Intel wants that currency . I got that from a giant companys CEO who sell Cpu to the US gov. They can hardly get cpus. Thats why the USA can hardly get a Cpu.



Well we dont play with the Euro (Mickey Mouse money )but I know it's pretty strong at the moment against the $ but the £ has been strong for ages now but we dont seem to see any benefit from it at all.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 27, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Well we dont play with the Euro (Mickey Mouse money )but I know it's pretty strong at the moment against the $ but the £ has been strong for ages now but we dont seem to see any benefit from it at all.



the other side of the story is we get to pay a premium in Euroland to get those CPU's. As an example, a Q6600 costs €185 (= $292), against $254 in the US, i.e. 15% more


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 27, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Well we dont play with the Euro (Mickey Mouse money )but I know it's pretty strong at the moment against the $ but the £ has been strong for ages now but we dont seem to see any benefit from it at all.



Make the most of your poundies before you end up switching to euros soon!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> Make the most of your poundies before you end up switching to euros soon!



aint gonna happen in my lifetime! and we quite often pay more than most of the EU for PC components!


----------



## trt740 (Mar 27, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> the other side of the story is we get to pay a premium in Euroland to get those CPU's. As an example, a Q6600 costs €185 (= $292), against $254 in the US, i.e. 15% more



plus everything American made gets cheaper.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 29, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> i use my quad alot more than i thought i would... for gaming the e8400 is the bomb diggity, no doubt better than a Q6600, but for raw number crunching (F@H, Photoshop, EXCEL 2007 database work (which eats a SH*TlOAD of my time, stupid work) my quad is much, much quicker...
> 
> @ trog... it depends on your system and how u use it, games? the QX9### series is better b/c of cache, the q6600 beats out an e6850 because of cache even at lower speeds... the E8400 is a good chip for anything except for raw crunching, which is what my system spends the large majority of its time doing...
> 
> You dont NEED more cores for games (yet) you need them for POWAH, so that your macro finishes massaging the 600,000+ entry database of historical bond prices thats due tomorrow, and you can go dork around on TPU.



sorry, slightly off topic here, but I thought your mobo was limited to 1600MHz FSB? I've got a similar one, and was wondering if yours was running stable?


----------



## hat (Mar 29, 2008)

There's no such thing as a mobo limited to 1600MHz FSB. Like an x38 board for example, it says 1600MHz FSB cause it officially supports it. Give me an x38 board and a C2D and I'll take it over 1600FSB, I promise


----------



## trt740 (Mar 29, 2008)

I just dropped my Xeon e3110 in yesterday. I didn't get a great chip (okay chip but not 4.3 like I wanted) but I don't see a giant difference with this chip at 3.9ghz from my old Qx9650 at 4.0ghz. I will let ya know how it goes. I'm hitting the 15000 mark with a 8800gt in 3dmark06 and thats plenty fast. It seems to multitask very well. It seems just a slight bit less snappy in windows Xp. Still this chip was 600.00 less and I got a deal on the QX9650. For a 199.00 this chip is a very good deal, now if I can only get  10 more mghz it will be a average wolfdale lol.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 30, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> sorry, slightly off topic here, but I thought your mobo was limited to 1600MHz FSB? I've got a similar one, and was wondering if yours was running stable?



mine is stable, its not limited... it's just picky with a quad. mine starts running into issues at 420 with the quad... I can get it to post at 450 but its not stable and crashes shortly thereafter (its not the chip either) each mobo is different and YMMV.  Right now rock stable with +.2V on the NorthBridge.

Also i have a revision 2.0 , the revision 1.0's are the ones that had problems pushing Q6600's to/past 400 FSB... dual cores did not have this issue.


----------



## strick94u (Mar 30, 2008)

Long as its not a 1 core I'm happy. remember those days?


----------



## trt740 (Mar 30, 2008)

strick94u said:


> Long as its not a 1 core I'm happy. remember those days?



yes but even some of those amd chips were pretty good multitasker


----------



## strick94u (Mar 30, 2008)

Ture my old 3400+ laptop still fast enough for my wife  her and her pogo.com gameing


----------

