• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,253 (1.24/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
"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
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,278 (0.51/day)
Location
UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
Processor I9 9900KS @ 5.3Ghz
Motherboard Gagabyte z390 Aorus Ultra
Cooling Nexxxos Nova 1080 + 360 rad
Memory 32Gb Crucial Balliastix RGB 4.4GHz
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 3090 (Bios and Shunt Modded) 2.17GHz @ 38C
Storage NVME / SSD RAID arrays
Display(s) 38" LG 38GN950-B, 27" BENQ XL2730Z 144hz 1440p, Samsung 27" 3D 1440p
Case Thermaltake Core series
Power Supply 1.6Kw Silverstone
Mouse Roccat Kone EMP
Keyboard Corsair Viper Mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro
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 :)
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
12,453 (1.99/day)
Location
Yankee lost in the Mountains of East TN
Processor 5800x(2)/5700g/5600x/5600g/2700x/1700x/1700
Motherboard MSI B550 Carbon (2)/ MSI z490 Unify/Asus Strix B550-F/MSI B450 Tomahawk (3)
Cooling EK AIO 360 (2)/EK AIO 240, Arctic Cooling Freezer II 280/EVGA CLC 280/Noctua D15/Cryorig M9(2)
Memory 32 GB Ballistix Elite/32 GB TridentZ/16GB Mushkin Redline Black/16 GB Dominator
Video Card(s) Asus Strix RTX3060/EVGA 970(2)/Asus 750 ti/Old Quadros
Storage Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe 500GB/WD Black M.2 NVMe 500GB/Adata 500gb NVMe
Display(s) Acer 1080p 22"/ (3) Samsung 22" 1080p
Case (2) Lian Li Lancool II Mesh/Corsair 4000D /Phanteks Eclipse 500a/Be Quiet Pure Base 500/Bones of HAF
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 850G(2)/EVGA Supernova GT 650w/Phantek Amps 750w/Seasonic Focus 750w
Mouse Generic Black wireless (5)
Keyboard Generic Black wireless (5)
Software Win 10/Ubuntu
"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 dual at 2.4 gig with quad 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

Wow, that was quite a soapbox. :D. 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.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
5,052 (0.80/day)
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Processor AMD FX 8320 @ 4GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 rev1
Cooling Corsair H70
Memory 4 x 4GB DDR3 Ripjawz 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vapor-X AMD R9 280X
Storage 1 x 500GB Samsung Evo 850, 1 x 500GB Vrap Data Drive, 3 x 2TB Seagate, 1 x 1TB Samsung F1
Display(s) 3 x DGM IPS-2402WDH
Case Coolermaster HAF X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Coolermaster 1000W Silent Pro M
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
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 :D
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
6,560 (1.08/day)
System Name Vintage
Processor i7 - 3770K @ Stock
Cooling Scythe Zipang II
Memory 2x4GB Crucial DDR3
Video Card(s) MSI GTX970
Storage M4 124GB SSD// WD Black 640GB// WD Black 1TB//Samsung F3 1.5TB
Display(s) Samsung SM223BW 21.6"
Case Generic
Power Supply Corsair HX 520W
Software Windows 7
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.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
4,267 (0.70/day)
Location
Sanford, FL, USA
Processor Intel i5-6600
Motherboard ASRock H170M-ITX
Cooling Cooler Master Geminii S524
Memory G.Skill DDR4-2133 16GB (8GB x 2)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte R9-380X 4GB
Storage Samsung 950 EVO 250GB (mSATA)
Display(s) LG 29UM69G-B 2560x1080 IPS
Case Lian Li PC-Q25
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892
Power Supply Seasonic SS-460FL2
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech G110
Software Windows 10 Pro
D

Duxx

Guest
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.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
6,560 (1.08/day)
System Name Vintage
Processor i7 - 3770K @ Stock
Cooling Scythe Zipang II
Memory 2x4GB Crucial DDR3
Video Card(s) MSI GTX970
Storage M4 124GB SSD// WD Black 640GB// WD Black 1TB//Samsung F3 1.5TB
Display(s) Samsung SM223BW 21.6"
Case Generic
Power Supply Corsair HX 520W
Software Windows 7
/me raises hand :D

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

i have WMP, firefox, Filezilla, MSN and the usual firewall, anit-virus running. that is all.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,253 (1.24/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
Wow, that was quite a soapbox. :D. 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

New Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,248 (0.20/day)
Location
The Big Smoke, Canada
Processor E6600@3.6Ghz (8x450)
Motherboard Commando
Cooling TRUE
Memory 2GB Ballistix Tracers @900 4-4-4-12
Video Card(s) ATI X1950XTX w/TR HR-03
Storage 2 x WD250GB (RAID0) 1x WD150GB Raptor 1x500GB external
Display(s) Dell 24" Ultrasharp
Case TT Armour
Audio Device(s) Xfi xtreme Gamer (X-230s/HD595s)
Power Supply TT 750W modular
Software xp pro SP2/Vista Ultimate 32
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.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
2,648 (0.42/day)
Location
UK
System Name Ma Biatch
Processor i7 860
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3A
Cooling Noctua
Memory 8gb (4x2gb) G-Skill
Video Card(s) GTX 470
Storage WD5000aaks raid0
Display(s) Sony Bravia 37" 1080p
Case CM 690
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair HX520
Software Windows 7 Ultimate
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 :toast: ) 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

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
604 (0.10/day)
Location
Liverpool
Processor Main: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz / Server: Q6600@ Stock
Motherboard Main: Asus P5E @ Rampage Forumla / Server: P5K Deluxe
Cooling Main: Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme (8 x 120mm fans inc. PSU + 2 x 92mm fans.) / Server: Stock
Memory Main: 4x2GB Gskill DDR2 1000Mhz / Server: 4x1GB Gskill DDR2 800Mhz
Video Card(s) Main: 2GB 5870 Eyefinity 6 / Server: HD 4850
Storage 8 Internal (SATA) 2 External (USB). Total storage 5.4TB
Display(s) Triple Dell 24" 2408WFP
Case Main: Silverstone TJ07 / Server: Coolermaster Stacker 810
Audio Device(s) Main: Auzentech Xmystique / Server: NI Rig Kontrol
Power Supply Main: Coolermaster Realpower 850w Modular / Server Tagan 600W Modular
Software Main: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit / Server: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Benchmark Scores 3D Mark 06 19.5k 3D Mark Vantage 12.5k Super PI 13.4s
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 :D

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.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
6,560 (1.08/day)
System Name Vintage
Processor i7 - 3770K @ Stock
Cooling Scythe Zipang II
Memory 2x4GB Crucial DDR3
Video Card(s) MSI GTX970
Storage M4 124GB SSD// WD Black 640GB// WD Black 1TB//Samsung F3 1.5TB
Display(s) Samsung SM223BW 21.6"
Case Generic
Power Supply Corsair HX 520W
Software Windows 7
But do the clocks result in a better performance, or just increases your e-bench-penis?
 

kylew

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
604 (0.10/day)
Location
Liverpool
Processor Main: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz / Server: Q6600@ Stock
Motherboard Main: Asus P5E @ Rampage Forumla / Server: P5K Deluxe
Cooling Main: Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme (8 x 120mm fans inc. PSU + 2 x 92mm fans.) / Server: Stock
Memory Main: 4x2GB Gskill DDR2 1000Mhz / Server: 4x1GB Gskill DDR2 800Mhz
Video Card(s) Main: 2GB 5870 Eyefinity 6 / Server: HD 4850
Storage 8 Internal (SATA) 2 External (USB). Total storage 5.4TB
Display(s) Triple Dell 24" 2408WFP
Case Main: Silverstone TJ07 / Server: Coolermaster Stacker 810
Audio Device(s) Main: Auzentech Xmystique / Server: NI Rig Kontrol
Power Supply Main: Coolermaster Realpower 850w Modular / Server Tagan 600W Modular
Software Main: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit / Server: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Benchmark Scores 3D Mark 06 19.5k 3D Mark Vantage 12.5k Super PI 13.4s
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! :D 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.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,253 (1.24/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
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
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
4,267 (0.70/day)
Location
Sanford, FL, USA
Processor Intel i5-6600
Motherboard ASRock H170M-ITX
Cooling Cooler Master Geminii S524
Memory G.Skill DDR4-2133 16GB (8GB x 2)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte R9-380X 4GB
Storage Samsung 950 EVO 250GB (mSATA)
Display(s) LG 29UM69G-B 2560x1080 IPS
Case Lian Li PC-Q25
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892
Power Supply Seasonic SS-460FL2
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech G110
Software Windows 10 Pro
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.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,278 (0.51/day)
Location
UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
Processor I9 9900KS @ 5.3Ghz
Motherboard Gagabyte z390 Aorus Ultra
Cooling Nexxxos Nova 1080 + 360 rad
Memory 32Gb Crucial Balliastix RGB 4.4GHz
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 3090 (Bios and Shunt Modded) 2.17GHz @ 38C
Storage NVME / SSD RAID arrays
Display(s) 38" LG 38GN950-B, 27" BENQ XL2730Z 144hz 1440p, Samsung 27" 3D 1440p
Case Thermaltake Core series
Power Supply 1.6Kw Silverstone
Mouse Roccat Kone EMP
Keyboard Corsair Viper Mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro
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
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
2,483 (0.39/day)
Location
Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom.{East Anglian Coast
System Name Hells Core.
Processor Ryzen 9 5950x
Motherboard Asus Crosshair hero viii (wifi) x570
Cooling AlphaCool Aurora 420mm
Memory Patriot Viper Gaming RGB Series DDR4 DRAM 4133MHz 32GB Kit
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming X Trio 3070
Storage Sabrent 1TB Rocket Nvme PCIe 4.0 M.2
Display(s) Acer Predator XB271HU
Case Thermaltake Core X71
Power Supply Corsair RM850 80 plus gold
Software Windows 10
*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.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,253 (1.24/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
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
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
4,267 (0.70/day)
Location
Sanford, FL, USA
Processor Intel i5-6600
Motherboard ASRock H170M-ITX
Cooling Cooler Master Geminii S524
Memory G.Skill DDR4-2133 16GB (8GB x 2)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte R9-380X 4GB
Storage Samsung 950 EVO 250GB (mSATA)
Display(s) LG 29UM69G-B 2560x1080 IPS
Case Lian Li PC-Q25
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892
Power Supply Seasonic SS-460FL2
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech G110
Software Windows 10 Pro
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 :p

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).
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
11,119 (1.70/day)
System Name Apple Bite
Processor Intel I5
Motherboard Apple
Memory 40gb of DDR 4 2700
Video Card(s) ATI Radeon 500
Storage Fusion Drive 1 TB
Display(s) 27 Inch IMac late 2017
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

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).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
8,253 (1.24/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
*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 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 cores.

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
 

DaMulta

My stars went supernova
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
16,168 (2.51/day)
Location
Oklahoma T-Town
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD 955---4Ghz
Motherboard MSi GD70
Cooling OcZ Phase/water
Memory Crucial2GB kit (1GBx2), Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR3 PC3-16000
Video Card(s) CrossfireX 2 X HD 4890 1GB OCed to 1000Mhz
Storage SSD 64GB
Display(s) Envision 24'' 1920x1200
Case Using the desk ATM
Audio Device(s) Sucky onboard for now :(
Power Supply 1000W TruePower Quattro


CPU 1 and 2 game

CPU 3 rip DVDS

CPU 4 Fire Fox

and so on,

Having more cores is best IMO
 

kylew

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
604 (0.10/day)
Location
Liverpool
Processor Main: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz / Server: Q6600@ Stock
Motherboard Main: Asus P5E @ Rampage Forumla / Server: P5K Deluxe
Cooling Main: Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme (8 x 120mm fans inc. PSU + 2 x 92mm fans.) / Server: Stock
Memory Main: 4x2GB Gskill DDR2 1000Mhz / Server: 4x1GB Gskill DDR2 800Mhz
Video Card(s) Main: 2GB 5870 Eyefinity 6 / Server: HD 4850
Storage 8 Internal (SATA) 2 External (USB). Total storage 5.4TB
Display(s) Triple Dell 24" 2408WFP
Case Main: Silverstone TJ07 / Server: Coolermaster Stacker 810
Audio Device(s) Main: Auzentech Xmystique / Server: NI Rig Kontrol
Power Supply Main: Coolermaster Realpower 850w Modular / Server Tagan 600W Modular
Software Main: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit / Server: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Benchmark Scores 3D Mark 06 19.5k 3D Mark Vantage 12.5k Super PI 13.4s
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 :)
 
Top