1. 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..

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by trog100, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    "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
     
  2. mandelore

    mandelore New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,251 (1.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
    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 :)
     
  3. Paulieg

    Paulieg The Mad Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    11,914 (4.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,979
    Location:
    Wherever I can find the iron.
    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.
     
  4. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    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
     
  5. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,536 (2.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    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.
     
  6. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,418 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    /me raises hand :D
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,536 (2.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    really???? what the hell do you do man?!?!?

    i have WMP, firefox, Filezilla, MSN and the usual firewall, anit-virus running. that is all.
     
  9. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    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..

    [​IMG]

    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
     
  10. Hawk1 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,249 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    163
    Location:
    The Big Smoke, Canada
    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.
     
  11. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    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
     
  12. kylew

    kylew New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    604 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Liverpool
    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.
     
  13. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,536 (2.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    But do the clocks result in a better performance, or just increases your e-bench-penis?
     
  14. kylew

    kylew New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    604 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Liverpool
    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.
     
  15. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    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
     
  16. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,418 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    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.
     
  17. mandelore

    mandelore New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,251 (1.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
    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
     
  18. Nitro-Max

    Nitro-Max New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,476 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Location:
    Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom.{East Anglian Coast
    *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.
     
  19. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    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
     
  20. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,418 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    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: Mar 24, 2008
  21. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    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: Mar 23, 2008
  22. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    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
     
  23. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Isnt it two cores at 1.5Ghz each?
     
  24. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    [​IMG]

    CPU 1 and 2 game

    CPU 3 rip DVDS

    CPU 4 Fire Fox

    and so on,

    Having more cores is best IMO
     
  25. kylew

    kylew New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    604 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    70
    Location:
    Liverpool
    Nope :) the clock speed is per core, so your CPU is two cores at 3Ghz each, if that's what you meant :)
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page