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

[ex_reven]

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]

Oh good.

 

[Fitseries3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DaMulta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[philbrown23]

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]

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]

"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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...