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

[Deusxmachina]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.