21 total posts
let the benchmarks decide
Quad better for mutlitasking when programs take advantage
You can set each cpu of the quad to run the program that supports quad , faster in rendering video.
You'll get naysayers but I'm writing from hands on use and my friends that have them. We set them up with 2 or 3GB RAM (we run the common 32 bit OS) and for video the bomb is that it RENDERS video at very fast rates. Disregard the naysayers and go test drive these beasts.
Also, you didn't tell which video card which is the make and break for video games. Try this list -> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-cards,1805.html
either is fast but let benchmarks decide
the e8400 is faster than the q6600 in xvid and divx encoding and sysmarks' video creation. when sse4 optimized editting software is released, the e8400 will be even faster. the e8400 is also faster in just about every game. (supreme commander and unreal tourney 3 are the exceptions in which case they're about equal.)
a q6600 will be faster in adobe premiere and sony vegas since those apps can fully utilize all four cores. but in entry-level editting apps the e8400 will be faster.
You will get naysayers...
... who have even more experience.
Examine your video editing applications carefully. If they are multithreaded, then you will be better off with quadcore. For consumer-level video editing, many applications are not multithreaded or not effectively multithreaded, and a faster dual-core will do the job better than a slower quad-core.
The same, but to a greater extent, goes for games. But that's balanced out by games being far more graphics processor intensive in general use, despite not being very multithreaded yet.
Quadcore and beyond is the future, but not all the apps you actually use day in and day out may take full advantage of it. Look into that first before you make your processor choice.
quad may fit well
benchmark tests tend to show processor speed as the most important thing, so that a fast dual performs better than a slower quad.
However, benchmarkers operate with what seems to me to be an odd assumption -- namely they run the tests with only the one bit of software operating. In real life, while you're doing a render or ripping a dvd or whatever, you'll also be running your email, firefox, MSWord, antivirus, bittorrent, solitaire, etc.
So despite the fact that most software isn't written to take full advantage of a quad, having a 3rd or 4th core might be nice to help with all the processes your computer's doing at the same time.
Maybe surprising, but not really...
... multithreaded apps are where quad cores really shine. With 'ordinary' apps you don't really notice the difference, even though you may be multitasking. If for example a video render app is not multithreaded and only aware of one processor, it'll max out one core while the other will multitask the rest of your also ordinary apps pretty well.
Sorry, I notice a pop with ordinary apps.
For me ordinary apps are dual core apps like video rendering, trans coding and more.
Do you own a quad or are you writing from using less than these new machines?
I know you love to banter with me, so here you go.
I qualified ordinary apps in my posts.
Quite a number of consumer video-related apps are still not multicore aware, and I was referring to the perceived execution speed between a significantly faster dualcore vs a quadcore when multitasking non-multithreaded apps. As I said in the post above that, your results will depend on the multicore awareness of the apps you use.
And you got me there Bob - I don't actually have a quad core desktop at home at the moment. Having ditched the XPS 720H2C's for Skulltrails,the oldest desktops I have at home right now are the also 8-core 3.2 Mac Pro's.
To time this I use a stopwatch.
It seems to be the only way to give it a real shakedown. The more cores do give Windows some feeling of not slowing to a crawl so we have to get the stopwatch out to compare encoding times.
As to the Apple, I wish there was a quad for the iMac. But for now we have to live with the still fine dual core performances.
A quad core will handle more apps running at one time better than a dual core, but only if the operating system supports that. I can't swear to it, but I don't think that any desktop Windows OS will run one app on one core and another app on a different core.
The best Bang for the Buck....
After doing some reasearch( I just finished putting together my system two days ago), I settled on the Intel Dual Core Quad Q9450. It is a very impressive CPU and can be had for just over 300 dollars. Lots of headroom for safe overclocking in the right system and 12mb Cache is great.
quad core vs. dual core
I have a new computer (about 9 months old), and opted for a quad core Q6600 and 4 gig of ram. Everything really hums along fine. At times, I have seen 250% or more core usage. (Adding up the percentages that each core shows it is using). I have vista, and there is gadget that allows you to monitor this function. The advantage of a quad core is that things can be going on in the background, and you can still easily use your computer for other function. The Quad core is evidently in the desktop and I also have a Laptop with a core duo (2 cores). For the future, getting a quad core or greater processor will make sure that your computer is easy to use and is not slowed down by background software using the processor. I have AVG anti virus, Diskeeper 2008, and several other programs that work in the background along with Microsoft's own "housekeeping", and quad core allows all this to go on without missing a beat. Since 4 gig of ram is not too expensive today, that should be the minimum to keep a smooth running computer. I enjoy using my new desktop more than any other computer that I have ever had, and that goes back to 1984. Additionally, I am using 1676 meg of my available memory, so there is always plenty in reserve. Not much swap file activity with that much ram.
because you can easily OC it to the stock clock of duo and still have 2 cores to spare AND shops are shedding it for 10-15% less. Now if you can squeeze your budget for daily essentials, get the Q9450.
just for info - the 9450 has a multilier of 8 - if you really want to oc - then get the 9550 which has a 9x multiplier.
not sure what the price differential is but its a beter proposition if oclocking is your game.
bang for the buck
I tested some heavy duty graphics apps with a duo 3G and a quad 2.4G.
The apps all used only 2 cores and the 3G duo outperformed the 2.4G quad and was cheaper.
These were 3d visual simulation apps on 4 Dell Precisions with a geforce 8800GT 512M connected to 42" lcd 1080i tv's and 3 gigs of ram running xp pro.
amd is better
well i m using amd athlon right now n i think even u shud think abt using amd over intel...duo or quad..its faster in every aspect over intel...there is a comparison between all processors (amd and intel) on cnet...check it out...
depend on wht apps u basically use. mostly all video editing apps (new 1s) are usually multi-threaded i.e. the programs are written to use multiple cores. games however are not. so u land wu with this ugly problem of your pc/mac using only one core for single-threaded apps. killing performance to a great extend. so decide properly. Quake III Arena?s r_smp variable is 1 in very small field of games that are actually multi-threaded for multiple cores.
so end point;
games (most of them): core duo.
video edit : quad core.
I bought the duo
I had a choice between the duo and the quad, where they were exactly the same price.
I bought the duo, because it's faster per core. In my experience doing all kinds of things, I find it incredibly difficult to use the full capability of both cores. Usually, things are single-threaded, or the CPU is so fast that the hard disk can't keep up with both cores; you end off with the processor maxing out at 70%, and the rest of the CPU time it is waiting for data.
With a quad core, single-threaded tasks will perform slower.
Even if you have two cores running at 70% each, a good operating system should still be able to keep the background tasks responsive with the remaining 30% of the CPU capacity. Not sure if Windows counts as a "good operating system" :-P If you're not utilising the rest of that 30%, then having more cores to spread those background tasks around will not help.
You might want to look at some real-world benchmarks between Intel and AMD processors, as you might find that the gap between them is smaller when you're talking about things that involve a lot of throughput.
Q6600 is best in all scenarios re: 32-bit, 64-bit, or over-clocking. The Q6600 has the best performance and scalability. With the more even playing field of 32-bit mode, the Q6600 is still better, maybe not by allot but it is better. I use the Q6600 for gaming, and I will use it for editing in the future. I have four CPUs waiting to service my apps - life is good!
If you don't believe me check the benchmark sources such as Passmark.