• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Any negatives with a quad core?

R

Rusky

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
380
I'm thinking of getting a 2.4ghz quad, other than apps not taking the fullest advantage of the quad, are there any negatives about it I should know about?
 
The Yorkfields don't overclock very well compared to Wolfdales. If you're into overclocking.
 
Rusky said:
Nope, will use it as is.
Click to expand...

Then, there aren't any 'negatives' that make it worse then a dual core, as Intels quads are just two dual cores on one die. The 'negative' is that to achieve this they downclock the quads. So, they tend to be slower (as in they aren't clocked as high as the dual core). They are also more expensive.

I'm not trying to disuade you, but the only two negatives are price, and slower clocks. This doesn't make them bad, or any worse then a dual core, it just depends what you want to use it for and such.
 
A couple of things.
They run warmer, so make sure you have good cooling.
They put more stress on the system bus due to having 4 cores so they can be kinda flaky/picky when you overclock them.(More sensitive to stability issues) If that makes sense.

Good things.
4 Cores
4 Cores
4 Cores
4 Cores..........;)
 
They are more expensive and run at a slower clock speed, stock, than their dual core siblings. But as mentioned, yorkfield quads are just 2 wolfdale duals dropped on one package (same as kentsfield/conroe was).

E8500 costs the same as a Q6600 but has a clockspeed 33% faster. Id say go for the Q6600 and run a 1333 or 1600Mhz FSB, but thats just me.
 
1) programs that cannot take advantage of multiple cores (which is still a good majority today) will run slower on a 2.2GHz quad than it would on a 3GHz dual core.
2) a quad core is only suggested if you have programs such as photoshop and programs that actually make use of all 4 cores, otherwise the faster dual core (like E8400 or better) will handle everything much better (for now)...
 
GLSauron said:
They are more expensive and run at a slower clock speed, stock, than their dual core siblings. But as mentioned, yorkfield quads are just 2 wolfdale duals dropped on one package (same as kentsfield/conroe was).

E8500 costs the same as a Q6600 but has a clockspeed 33% faster. Id say go for the Q6600 and run a 1333 or 1600Mhz FSB, but thats just me.
Click to expand...

So with you on that, Q6700 @ 3.33Ghz Clock & 1333Mhz FSB, the only reasons I don't run it at 1600Mhz FSB is I have a room that tends to warm up (I need to be able to sleep there) and I would want a fan on my north bridge sink.
 
asiandunn30 said:
are the 45nm quad significantly cooler than 65nm quad
Click to expand...

Not significantly, but it's a moot point since neither type runs particularly hot in the first place. The main benefit of a 45nm quad is the 10-15% performance per clock improvement, and the higher overclockability. SSE4.1 is also a nice perk, although it isn't widespread yet so it isn't too important right now.
 
Atech said:
Only thing negativ is that there are not 8 cores :p
Click to expand...

This is my thinking on the subject.

Technically there are no negatives. Just about any Core2 processor is going to fit the needs of just about everyone and having 4 cores instead of 2 will help out in applications that use them or depending on how you multitask.

 
Rusky said:
I'm thinking of getting a 2.4ghz quad, other than apps not taking the fullest advantage of the quad, are there any negatives about it I should know about?
Click to expand...
There are a few negatives.

1. Lower clock speed. This effects you in several ways. First, considering there is not a single game in existence that properly utilizes 4 cores, you'll be losing performance here. You can either run a game on 3GHZ dual core, or a 2.4GHZ dual core, which is essentially what your getting if you put a quad in a system you game on because games will only use 2 cores.

2. You're not 'future proofing' yourself any way by buying a quad core right now because by the time enough any games come out that truly utilize a quad core, there will be a much better quad, for less money, available. Buying a quad now, for the future, is like buying a Pentium D back in 2005, for the future. Games are using dual cores now, so it's better to buy a modern dual core.

3. Vista/XP does some 'minor' threading assistance by attempting to assist and prioritizes minor applications between cores. But if you load up 4 CPU intensive applications that are not quad core optimized, you're not going to get 4 cores with equal load like some people want you to believe. You may get some 'spikies' on the 3rd and 4th core, but unless your 1st and 2nd core are under heavy load, your not gaining anything. There is software available that you can set up to launch when you come in to windows. You can set up in this software what programs you want and what cpu core you want them to have affinity too. If you take the time, you could buy a quad, and use this software to manually set what core you want what programs to run on, say if you use chat or voice chat software while gaming. It's call Process Lasso.

Here's a quote right from AnandTech regarding this topic.

The argument for dual and quad core processors remains relatively unchanged with Vista. For multitaskers and many CPU-intensive workloads, a dual core CPU makes perfect sense. Vista doesn't make the argument for dual or quad core any more compelling than XP in our opinion; the additional background tasks that run in Vista that weren't present in XP don't really eat up that much CPU time to begin with, so dedicating an entire core to them isn't necessary.

The new applications in Vista don't appear to be any more threaded than XP, despite Vista being heralded as the beginning of a highly threaded future. Microsoft Word remains single threaded, although Excel can now take advantage of multiple cores when performing calculations. Windows Movie Maker seems to be optimized for two cores, while importing and attaching files in Photo Gallery is surprisingly single threaded. Dual core still makes a big difference in the overall experience, while quad core still isn't necessary but remains useful for a handful of situations.
Click to expand...

*edit* I've found some information that Supreme Commander and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (via in game setting), have impressive Quad-Core results.

3.1 Do not underestimate the multi-tasking of a core 2 duo. I've seen a lot of people talk about buying quads core 'multi tasking'. See #3. Dual cores, mostly the 8 series, are extremely powerful and share loads well.

4. Runs hotter. 4 cores will run warmer than just 2, but with proper cooling this shouldn't be that much of an issue unless you want to OC.

Basically, if your using Video Rendering software, Photo Shop or another application that is designed for multi-core or dual processor systems (high end workstations/servers) more than you play games, then yes buy a quad. If you mostly game or browse the web mostly, then you won't need a quad for a few years and are better off with a significantly faster dual core.

There are 2 exceptions to my remarks though.

1. The new q9650 quad is @ 3ghz and would compare to the e8400/e8500 for everything because even if you only use 1-2 cores, it's still 3ghz and the same core as the fast dual cores. It would be a better chip obviously for the times you do need more than 2 cores. But you're going to pay over $300 for it and it's not even out yet.

2. The new Core i7 chips coming out are bringing back Hyperthreading. Basically the i7 quads are going to be a logical 8 core CPU. What would be nice is grabbing the i7 Dual-Core, which would be 2 cores but have 2 logical cores, so it would show 4 under the task manager. Reason I like this is because Hyperthreading is a CPU level threading procedure where no software coding is needed. The cpu itself runs 2 threads on the same core w/o any software telling it to do so. You're going to see big gains from that. Now consider you have 2 cores doing that. Since most games are now dual core threaded, your going to see those dual threads split again, but actually be fully used by the CPU. The quad variant of this chip will be even better, but again, unless your using software made for it, those extra 2(4) cores won't get much work, just the primary 2(4).
 
bigdogchris said:
There are a few negatives.

1. Lower clock speed. This effects you in several ways. First, considering there is not a single game in existence that properly utilizes 4 cores, you'll be losing performance here. You can either run a game on 3GHZ dual core, or a 2.4GHZ dual core, which is essentially what your getting if you put a quad in a system you game on because games will only use 2 cores.
Click to expand...

False:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw4LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Thats 1, you conclusion is false.
(Supreme Commander)
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3660-view-Crysis-multi-core-optimization.html
Thats 2, you conslusions is now down the drain.
(Crysis)
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4
That 3s, you cleary need to rewrite your post now.
(Unreal engine 3)

And this test might open the eyes on those people screaming "more GHz is more important than cores":
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=5
 
Kangg said:
A couple of things.
They run warmer, so make sure you have good cooling.
They put more stress on the system bus due to having 4 cores so they can be kinda flaky/picky when you overclock them.(More sensitive to stability issues) If that makes sense.

Good things.
4 Cores
4 Cores
4 Cores
4 Cores..........;)
Click to expand...

He's not overclocking, so good cooling isn't even necessary. Stock cooling will be more than adequate at stock speeds. That's one less negative. ;)
 
bigdogchris said:
1. Lower clock speed. This effects you in several ways. First, considering there is not a single game in existence that properly utilizes 4 cores, you'll be losing performance here.
Click to expand...

It depends on the game and resolution you're playing on. Once you start playing at above 1280x1024 or so, you become more GPU limited than CPU limited. In fact at 1680x1050 with most games, you'll see absolutely no difference between the 3GHz E8400 and 2.4Ghz Q6600. Not that many games will see a performance increase with an increase in clock speed. But I will concede that many games will not see a performance increase with an increase in amount of cores.

So if you are playing games at 1024x768, then by all means get the E8400 or dual core CPU. But if you start playing around 1280x1024 and above, neither CPU will have a major advantage over the other in many games.

Proof for my argument:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
 
Danny Bui said:
It depends on the game and resolution you're playing on. Once you start playing at above 1280x1024 or so, you become more GPU limited than CPU limited. In fact at 1680x1050 with most games, you'll see absolutely no difference between the 3GHz E8400 and 2.4Ghz Q6600. Not that many games will see a performance increase with an increase in clock speed. But I will concede that many games will not see a performance increase with an increase in amount of cores.

So if you are playing games at 1024x768, then by all means get the E8400 or dual core CPU. But if you start playing around 1280x1024 and above, neither CPU will have a major advantage over the other in many games.

Proof for my argument:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
Click to expand...

No Supreme Comamnder in that "review" makes it incomplete.
 
Most processors nowadays are so fast in everyday apps, that a quad core like the Q6600 at that speed will be fast enough for anything that you want to do. You are loosing 600MHz compared with the dual core. While this sounds like a lot, in reality, it isn't. Instead, you are getting an extra two cores, which you will find really helpful if you multitask a lot.
 
lamboman said:
Most processors nowadays are so fast in everyday apps, that a quad core like the Q6600 at that speed will be fast enough for anything that you want to do. You are loosing 600MHz compared with the dual core. While this sounds like a lot, in reality, it isn't. Instead, you are getting an extra two cores, which you will find really helpful if you multitask a lot.
Click to expand...

Or running a game that support dual-core...you then got 2 cores for windows-service and other apps and 2 cores for the game...stu-tu-ttuer-free ;)
 
Lets not forget that stat for stat the quad is a better overall multitasker. ie:

E8400: 3.0Ghz w/ 6mb L2 cache
Q6600: 2.4Ghz w/ 8mb L2 cache

3.0Ghz x 2 = 6Ghz processing power
2.4Ghz x 4 = 9.6Ghz processing power

Yeah, the 8400 eats less power and has a higher overlcocking potential, but if I'm going to be running COD4 while alt-tabbing out to my email, Excel spreadsheet, several instances of IE and some other junk I'd rather have the quad.
 
HydroBudz said:
Yeah, the 8400 eats less power and has a higher overlcocking potential, but if I'm going to be running COD4 while alt-tabbing out to my email, Excel spreadsheet, several instances of IE and some other junk I'd rather have the quad.
Click to expand...

I never really appreciate this until I actually did the alt+tab thing.
 
The Q9650 is out.
Newegg got them yesterday, currently 81 of them in stock.
Yes, it is way more than $300.

I bought one, and it will be delivered today.
Stepping E0.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130

A "pinch" pricey, but it should do me fine for a year.


bigdogchris said:
...

There are 2 exceptions to my remarks though.

1. The new q9650 quad is @ 3ghz and would compare to the e8400/e8500 for everything because even if you only use 1-2 cores, it's still 3ghz and the same core as the fast dual cores. It would be a better chip obviously for the times you do need more than 2 cores. But you're going to pay over $300 for it and it's not even out yet...
Click to expand...
 
Pros:
4 cores... more power than you should ever need
can encode videos like crazy
on apps that are (properly) multi-threaded you get nearly double the performance of a dual core

Cons:
run hotter
use more electricity ($)
not many apps are multithreaded
don't overclock as high as dual cores
lower performance in non-threaded apps, b/c of lower Mhz than most dual core chips
 
bigdogchris said:
Reason I like this is because Hyperthreading is a CPU level threading procedure where no software coding is needed. The cpu itself runs 2 threads on the same core w/o any software telling it to do so. You're going to see big gains from that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Thread-to-core assignment is done entirely through the OS, even with Hyperthreading. All it does is that it makes the OS see two logical cores for each physical core. Hyperthreading by nature is inferior to native multi-core CPUs because it's basically squishing two threads into one core. Depending on the length of the instructions being fed to each core at any given time, Hyperthreading can potentially have absolutely no performance benefits if the pipeline is being saturated by a single thread.

I suggest you go read up a little about HT before you go around telling more people that it's better than having real distinct cores.
 
HydroBudz said:
3.0Ghz x 2 = 6Ghz processing power
2.4Ghz x 4 = 9.6Ghz processing power
Click to expand...
Sarcasm?

Each core is clocked at that specific frequency, you can't multiply them together to get a mega frequency. If the software isn't multithreaded, it'll be the same (more or less) as running it on a single core chip at the same frequency.
 
Quad cores are great.

Windows NT was designed in the early 90s as a multiprocessor OS - having multiple CPUs on one chip is fairly new but Windows NT->XP->Vista have been designed to make good use of multiple CPUs for over 15 years. The OS doesn't just do some trivial amount of thread shuffling if you happen to have 2 or 4 CPUs, it's designed from the ground up to effectively utilize multiple CPUs and it does this really well on a quad core chip.

Reading up on Windows architecture may help to understand why 4 CPUs is such a wonderful thing:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/winarch.mspx?mfr=true

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/training/ntarchitectoview/ntarc_4.mspx?mfr=true

(see the Processes section of this bit)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/evaluate/featfunc/windowsn.mspx#EPC

You'll notice some of this is quite old but all that multiple CPU stuff still applies today. Ie. multiple CPUs are NOT new to the OS you are probably running.

Four CPUs will make your OS have a shiny coat and strong teeth - you should get 4 CPUs for your OS today.
 
gwai lo said:
Sarcasm?

Each core is clocked at that specific frequency, you can't multiply them together to get a mega frequency.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Multiplying them together depicts the total processing power of that chip. If that wasn't the case there would be no point to going multicore. We'd be seeing snglecore chips soaring into the 6-10Ghz range. Think "Supercomputer". When IBM builds a supercomputer do they say it has 3Ghz of processing power because each CPU is rated at 3Ghz? No, they total up the processing power of however many 10's of thousands of processors are in the thing.

If the software isn't multithreaded, it'll be the same (more or less) as running it on a single core chip at the same frequency.
Click to expand...

Even if the software is not multithreaded Windows will thread the app, to an extent, between all available CPU's. The more tasks being loaded in Windows the more it deligates between the CPU's. This has been standard in Windows since NT. ie: when I load Winamp, or any other singlethreaded app, all 4 cores in my machine register the requests, not just 1. Albeit after the initial request and load that singlethreaded app will only tax 1 core as it was designed to do.
 
Okay I think we both understand the concept, you're just stating it funny. You'd be surprised how many people have called their dual cores 6 GHz chips before..
 
I use my PC for gaming, in addition to a whole lot of other tasks. Having two extra cores has helped me more than I thought it would. It is not uncommon for me at all to be playing a game with virtual PC running and I always have outlook open, checking for mail every 5 minutes from 5 or 6 different accounts and my windows sidebar is always on with 5 or 6 gadgets on my secondary monitor. Being a computer geek, I also like to keep task manager opened as well as monitor my GPU and CPU temps on the secondary monitor while playing games. Now all these little things here and there may not take up very many cpu cycles, but when you're playing that may not scale well to 4 cores but can easily max out two, having an additional 2 really helps to keep things running without interruption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top