Are you Quad Cored Processors fully matured yet?

[maverick786us]

I am planning to upgrade my old fading Pentium D rig (not mentioned in my sig) with a good over clocking Quad Core processor by Feb - March 2010.

I think the time of dual cores is over. Quad cores provide more room, so that I can run virus scanning or burn a DVD while playing heavy games like crysis.

E8400 (my other rig) is a very good processor, with good over clocking capabilities and it remains cool and quiet. I am looking for a similar kind of performance with a quad core now. I need advise from you gentlemen

1) The first generation quad core processors QX6XXX were good, however they required a lot of heavy duty to over clock them and they generate a lot of heat.

2) Core i7 920 came up with a whole new architecture, It is a good over clocking processor, requires less effort compared to QX6XXX for over clocking, however the heat issue is still there with it.

3) Lynnfield processors looks bit cool and quiet because of less TDP they need. However it'll be more tested as time goes by.

After reading through numerous threads in this message board, I am tempted towards LGA1366 platform, although I have yet to finalize it because of budget constraint. The upcoming Core i 7 i930 looks good. But I was bit disappointed, when I saw that it requires the same amount of TDP (130 W) as its predecessor i920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors#.22Bloomfield.22_.2845_nm.29

Which means it might generate the same amount of heat as its predecessors. So in terms of heat, do I expect something positive from the upcoming Quads? Or will it take some more time for Quad Cores to fully mature, just like dual cores have matured with Wolfdale??

I mainly use PCs for gaming, heavy video streaming and other heavy multi-tasking applications

 

[knothead34]

that font is killing mah eyes.......make it stop arrrghhh.

 

[maverick786us]

I seriously apologize for this repeated post. there is something wrong with my internet settings. While posting previously it logged me out and didn't show in the intel section. So I has to re-write it .

I would request administrator to delete my previous thread

 

[dr.stevil]

I mainly use PCs for gaming, heavy video streaming and other heavy multi-tasking applications

all quad cores are going to generate more heat than their dual and single core counterparts. However, as long as you don't go too nuts with the OC, it will hold up just fine... just get a good 3rd party cooler and forget about it

as for which chip to go with, just get whatever's cheaper. At this point, it's probably worth it to go with an i7/i5, however, the old C2Q (lga775) are no slouches and should remain relevant for a few more years at least (until 6 and 8 cores hit the consumer market). Besides, you might be able to score a hell of a deal from someone that upgraded to an i7/i5 setup

which ever way you decide to go, you'll be happy... especially coming from a D chip

 

[Menelmarar]

Even the original Q6600 from Intel overclocked quite well. WTF are you talking about, mature? They have always been "mature". Obviously they will use power and produce heat, they are 4 CPU cores inside of them! That's just common sense. You can't through the laws of nature/physics out the window. That's simply a lot of transistors.

What heat issues? You use decent modern chassis, the included intel heatsink/fan or an upgraded aftermarket and you won't have issues.

The Core2 architecture, is miles ahead of the P4 architecture, even a dual-core Core2 would be a considerable upgrade for you.

The Core i5/i7 LGA1156 platform is really appealing these days.

 

[maverick786us]

I didn't get this quite well. Quad cores require more power, I understand that. But having extra 2 cores means less load on to CPU. So when the load is less, the temprature should be low

 

[Menelmarar]

I didn't get this quite well. Quad cores require more power, but having extra 2 cores means less load on to CPU. So when the load is less, the temprature should be low

Load will not be less, it *may* only be loaded for less time. Couple of examples assuming identical CPU cores where only difference is dual-core and quad-core configuration. (e.g.E6600 and Q6600)

Single threaded app: In both CPUs the app will fully load one core, the extras remain idle. The quad core has 2 additional idle cores over the dual-core which while not fully active will consume some power. More energy is used, and thus dissipated.

Multi-threaded app: Dual core, fully loads itself, finishes task in X amount of time where some threads are trying to share cores. Quad-core, fully loads itself, but there less sharing of threads on cores, more dedicated cores to do the processing. So the task finishes in X - Y time. During the process, more power is used because 4 cores instead of 2 are utilized, it just takes less time. It's more time-efficient.

 

[Flexion]

With regards to the TDP of the chips. These are estimated. Technically the 930 should be above a 920, because it's the same chip, just different microcoding. A new stepping isn't going to reduce the TDP significantly.

With regards to "maturing" I don't really follow... The chips are what they are... The heat problems are from overclocking to 4.0GHz... A mild OC and stock i7 will actually run quite cool. Seeing that the OP has their E8400 at 3.6GHz and didn't go for the holy grail 4.0GHz, I seem to think he'll be happy with a 3.6GHz on the i7...

If you mean power management by "mature" the i7 actually does a better job of managing power than previous Intel processors. Too much to go through in discussion thread. A couple of Google sessions should do the OP good...

 

[maverick786us]

Penitum Ds were first dual core processors. Just like P4 they used to generate a lot of heat and thier speed per clock was low. That time dual core processing wasen't maturing and still evolving.


It was revolutionary Core 2 Duo processors, which changed the course of dual cores by being very good overclockers, they were faster, less power consumption and overall cool and quiet. Thats what I meant by maturity.

 

[Flexion]

Penitum Ds were first dual core processors. Just like P4 they used to generate a lot of heat and thier speed per clock was low. That time dual core processing wasen't maturing and still evolving.


It was revolutionary Core 2 Duo processors, which changed the course of dual cores by being very good overclockers, they were faster, less power consumption and overall cool and quiet. Overall C2Ds matured the dual core processing

The smithfield was based on two prescott cores... The Prescotts were terribly designed with regards to efficiency. They were nicknamed PressHOTs for that reason.

The core 2 duo was a new chip designed from the ground up, it was a true dual core, the core 2 quad had the same arrangement as the Pentium Ds in that they were two core 2 duos slapped together. However, this time around, since the core 2 duos were designed with efficiency and maximum IPC (instructions per clock) in mind, these quad chips did quite well.

The i7 nehalem architecture quad cores are another evolutionary step. There are 4 cores designed on the same CPU die. Moreover, the memory controller is now integrated on the CPU die as well. The differences in the LGA1366 and LGA1156 lie in the uncore parts of the chip. (uncore is the mem controller, QPI or PCIe interface, etc.)

In a nutshell, the TDP of a Pentium D dual core at many times runs just as hot as a quad core i7... Both are 130 watts TDP.

 

[sethk]

all quad cores are going to generate more heat than their dual and single core counterparts. However, as long as you don't go too nuts with the OC, it will hold up just fine... just get a good 3rd party cooler and forget about it

as for which chip to go with, just get whatever's cheaper. At this point, it's probably worth it to go with an i7/i5, however, the old C2Q (lga775) are no slouches and should remain relevant for a few more years at least (until 6 and 8 cores hit the consumer market). Besides, you might be able to score a hell of a deal from someone that upgraded to an i7/i5 setup

which ever way you decide to go, you'll be happy... especially coming from a D chip

While a quad core will put out more heat than a dual core of the same generation,those Pentium D chips (basically two Pentium 4s dies on a package) put out a lot of heat. A modern quad core is more efficient and runs cooler. The i7 / i5 can be made to run pretty cool, especially if you don't go crazy with the overclocks.

The next big drop in heat output for quad core will come with the quad core Clarkdale variant (whatever that's called), 32nm will help. I believe that's still a ways out though, and it will be expensive when it launches compared to the maturing 45nm chips.

 

[extide]

NOTE: A 45nm Core 2 QUAD uses about the same amount of power (or less in some case) as a SINGLE CORE P4 PRESCOTT!!

Think about that one for a second! Kinda neat lil bit of info there.

 

[maleficarus]

You think the time for dual cores is over? Heck even single core procs have there places even today.

"Quad cores provide more room, so that I can run virus scanning or burn a DVD while playing heavy games like crysis."

I've never understood this mantality to be honest. Why would you need to be checking for viruses while playing a video game anyways? Or for that matter burning a DVD? This would be like eating a big Mac combo while taking a shower with the football game running in the back ground....geez.....

 

[GotNoRice]

I've never understood this mantality to be honest. Why would you need to be checking for viruses while playing a video game anyways? Or for that matter burning a DVD? This would be like eating a big Mac combo while taking a shower with the football game running in the back ground....geez.....

Most modern anti-virus and anti-malware apps do background scanning nearly all the time even without any user intervention, so while most people don't initiate a manual scan and then start up a video game, I'd imagine the number of people who have background scans running while they game is actually quite high. These days even Automatic Windows Updates can peg a core as it scans for updates in the background.

I know that when I transcode my fraps videos into Xvid that for some of the longer videos it can take upwards of an hour. I don't want to have to sit there and twiddle my thumbs the whole time. But even with the transcoding app fully loading down two cores, I can fire up a game and it runs just like normal.

 

[hardware_failure]

Unfortunately, in a majority of typical PC environments, extensive and efficient multithreaded operations just isnt mainstream yet.

I think you would be a bit disappointed if you did a blind test of "gaming, heavy video streaming and other heavy multi-tasking applications" on 2 nearly identical setups, one with dual core one with quad core.

Video editing/encoding could be a big exception, but the amount of people that actually do that on a regular basis is a small percentage of the mass.

 

[Flexion]

I've never understood this mantality to be honest. Why would you need to be checking for viruses while playing a video game anyways? Or for that matter burning a DVD? This would be like eating a big Mac combo while taking a shower with the football game running in the back ground....geez.....

Though I really like your analogy (it is quite entertaining imagining eating fast food, while showering and watching football) and it's something that I would really want to try in real life. It's not really a good example for the OP. It's more like running on the treadmill, watching TV, while doing the laundry. hahahaha....

Most modern anti-virus and anti-malware apps do background scanning nearly all the time even without any user intervention, so while most people don't initiate a manual scan and then start up a video game, I'd imagine the number of people who have background scans running while they game is actually quite high. These days even Automatic Windows Updates can peg a core as it scans for updates in the background.

I know that when I transcode my fraps videos into Xvid that for some of the longer videos it can take upwards of an hour. I don't want to have to sit there and twiddle my thumbs the whole time. But even with the transcoding app fully loading down two cores, I can fire up a game and it runs just like normal.

+1. We're at the dawn of having one computer to do this and one to do that... It just doesn't make sense doing things like that, having the power of these modern CPUs, but we're also at that point where not all modern CPUs will proverbially "do all this in their sleep". A quad won't get bogged down the same way a dual will and a dual won't get bogged down the same way a single core will.

 

[fishrule]

In day to day use quad core in my opinion is unquestionably better than dual core. I can actually leave a filter rendering in Photoshop and browse the web at the same time while I wait for it. I know most gamers run barebones Windows installs and disable antivirus before they play games, but I personally NEVER shut off my antivirus scanner. At this point in time unless your budget is severely restricted I think quad cores are the best choice for a new desktop build.

When I upgraded from a 3.06 ghz Northwood P4 to a Q6600 I was nearly left in tears at the difference in smoothness. Oh yes the Core 2 was faster overall, but it was obvious how much more leeway the extra cores gave me in multitasking. At the moment with games the biggest jump is from single to dual core, with diminishing returns after that. But even now games like GTA4 are taking advantage of multithreading.

I know some people like to have multiple rigs, each one doing specific things. I personally have never owned more than two computers at any given time (a laptop and desktop) and the laptop is usually just for Torrents to save on my electric bill.

 

[Suprfire]

You think the time for dual cores is over? Heck even single core procs have there places even today.

"Quad cores provide more room, so that I can run virus scanning or burn a DVD while playing heavy games like crysis."

I've never understood this mantality to be honest. Why would you need to be checking for viruses while playing a video game anyways? Or for that matter burning a DVD? This would be like eating a big Mac combo while taking a shower with the football game running in the back ground....geez.....

While i do agree that single and dual cores still have their "place" (ahem, htpc, spare rig, budget build)...

-Virus scans are usually automated... so you don't "need" to be doing anything.
-Burning a a full single layer dvd @ 4x can take up to 15 minutes - you going to sit there and watch it? i would play a game. ...but of course, i am a gamer. i don't know a gamer who would just sit there and go on youtube or something while he could be playing his favorite intensive game.

and your analogy is highly exaggerated.

and then i actually read the first part of your post, then i read the rig in your sig.
and all i can say is... lolumad?

anyways...sorry.

 

[extide]

and then i actually read the first part of your post, then i read the rig in your sig.
and all i can say is... lolumad?

Dude, take it easy, his system isn't terrible or anything, it would suit most people's needs just fine. I could even survive on it for a while if it had fast disks.

 

[flogge]

I'll see your budget restrictions and raise you a triple core AMD. Intel makes some great products, but if your on the fence about dual or quad, check out the AM3 720 BE. Typical overclocks in the range of 3.4-3.7. TDP is about 90W and they only cost $120-$135. You don't have to buy a LGA1366 mobo and triple-channel memory to use it either. I consider the Phenom II to be pretty "mature" as far as power consumption and they are a single-die 4-core. If your lucky you might even get one that unlocks to a 4-core.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Q6600's run warm, so do I7's. A I7 on stock will run up in the 70's or 80's loaded.

 

[maverick786us]

Q6600's run warm, so do I7's. A I7 on stock will run up in the 70's or 80's loaded.

With core i 7 I will definately ditch stock cooling and go for TRUE.

 

[aamsel]

While i do agree that single and dual cores still have their "place" (ahem, htpc, spare rig, budget build)...

-Virus scans are usually automated... so you don't "need" to be doing anything.
-Burning a a full single layer dvd @ 4x can take up to 15 minutes - you going to sit there and watch it? i would play a game. ...but of course, i am a gamer. i don't know a gamer who would just sit there and go on youtube or something while he could be playing his favorite intensive game.

and your analogy is highly exaggerated.

and then i actually read the first part of your post, then i read the rig in your sig.
and all i can say is... lolumad?

anyways...sorry.

Quite interesting.
I have another thread going:
http://hardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1465874
where I asked a question based exactly on this scenario.
Basically, for anyone that had gone from single to dual to quad core, did they notice that the lag went away that I get surfing the web while burning a DVD. I do feel it on my E8600 and it is running at 4.1GHz, with temps as cool as ice cream.

I have added an SSD, and most of this is now gone, but I am still wondering how much difference any quad would make, even a Q9550.

I don't do that much that is really demanding, and don't game, but burning a DVD while surfing has bugged me for a long time!

Q6600's run warm, so do I7's. A I7 on stock will run up in the 70's or 80's loaded.

How warm does a Q9550 run at close to 4GHz compared to a 920 or an 860?

 

[firas]

Are you Quad Cored Processors fully matured yet?

the question should be: are duo cored processors fully dead yet?

How warm does a Q9550 run at close to 4GHz compared to a 920 or an 860?

The first generation quad core processors QX6XXX were good, however they required a lot of heavy duty to over clock them and they generate a lot of heat.

not a good example because I’m using a generic case and one of the worst CPU coolers in the market.
heavy duty to OC them?!
OCing mine was so easy that I never knew the best bios settings I should use, because everything just worked. it ran at 3.6 under stock volts and when I decided to go 3.8 I just raised the CPU volt 3 or 4 notches, I’m sure 4.0 will be easy but my temps doesn’t really help.

 

[Painman]

I'm sitting here on a 775 platform and looking at 1156/1366... I know that one is meant to be mainstream and the other meant to be for power, but I don't like the split. It's a weird gambit on the part of Intel. How to predict the lifespan of either platform?

775 may be a dead end, but who's to say that a late adopter that doesn't crave absolute power won't get years of use from it. Cheap mobo, cheap DDR2 RAM, Q9xxx proc. That would blow the doors off of a P4D setup in every way possible (and some ways that are impossible) and not cost a hell of a lot. In the meantime, you sit tight, enjoying your PC, and let the next gen shake itself out.

We got triple and quad cores everywhere and we're trying to figure out what to occupy them with. It's almost like i386 all over again... wow, 32 bits. What're we gonna do with them?

OP, if you're not a big time power user, then I wouldn't hesitate about upgrading to last-gen quad tech as long as it's still plentiful and cheap. It'll last you a good while, and you'll be in the catbird seat while the current tech, and the market, makes its corrections.

 

[Tbird87]

That PentiumD system needs thrown out the window if you care that much about TDP.

You throw the word maturity around too loosely. You state the wolfdale matured the dual core, then you also say the conroe was mature because it was revolutionary.

The performance per watt you get with the i7s or i5s is extremely good. The TRUE should tame the beast pretty good. I just don't see the point in labeling things "mature" because they just use less power. If a new cpu can performs better and uses the same power, I think that's an nice improvement. Same thing with "the time of dual cores are over", you don't really have to worry about that either since you are only getting quad flavors with the new platforms.

But if you still want a more "mature" cpu, a die shrink to 32nm is probably what you should wait for. I would just buy whatever because they are extremely efficient for the horsepower they put out.

 

[maverick786us]

I am a power user and I am looking for a quad core good for gaming and other high end multiple purpose applications. So I will look at a setup that should be future proof for atleast 3-4 years. I still have time time till Feb-March, my eyes are on 930, lets see how good it performs.

By maturity I mean not the just power consumption, but overall, the amount of heat it generates, the intensity through which it can overclock. An E8400 can easily Overclock to 4.4GHz, but I guess an QX9550 might require some extra effort to reach 4.4GHz and its temprature will be much higher. I might be wrong, but thats what I've seen in the overclocking database.

 

[Menelmarar]

I am a power user and I am looking for a quad core good for gaming and other high end multiple purpose applications. So I will look at a setup that should be future proof for atleast 3-4 years. I still have time time till Feb-March, my eyes are on 930, lets see how good it performs.

By maturity I mean not the just power consumption, but overall, the amount of heat it generates, the intensity through which it can overclock. An E8400 can easily Overclock to 4.4GHz, but I guess an QX9550 might require some extra effort to reach 4.4GHz and its temprature will be much higher. I might be wrong, but thats what I've seen in the overclocking database.

How can you expect otherwise. The later obviously has near double the transistors. It almost sounds as if you you are equating"maturity" with "defies common sense and the laws of physics"?

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Quite interesting.
I have another thread going:
http://hardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1465874
where I asked a question based exactly on this scenario.
Basically, for anyone that had gone from single to dual to quad core, did they notice that the lag went away that I get surfing the web while burning a DVD. I do feel it on my E8600 and it is running at 4.1GHz, with temps as cool as ice cream.

I have added an SSD, and most of this is now gone, but I am still wondering how much difference any quad would make, even a Q9550.

I don't do that much that is really demanding, and don't game, but burning a DVD while surfing has bugged me for a long time!



How warm does a Q9550 run at close to 4GHz compared to a 920 or an 860?

Um....the I7 should run alittle cooler, simply because of the lower voltage. But honestly, not much. The Q6600/9550 and a i7 will run similar heat out put stock hs/f or on a TRUE.

 

[Flexion]

I am a power user and I am looking for a quad core good for gaming and other high end multiple purpose applications. So I will look at a setup that should be future proof for atleast 3-4 years. I still have time time till Feb-March, my eyes are on 930, lets see how good it performs.

By maturity I mean not the just power consumption, but overall, the amount of heat it generates, the intensity through which it can overclock. An E8400 can easily Overclock to 4.4GHz, but I guess an QX9550 might require some extra effort to reach 4.4GHz and its temprature will be much higher. I might be wrong, but thats what I've seen in the overclocking database.

OP, the 930 is going to be the same chip as a 920. It may see a stepping change from D0 to E0, who knows? Anyways, you're looking at possibly slightly better OC performance? Again, that's also up in the air. There are D0s that currently don't OC as well.

With regards to reaching actual numbers, the computing experience on an i7 920 between 4.0GHz and 4.4Ghz may be slight, but if you compare the CPU at stock 2.66 vs 4.0GHz you'll notice a big jump.

4.4GHz is typically reserved for benching runs, but to actually run your CPU at that frequency without speedstep is bananas, given how much power it'll pull even at idle.

 

[aamsel]

It seems like there is also something to be said for the maturity of the chip itself.
Please correct any/all of this that is wrong:

The i7 860 and i5 750 are new, and these are the first runs of these chips.
The i7 920 at D0 is more matured, and INTEL has refined the yield, so they run cooler at higher frequencies.
The Q9550 (although slower) at E0 is even more matured, the yield is even more refined, and it runs even cooler at higher frequencies.

As someone running an ultra-cool E8600 E0, there seems to be more value and refinement from these chips produced later in the production process. Isn't that correct?

And if so, does that not add value to staying with socket 775 and going with a Q9550 E0?

 

[maverick786us]

Um....the I7 should run alittle cooler, simply because of the lower voltage. But honestly, not much. The Q6600/9550 and a i7 will run similar heat out put stock hs/f or on a TRUE.

Good to hear that. I read somewhere in this messageboard that I7 gets even more hotter than Q6XXX because of Hyperthreading. Maybe we can disable hyperthreading to lower down the temprature, but then HT is equally good for multi-tasking i guess. It might not be benifical for gaming

 

[Flexion]

Good to hear that. I read somewhere in this messageboard that I7 gets even more hotter than Q6XXX because of Hyperthreading. Maybe we can disable hyperthreading to lower down the temprature, but then HT is equally good for multi-tasking i guess. It might not be benifical for gaming

OP, turning off HT on an i7 = Fail, (somewhat)... I turned off HT on my i7 to OC to 4.5GHz. Turning off HT is good for cooling down your processor, and what it gave me was a little bit more speed in some ways. However, if you do transcode video, you'll notice that the i7 is faster with HT on.