Dual or Quad - what's best bang for the buck?

BoredTiger said:
Rodsfree!!! hahah, I haven't seen a post from you since my old Opty thread :p Good to see your post again! :) I hope this is an indicator of good things to come. I was very pleased with how my Opty turned out and has treated me thus far. Hopefully, your participation in this next build will lead to good things as well :)
Click to expand...


Thanks!
And I'm still running my Opty 165 and DFI Lanparty nF4 UT DR Expert!!
 
Atech said:
You don't game?
(hint: games ARE multithreaded today)
Click to expand...

Dude - I said I game right in my post. Games are multithreaded today yes. That's why I use a DUAL-CORE chip. Show me games that really take advantage of FOUR cores beside about 3 of them that don't matter anyway.

Read the posts.
 
Brahmzy said:
Dude - I said I game right in my post. Games are multithreaded today yes. That's why I use a DUAL-CORE chip. Show me games that really take advantage of FOUR cores beside about 3 of them that don't matter anyway.

Read the posts.
Click to expand...

Do you have benchmarks to prove this? Consider the full processing power of 4*2.4 ghz...its almost double the processing power of 2*3 ghz. I know that even a single process can be spread across multiple cores sometimes, so even if the game designers did not write a heavily threaded app you might still get performance increase from the extra cores. Basically, I think that without a benchmark, there's no way to tell. I don't game too heavily but anyway I would guess that the processor is not the bottleneck in your gaming experience anyway.
 
Stuh505 said:
Do you have benchmarks to prove this? Consider the full processing power of 4*2.4 ghz...its almost double the processing power of 2*3 ghz. I know that even a single process can be spread across multiple cores sometimes, so even if the game designers did not write a heavily threaded app you might still get performance increase from the extra cores. Basically, I think that without a benchmark, there's no way to tell. I don't game too heavily but anyway I would guess that the processor is not the bottleneck in your gaming experience anyway.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure about this but the benchmark that I can remember now is Tom’s test, I think it proved that the slower Quad (@ stock speed) was faster than the faster Duo (@ stock) in running single core apps (Q6600 & E6850) :confused: not in all apps to be objective :) If I was right then a 3600Mhz Quad is faster than a 3600Mhz Duo even at non Quad support apps
 
Get a quad even for day to day usage. You have people here talking about clock speed on a dual core when for day to day usage, and even gaming - you will not notice any difference at all. So for most programs, you will not notice much a difference, if any difference at all. For some multi-threaded programs, there is a large difference. So you can only benefit from having a quad. That, and you'll get more life out of it. And wait for the 45nm.

You never when you'll need the extra power. At first I didn't really "use" mine. Now I've got f@h running which takes 50% of all of my cores, along with 2 virtual machines running in the background at all times. And I'm not seeing any slowdowns. :)
 
BoredTiger said:
Brahmzy,

Which board would you mate the E8500 with, when it comes out?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would not buy anything older than an X38 board. The Intel X38 was built with the Penryn's in mind, not so much with the P35. What does that mean in the real world? I don't know. There are many great P35 boards out there, but now, the P35 is TWO generations behind. The X48 just came out.

I love my ASUS P5E - the ASUS Maximus Formula is another KILLER board.

As far as Dual vs. Quad... I don't think there's a totally right answer. I'm stickin' to my guns on the Dual-Core E8500, but in 10 months I will probably be switching to Nehalam.

What we really need are some real-world gaming benchmarks when the Yorkies and Wolfdales come out - both chips (E8500 & Q9450) at their maximum air OC.
 
Brahmzy hahaha

"what does that mean? I don't know" hahha

Gotta love the frankness :)

I think I'm going to wait for the Q9450 or Q9550 (better multiplier yes?). But then again, my wallet will probably say Q9450 :p hah

I probably won't switch to Nehalem when it comes out, but rather use the Q9450/9550 through the initial phase of Nehalem and then pray to god that mobos will be merciful and allow me to make an affordable upgrade :p

I really appreciate all of your input guys. Now I just have to wait for these damn chips to come out :)
 
rodsfree said:
You really don't get do you???

Windows XP, Vista, 32bit, or 64bit doesn't really support more than 2 cores.

And the only reason it supports 2 cores is that Intel had a multi-year BrainFart called Hyperthreading. Which does not exist on C2D's or Quads.

If you want to really use more than 2 cores you'll have to convert to some *nix distro and start to think about Beowulf clustering. Then you'll have trouble finding apps that will utilize all of that CPU horsepower.

F@H is a special case. It's written from the ground up to utilize ALL of the available computing power. Which very few applications are.
Click to expand...

Where do you get your information from? You say XP or Vista dont support more than 2 cores, yet you say software running on them (F@H) can use them.... do you think F@H somehow works outside the scope of windows to access the processors? All versions of Vista support multiple cores, mabye you meant more than 2 processors? (Business, Ultimate and Enterprise can support 2 physical processors)

"start to think about Beowulf clustering" - again are you crazy? Beowulf is about parallel processing across multiple PC's not multiple cores on a PC
 
Bleh.

Quad core, period.

Anyone that says otherwise simply isn't [H]ard enough to make the statement. For those that "don't do that much so I don't need a quad" then what the hell are you waiting for? ;)

The concept is simple: buy more than you need so when and if the time comes you're not left wanting. And for the same price, I can't comprehend the 2 vs 4 debate. I know it's a bad analogy, but I'll give any of you $200 for $400 in return anytime, especially if you realize you "don't need that much" at any given time.
 
Well, that's where I'm leaning towards at this point. Going to Quad and hoping that I can hold off any immediate upgrades need after my prospective rig to be.

This current rig has lasted a good 2 years, and I'm happy with it's longevity in this day and age.

If I can squeeze out that much performance out of my next rig, I'll be very pleased and money well spent.

I can make this baby a media rig then :)
 
Back when AMD's duallie XP CPUs were the all the rage the arguments were the same.

A multi-core can be fully utilized by XP or Vista, even if the individual applications are not multithreaded. There are many things happening in the background and most of us don't "single-task" and haven't for a long time.

More cores equals a smoother user experience. That doesn't mean that more cores = faster in a single threaded app, and it doesn't mean that a quad is faster than a dual.

If you are the type that feels the need to shut down all the background services and TSRs to get a better gaming experience then a quad core is not your best bang-for-the-buck. Get a dual, you'll be happy, save money (buy a second GPU) and get a better OC.

If you like smooth performance while doing everything at once, then buy more cores.

I switched all of my systems to duallie XPs back when they were available and never regretted it, they were far superior to the hyperthreaded P4s of the day. Except for the "my PC's are only for gaming" folks.

It's all determined by what you plan to do. There is no "best" solution. There is only a "best for your use".
 
I vote for quad... Q6600 is so easily overclockable and outperforms the C2Ds at the price point :D
 
jb1678 said:
Where do you get your information from? You say PX or Vista dont support more than 2 cores, yet you say software running on them (F@H) can use them.... do you think F@H somehow works outside the scope of windows to access the processors? All versions of Vista support multiple cores, maybe you meant more than 2 processors? (Business, Ultimate and Enterprise can support 2 physical processors)

"start to think about Beowulf clustering" - again are you crazy? Beowulf is about parallel processing across multiple PC's not multiple cores on a PC
Click to expand...


Define Multithreading - the processing of multiple execution threads simultaneously - meaning at the same time or in parallel. Notice the "P" word. Just like Beowulf.:D

F@H is outside the scope of windows access - it can run on a GPU - a massively parallel processor. And it is not constrained by the HAL.

I actually remember when MS was forced to define a processor as any number of cores that could fit in a single motherboard socket. Win2k Workstation RTM will not install on a Quad because of this limitation, as it will see it as 4 processors.

And personally, I really, really want a SkullTrail with the Dual QX9775 processors on board. But I'm enough of a realist to be able to watch system performance meters and see that even with 2 Hyperthreaded 1.6LV Xeons, that show as 4 logical cores, and not see all 4 of them peg out unless I'm running 4 instances of Prime95 or something similar. Due to the OS and the current state of software.

So - I guess that you can disregard everything I've said and call me a hypocrite. Because I will have dual quads. And I just wish more software was capable of using it.:(
 
I also am running dual quads and
all I ever see is 22% usage because the programs are not programed to use all the cores.

We need programmers that know how to do multi threading. which in not being done to
any extent right now.:eek:
 
quick question,why get an E8500 and not E8400?

E8400 is $183 and E8500 is $266

for an extra 160mhz ...

do both have same multi ? or is that the difference?
 
crewzen said:
I also am running dual quads and
all I ever see is 22% usage because the programs are not programed to use all the cores.

We need programmers that know how to do multi threading. which in not being done to
any extent right now.:eek:
Click to expand...

so basically, why get a Q9450 if the Q6600 is barely being used?
Just for bragging rights?

was the same when AMD came out with AMD 64 ...where there was nothing using 64bit...
so hardware technology is far ahead of software technology...
 
vict0r said:
quick question,why get an E8500 and not E8400?

E8400 is $183 and E8500 is $266

for an extra 160mhz ...

do both have same multi ? or is that the difference?
Click to expand...

I believe there is a multiplier difference of .5
 
vict0r said:
would that be 8x and 8.5x or 8.5x and 9x ?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this chart posted by firas earlier.
firas said:
futureintelprocessorsfold4.jpg
Click to expand...
 
2 hot females vs 4 hot females. Now what do you think is the best bang for the buck?
 
ASIA911 said:
2 hot females vs 4 hot females. Now what do you think is the best bang for the buck?
Click to expand...

Ok, that gets my vote for "Most Obsequiously Stated Euphemistic Analogy of 2008" :D And also a strong contender for "Most Effectively Hidden Pun" too while he's at it...
 
What about going with 8 Cores? You can grab a Dual 771 board and two Quad Xeons for less than $1K Now...
 
All I need to know is which will run TF2 faster, the E8500 or the Q9450.
 
Serpico said:
All I need to know is which will run TF2 faster, the E8500 or the Q9450.
Click to expand...

TF2 won't use the extra cores to full effect (unlike, say, Supreme Commander) so it would probably, probably, be the E8500, depending on what else was going on in your system. Better question, though, is would you even be able to tell the difference - because it's likely to be a mighty small difference, depending on video card/resolution.
 
Serpico said:
All I need to know is which will run TF2 faster, the E8500 or the Q9450.
Click to expand...

Assuming both chips are at their maximum overclock, the E8500 will destroy the Q9450. PERIOD. You're talking about a game that only uses TWO cores running at 4.4Ghz+ on an E8500 vs. 3.6Ghz+ on the Q9450...
 
Brahmzy said:
Assuming both chips are at their maximum overclock, the E8500 will destroy the Q9450. PERIOD. You're talking about a game that only uses TWO cores running at 4.4Ghz+ on an E8500 vs. 3.6Ghz+ on the Q9450...
Click to expand...

You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. The e8500 wont 'destroy' the q9450 in anything. TF2 above 3.0ghz doesnt scale all too well in performance. On my e6600 between stock and 3.0 i got a boost of about 20 fps, from 3.0 to 3.6 i got about 5. from 3.6 to 3.8 (really freaking unstable) i got about 2. I have yet to test TF2 on a quad, but since both are above 3.0, i doubt you will be able to notice a difference (The testing was done at 1600x1200, max graphics, 8xAA 16xAF)
 
My god, is this thread still going? Good lord... and I'm curious as to what "DESTROY" would be in terms of performance 'cause, DESTROY to me would have to be something like 3x the framerate if it was a game, else it's "just a bit faster" and that doesn't mean much.

Quad core, period.
 
for bragging rights quad core

for current games, dual core and oc to the max which would be almost 1 ghz more oc over the quad...
 
Ok, so for a purely gaming PC, with a user that tends to like to have lots of small incidental programs running in the background (and alt-tab in between them frequently with little hiccup), a quad-core would be best?
 
CapnBiggles said:
Ok, so for a purely gaming PC, with a user that tends to like to have lots of small incidental programs running in the background (and alt-tab in between them frequently with little hiccup), a quad-core would be best?
Click to expand...

This will be argued (as already done above, ceaselessly)...but to better you marginally future proof yourself...QUAD would be the way to go, from all I've read and understood.
 
Brahmzy said:
Assuming both chips are at their maximum overclock, the E8500 will destroy the Q9450. PERIOD. You're talking about a game that only uses TWO cores running at 4.4Ghz+ on an E8500 vs. 3.6Ghz+ on the Q9450...
Click to expand...

WOW, I almost stepped in that......that would have been messy....




Anyway.....

My Q6600 at 3.2 scored about 2000 more points in 3DM06 than my X6800 at 3.6..

however in COD-4 I cant tell the difference between the 2.......This would probably not be true if the game could use more cores......

That being said, I would still take the Quad, unless your purely going for overclocks.....then get the dual...they generally clock a bit higher with less trouble.
 
Brahmzy said:
Assuming both chips are at their maximum overclock, the E8500 will destroy the Q9450. PERIOD. You're talking about a game that only uses TWO cores running at 4.4Ghz+ on an E8500 vs. 3.6Ghz+ on the Q9450...
Click to expand...

destroy!! maybe….why not…though I don’t think the E6850 destroyed the Q6600 even at stock
but again …….. as you said ……. period
if someone was sure he’ll update after 1 year or less (like if he was aiming for Nehalem) I strongly recommend E8500, other than that I think Q9450 is the best time proof choice here unless he just wanted to say he OCed his chip from X to WOW, and remember there is a lot of people proud to run their Q6600 at stock until now though they can OC it.

btw, I saw the E8500 @ 4.5 on air :rolleyes:
 
Woohoo!!! So happy about the news on [H] that the new processors will be out THIS month and not February :)

yaay! :)

Guess I'll start with the CPU and then build around it :)

Yipee!!
 
i thought it the duels where always coming out this month and the quads would be out feb/mar
 
When I went from Dual to Quad I was really disappointed as I could tell no difference at all in the Games I Play and the programs I use. I do no video edits or run multiple programs at once. This was OC'ing to the same speed and all other parts the same. I'm sure depending on your use, a Quad may hold some advantage but none at all for me. Actually my dual core woud run faster than the Quad and cooler. Just my experience. Almost double the cost and nothing to show for it.
 
Cardio said:
When I went from Dual to Quad I was really disappointed as I could tell no difference at all in the Games I Play and the programs I use. I do no video edits or run multiple programs at once. This was OC'ing to the same speed and all other parts the same. I'm sure depending on your use, a Quad may hold some advantage but none at all for me. Actually my dual core woud run faster than the Quad and cooler. Just my experience. Almost double the cost and nothing to show for it.
Click to expand...

Ding ding! We have a winner!!!
 
A winner? Far from it...

This one particular person states "almost double the cost and nothing to show for it" and this entire thread has been about processors that are nearly the same cost if not exactly the same cost. Just because this one person can't find anything to do with his PC that can put the power of the quad to use doesn't mean his one example is the end-all-be-all situation.

People that know what a quad can do will buy it because of that reason; people that buy it for bragging rights will more than likely be disappointed. The quad hasn't been "almost double the cost" for a long time now, soooo... and even then it would be double the cost of what, an E4300 at that time? Please...

Quad core, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top