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

Now here is an option that a friend of mine took.

He just built a new computer and got one of the newest Abit motherboards. It'll run up to 1300Mhz on the FSB and is DDR2 compatabile. I think it has the X38 chipset.

He was thinking about going Quad but he wanted to wait on the 45nm CPU's that we are going to see in a little while. So what he did was to buy an e6700 C2D on sale for about $250.00 and now he's going to wait until the prices on the 45nm Quads drop some. So, maybe later this year or early next he'll upgrade to a quad.

Seems to be pretty smart to me. It'll give him a pretty long upgrade path with having to buy anything but CPU's and maybe video cards. And he'll get to see if a C2D is enough for his computing use without droping the bigger bucks on a quad. And since he doesn't OC he'll probably be able to sell his older processors and get some of his money back.
 
I'm currently using a non-OCed E6400 @ 2.13ghz. My main use for my computer is online poker, and I tend to run multiple cpu-intensive programs at once for this, so my CPU usage usually hovers around 30-100%.

Will I notice a significant difference in performance if I upgrade to quad core?
 
You could go the route of a good motherboard that supports Quad Core and for now go for an E21xx and overclock it. People have had much success getting these to 3 ghz and beyond (myself included). Even the "bad ones" seem to hit 2.8 very easily.

Use the saved money for a good video card, since that is going to make more difference in your gaming than difference between dual and quad core would.

This way when you need to upgrade to quad core you have everything to support that and you didn't already blow a lot of money on a high end dual core.

my two cents.
 
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.

If you can get it configured correctly you could have 4 cores from a Quad and 2 or more GPU
cores from an SLi/CrossfireX setup running at the same time.


But for E-Peen - QUAD all the WAY BABY!!!! :D:D:D

SkullTrail will be my next RIG!!
Click to expand...


First off, your way of thinking is so horribly *incorrect*.

Every NT-based operating system (back to NT 3.1) has explicitly supported multiple processors (it was called SMP), and now more processor cores (with or without SMP).
The sticking point in terms of the desktop (as opposed to the server) flavors of the NT operating systems has been *application*, not operating system, support for either multiple processors or multiple cores.

As far as gaming went, even though Windows 2000 Professional *explicitly* supported DirectX (which was required for gaming), it took until Windows XP for gaming outside of 9x to start to flourish. At that time, SMP outside of servers and specialized workstations was unheard of (even Intel had managed to stuff the SMP-on-the-cheap P-IIIS genie back into the bottle with the Williamette and Northwood-core P4s; I had built a desktop system around the ABIT VP6, which was an SMP-ready dual-S370 workstation motherboard and my first explicitly-designed-for-NT personal system).

It has only been in the past year that quad-core CPUs have been generally available, so who would have them? The games that are multi-core ready all started development two years or less ago (I'm referring to those that are currently shipping) and can be counted on two hands. One of the most disturbing trends that I still see (in fact, this very forum seems to be a hotbed of it) is the *go low-end and overclock* school of system-building.

That very trend has three legs:

1. Quad-core processors are overkill.
2. Quad-core processors don't overclock well.
3. Quad-core processors are expensive.

Let's take those legs one at a time.

1. Quad-core processors are only overkill *right now*, as you're actually buying ahead of the application curve for the most part. Applications won't stay single-core if for no other reason than multi-core ubiquity.

2. While the B3s had issues with overclocking, the G0 (SLACR) quads overclock to 3 GHz (even with the stock HSF) with amazing ease. What's more, how high do you need to overclock for decent performance, given the lack of CPU-limiting in games OR apps?

3. Q6600 is, at worst, $300USD (retail/Q1). That is mainstream pricing (in fact, that is the pricing for Northwood P4s in their prime). What's more, because you're still ahead of the application curve, you have your processor needs solved *easily* for the next year-plus.

My recommendations are NOT about the e-penis, as I personally have a Northwood-C P4. However, when I upgrade from this P4 (which I've been running hard for four years), I have no interest in being dragged, kicking and screaming, into buying another processor AND motherboard less than two years later because I settled for cheap.
I can buy a SLACR Q6600 (entry-level Kentsfield), 2 GB of DDR2-800 SDRAM, any decent P35/X38 or even 680i SLI motherboard, a solid *mainstream* DX10 PCIe GPU, 500 GB HDD, and a DL DVD burner, and a solid 750W PSU and have my computing needs solved for the next two years. And that's with Vista Ultimate, no less.
 
vict0r said:
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...
Click to expand...

QFT

I am, in fact, recommending Q6600 (floor Kentsfield) today, *regardless*.

Thanks to falling storage prices (and the recent dip in DDR2 RAM pricing), the cost to built a system around Q6600 is identical to what it cost to build around Northwood-C in 2004 in constant dollars. That is entirely aside from the number of processor cores.
Would you have talked Thomas Jefferson out of the Louisiana Purchase....knowing what you know now?
 
I'm gonig to get a Dual core, the e8500 when it finally arrives.

Dual core is just a better bang for the buck, I mean, you can overclock the dual core much higher than a quad core also, So in most 95% of what I will be doing, I will be running faster on a dual core than a quad core.

The other thing is that almost no applications support quad core. Most games don't even support dual core yet. The games that do support quad core most likely would run faster on a higher clocked dual core. Like someone said, you have have 40% CPU utilzation on each CPu in a dual core, or 20% CPU utilization on a quad core.
 
See, the amazing thing about these threads is that new people never bother to read them. The person that just posted above me is a perfect example: he said something that's been said and discussed and outright blasted as fallacy several times already in this thread.

Rule of thumb: don't jump into a multi-page thread if you're not going to make the effort to read through the whole thing start to whatever finish point it currently sits at.

Like the sig asks, "How fast is fast?"
 
bbz_Ghost said:
See, the amazing thing about these threads is that new people never bother to read them. The person that just posted above me is a perfect example: he said something that's been said and discussed and outright blasted as fallacy several times already in this thread.

Rule of thumb: don't jump into a multi-page thread if you're not going to make the effort to read through the whole thing start to whatever finish point it currently sits at.

Like the sig asks, "How fast is fast?"
Click to expand...

I did actually read through the whole thread and thought my post was warranted. This thread is almost a battle between the people pushing the Quads and the people pusing the Dual core. So I wanted to come in as another person saying that quad core is overhyped and offers more disadvantage to many computer users.

Another point I forgot to add in my post was that in my opinion I don't see quad core really being utilized in games/software for at least 2 years from now. First software developers make games that must run on a single core... so if they waste time and money making the optimized it will be for a dual core and proably not for a quad core. If the software/game can run decent on a single core.. it would almost never utilize 2 cores fully, yet to utilize 4 cores fully is highly unlikely. This is taking that your not running 2 games at once or other multitasking.

edit
bbz_Ghost : you wrote on an eariler post

"Quad core, period."

SO now I understand why you bashed my post, but your not a moderator so no reason to act like you are one.
 
I think the issue here is that most of you people don't seem to understand the concept of multithreading: you don't write code that only works on 2 cores of a 4 core processor and nothing else, and it's ridiculous to keep perpetrating that myth. Someone already mentioned how one game that supposedly is coded "for 2 cores" had higher benchmarks on a quad than it did on a dual.

Multithreaded means it uses all the processors available to the OS - and that means all 4 of them will be put to use to some degree, period. You have one of the following situations or none at all, there's no middle ground to stand on:

1) The software is single threaded. This is a very rare thing in this day and age, actually. Modern OSes for the last 8-10 years have been "properly" multithreaded and will use all the available physical processors or processor cores on multicore CPU assemblies, and they will assign process tasking as required to keep the entire system running as smoothly as it's programmed to do. In other words, in a single threaded situation the OS is responsible for assigning the processor resources as required.

2) The software is "properly" multithreaded. This means the application works in conjunction with the OS itself to keep things running smoothly systemwide regardless of what's going on, even in spite of some old single threaded applications that could be using up resources to some degree. The OS will handle things as required for those, while when it comes to multithreading, the OS and the multithreaded apps work together.

Everyone keeps coming at this from that "oh the game isn't coded for more than 2 cores" and that is such utter bullshit it's not even funny any more. Run a properly multithreaded game on a dual, watch Task Manager for activity on each core, then run the same game on a quad and you'll see activity on all the cores - just because you don't see as MUCH activity on cores 3 and 4 doesn't mean the game is only using 1 and 2, it simply means the load is spread across the 4 cores more efficiently, and guess what:

That's the entire fucking purpose of having multiple cores. It's not to make shit run 4x faster, it's to enhance the efficiency of the entire system overall so that you can do more and not kill the system with CPU intensive tasks that would normally bring a machine to a standstill.

I never once said a quad was faster than any other dual core it was being compared to. I said that for the cost being relatively the same, the overall system performance of a quad would be better than a dual given the price is nearly if not exactly the same for each processor.

"coded for 2 cores..."

Man, that's gotta be the tagline for something, I just can't figure out what it should be...
 
Time is Money. I do a lot of stuff at the same time, multitasking every moment. Quad is for me.
 
I'm a bit surprised at how this thread has been continuing.

I really hoped that people would stop the "arguing". I understand and appreciate the value of the recommendations of both Dual and Quad CPU supporters.

I've taken the input into consideration and drawn my own conclusions, and I have the many people who contributed to the thread to thank for that.

That being said, I find it unnecessary for people to chide each other or put each other down.

The thread was meant for information. Not for bickering.

Update: Looks like the Q9450 will hit the streets in a week's time :) Can't wait!
 
I have a pretty good indication that the new Quads will be available early next week.

I wouldn't bet the house on it, but it seems reliable.
 
BoredTiger said:
I have a pretty good indication that the new Quads will be available early next week.

I wouldn't bet the house on it, but it seems reliable.
Click to expand...

That's a big change from Intel's latest roadmap, which put them at Feb/Mar - not like Intel to go against their roadmap in such a way. Duals should be out next week (20th) but quads?
 
Duals will be here on monday 21st - OCUK already put them on...
looks like £60 difference between e8400 and e8500 is too high - I would better take e8400 and oc to 4GHz anyway..
 
bbz_Ghost said:
I think the issue here is that most of you people don't seem to understand the concept of multithreading: you don't write code that only works on 2 cores of a 4 core processor and nothing else, and it's ridiculous to keep perpetrating that myth. Someone already mentioned how one game that supposedly is coded "for 2 cores" had higher benchmarks on a quad than it did on a dual.

Multithreaded means it uses all the processors available to the OS - and that means all 4 of them will be put to use to some degree, period. You have one of the following situations or none at all, there's no middle ground to stand on:

1) The software is single threaded. This is a very rare thing in this day and age, actually. Modern OSes for the last 8-10 years have been "properly" multithreaded and will use all the available physical processors or processor cores on multicore CPU assemblies, and they will assign process tasking as required to keep the entire system running as smoothly as it's programmed to do. In other words, in a single threaded situation the OS is responsible for assigning the processor resources as required.

2) The software is "properly" multithreaded. This means the application works in conjunction with the OS itself to keep things running smoothly systemwide regardless of what's going on, even in spite of some old single threaded applications that could be using up resources to some degree. The OS will handle things as required for those, while when it comes to multithreading, the OS and the multithreaded apps work together.

Everyone keeps coming at this from that "oh the game isn't coded for more than 2 cores" and that is such utter bullshit it's not even funny any more. Run a properly multithreaded game on a dual, watch Task Manager for activity on each core, then run the same game on a quad and you'll see activity on all the cores - just because you don't see as MUCH activity on cores 3 and 4 doesn't mean the game is only using 1 and 2, it simply means the load is spread across the 4 cores more efficiently, and guess what:

That's the entire fucking purpose of having multiple cores. It's not to make shit run 4x faster, it's to enhance the efficiency of the entire system overall so that you can do more and not kill the system with CPU intensive tasks that would normally bring a machine to a standstill.

I never once said a quad was faster than any other dual core it was being compared to. I said that for the cost being relatively the same, the overall system performance of a quad would be better than a dual given the price is nearly if not exactly the same for each processor.

"coded for 2 cores..."

Man, that's gotta be the tagline for something, I just can't figure out what it should be...
Click to expand...


Jesus and I thought I was the only one......
 
Forceman said:
That's a big change from Intel's latest roadmap, which put them at Feb/Mar - not like Intel to go against their roadmap in such a way. Duals should be out next week (20th) but quads?
Click to expand...


Well, if it's later, then I'll have to wait until later. If not, then I'm happy to buy it early next week. Which would mean I'll be starting my new rig in earnest.

I'm starting with the CPU first, then the board and everything else. I already have a new HDD ready for my next rig (Raptor yipee!!!).

CPU, Board, RAM, Graphics, PSU, HSF or some cooling solution and the case will round out my needs :)

Basically a new computer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top