![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
DUO versus QUAD thread #1237892137
- Thread starter Empirion
- Start date
i wonder if there is a gene that accounts for people like this? you know the same kind of people that were anti-car and thought horse and buggy was good enough, or the ones that were anti-computer and thought typewriter was good enough. there must a be gene that accounts for this kind of mindset.
Eggothewaffle
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 352
And what's the point of that exactly?
I'm guessing by gaming, he doesn't mean running Vantage CPU tests all day
You can spin it that way if you like.
But instead, maybe we are people that learnt from the past instead. Maybe we are people that spent a premium on dual core Athlon X2's in the early days and got slower core clocks, which was gonna be ok because next month, SMP games were going to be released.
But instead, we had our 2.2Ghz dual core CPU's for years with only one core being used while playing BF2 and other games when a single core running faster would have been better solution. And by the time games came out that were SMP enable and could use two cores, such as Supreme Commander and later Crysis, our lovely X2's were to slow.
I don't think anyone is saying four cores or 8 cores or 16 cores is a bad thing, we are saying for the time right now and the near future, 2 faster cores is better than 4 slower cores for a majority of things. It's not a whole lot better, hell it might even be even. But a dual core CPU right now certainly is NOT a bad thing. Especially considering the economics of it... clock for clock, a dual core CPU is less than half the price of a quad core CPU.
If you look at it purely on a cost point, a ~$175 Q6600 is right around the same performance to a ~$175 E8400. What's wrong with that? Nothing, so why do we have threads with 100 posts arguing over something like this full of insults and genetic theories aimed just to solely piss someone off?
I never said "dual outperform quads" I guarantee a 3Ghz quad will outperform a 3Ghz dual. Period. Why wouldn't it?
I said a faster clocked dual can be equal to a slower clocked quad of the same price point. Specifically, I said "If you look at it purely on a cost point, a ~$175 Q6600 is right around the same performance to a ~$175 E8400."
You are looking for an argument that isn't there.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
And what's the point of that exactly?
I'm guessing by gaming, he doesn't mean running Vantage CPU tests all day
well if you fail to see the point in having a higher clocked CPU, you = fail
OP:
Read your post. Didn't bother reading the others.
Get the E8500. It will run vastly cooler than a Q6600. I've had both dual and quads on the motherboard in my sig, and my current E8400 runs a lot cooler. I wouldn't think of running a quad under suboptimal cooling conditions.
To those recommending quad.... You have to look at the OP's request. Not all people need a quad. If my 90yr old grandmother needed a PC to surf the web and wanted to conserve energy, put the tiny Shuttle XPC inside a closed cabinet with no airflow and keep her apartment at 75º F, I would not recommend any quad.
I used to have a quad. I now have a dually. For my use, it's better. I leave my PC on 24/7, it runs cooler, save me $$ and performs the same or better for 98% of it's use than my old Q9300 & Q6600. I still encode video overnight. Who would wait for that? Whether it finishes in 2, 4 or 8 hours makes no difference. Until quad cores do that task in 10 minutes, it ain't worth watching the screen.
.
Read your post. Didn't bother reading the others.
Get the E8500. It will run vastly cooler than a Q6600. I've had both dual and quads on the motherboard in my sig, and my current E8400 runs a lot cooler. I wouldn't think of running a quad under suboptimal cooling conditions.
To those recommending quad.... You have to look at the OP's request. Not all people need a quad. If my 90yr old grandmother needed a PC to surf the web and wanted to conserve energy, put the tiny Shuttle XPC inside a closed cabinet with no airflow and keep her apartment at 75º F, I would not recommend any quad.
I used to have a quad. I now have a dually. For my use, it's better. I leave my PC on 24/7, it runs cooler, save me $$ and performs the same or better for 98% of it's use than my old Q9300 & Q6600. I still encode video overnight. Who would wait for that? Whether it finishes in 2, 4 or 8 hours makes no difference. Until quad cores do that task in 10 minutes, it ain't worth watching the screen.
.
Eggothewaffle
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 352
Can you point to some flagship games actually performing at a sizable advantage when they are being run at 4GHz compared to 3GHz? And at a resolution which isn't 640x480?
Even ignoring that, you can always overclock but you can't add two more cores.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
supcom, civ 4, sins, TF2, crysis custom maps with tons of objects
once again, if you dont understand the point in having a higher clock speed on a processor, you = fail
i never said more cores was a waste (like you are saying about clock speed)
Eggothewaffle
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 352
Do you really see upcoming games to follow the trend of CPU limited games and games running on older engines like Civ 4, Supreme Commander, and TF2 (where the frames per second are typically going to be well above 60 or even 100 anyway) or do you see them follow the trend of being GPU limited like Far Cry 2 or Crysis?
Just answer honestly.
It's obvious that higher clock speeds make a difference in CPU limited games; there's no need to attack me in such a juvenile manner or misrepresent what I'm saying. This doesn't have to be a forum dominated by middle school "discussion" tactics.
Just answer honestly.
It's obvious that higher clock speeds make a difference in CPU limited games; there's no need to attack me in such a juvenile manner or misrepresent what I'm saying. This doesn't have to be a forum dominated by middle school "discussion" tactics.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
And what's the point of that exactly?
I'm guessing by gaming, he doesn't mean running Vantage CPU tests all day
you're the one that said it, not me
as to you calling the SupCom engine old... wtf? besides, if an "older" engine, like ones that power the games i mentioned benefit from more CPU power, does the fact that they are "older" somehow disqualify them from this discussion?
and for the future... who knows... one thing I do know is that single threaded performance will continue to improve, and the improvement will be much needed/appreciated by all.
so yea, for the last time, if you dont understand the point of a high CPU clock speed, you = fail
Eggothewaffle
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 352
You didn't answer my question.
Oh well.
Oh well.
However the Original post (go click on #1) the second thing he stated is:
So in this case, for this person, two faster cores will be the better choice.
This isn't for 100% of the people 100% of the time.. This is for him, to answer his question asked at the beginning of this whole mess.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
but the thing is there is absolutely not a single performance benefit in any case in picking a 4Ghz dual core over a 3.6Ghz quad. But there are plenty vise versa.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,113
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Any proof? Just because you whine about something doesn't mean that game studios are going to do something about it at the drop of a hat. Games are inherently serial in nature when it comes to using CPU time, and breaking that serial code up between four (or more) cores in a truly parallel fashion is a daunting task to say the least. As it stands now studios are just getting to grips with fully utilizing two cores.
It will probably be a few more years where having a quad core will be mandatory for gaming. +1 for getting the fastest dual core you can buy for gaming (which currently is the E8600).
Sure there is proof. Open task manager and monitor CPU usage when playing. Games like GRID, COD4, Assissins Creed, Left 4 Dead routinly max out the CPU usage on my dual core machines. Left 4 Dead actually goes well past 70% cpu utilization on my OCed Q6600.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Good to hear the situation has changed for the better on fully utilizing dual core machines.
I still think it will be a while though before quads are maxed. Anybody know of any upcoming titles that will max a quad core?
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
I agree, it will be a while before quad cores get maxed, but you don't need to max them to take advantage of one. You just need over 50% utilization
Still, even if it was only 51% utilization I wouldn't exactly call it worthwhile, clock-for-clock.
I would, especially since I'll have plenty of cycles left over for any background tasks that are running. I routinely have applications running on my secondary monitor while gaming. Heck, right now being football season, I regularly have my sling box software running on my secondary monitor (muted of course) so I can keep an eye out on the games while I'm gaming myself. I can't do that on my dual boxes and not have it negatively affect my games.
christpunchersg
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 208
Minimum FPS matters more so than the average. What's the point of having a good average but dipping into low fps as the minimum? In this case Quad will be stronger than Dual. I think Quad is "safer" than Dual but Dual is much cheaper and easier to OC.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Then for megataskers like you it's definately worth the added expense. You bought a quad because it makes the most sense for your usage habits. I bought a dual because it makes the most sense for my use (primarily web & games).
I will buy a quad when it makes the most sense for me to get one (or they're cheap enough to not be able to resist
).Not a good proof.. In Overlord if I alt tab out or have task manager on my 2nd monitor it will max out my CPU, but if I set affinity to a single core, I actually get better performance limiting it to one CPU than when it runs on both..
I don't need to ALT+TAB out, and I actually don't even have to have task manager open as I've got a sidebar gadget that tells me CPU utilization. Not that it matters, because I've never had task manager max out my CPU usage in any circumstance.
what part of he doesnt use task manager DONT you understand? the fact it takes up 100% of your dual core is the point! that one got right past you, genius!
no it isn't, I could write a "hello world" vb script that uses 100% cpu on a quad core.. that doesn't mean it's any faster on a quad core than on a single core.
And sidebar gadget or not, it's still the same thing. It doesn't measure efficiency or how well it uses the cores. I'd bet it uses the same dll hooks that task manager does.
i guess i don't care about impressing anyone.
left for dead has great multi-threading, near 100% on all four cores and that is being ported to TF2. crysis does too at least with its physics. no they aren't doing it at a drop of a hat but people have been whining about it for quite a while and guess what, its been implemented on source. even in games where it doesnt seem like theres much advantage, the minimum framerates don't suffer as much which is what matters to me, not higher average fps.
as for games being serial, you know there are tons of tasks in games that have their own functions.. ai, rendering, physics, scripts.. and breaking it up is not as hard as everyone makes it out to be, as i have worked with threaded applications before. take a look at your task manager with # of threads column enabled. queueing them up is another issue, however.
i could care less if its *mandatory* to have a quad core.. but it sure as hell is advantageous in some games to have one right now.