• 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.

Quad core really any better?

W

Whipsmack

Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
675
I mean what programs actually even utilize dual-core let alone quad core? I remember years ago when 64 bit just came out people were going ape shit crazy over it. But most of those people didn't run programs that utilized it.

So why should I believe quad core is going to serve me any better? My purposes for this computer will be Video editing, rendering etc. Will be using Adobe Premiere Pro, I guess i'll read up to see if it even has 64 bit support....

grrrrr
 
You'll definitely see the difference in those video editing apps.
 
I hope so, I just read that Adobe Premiere Pro doesn't even support 64 bit and will only utilize 3gb of memory bleh :(
 
How about windows itself.

You don't have to have a program that is designed to use dual or quad core to take advantage of it. Running more than one single threaded program effectively takes advantage of dual cores. Running more than 2 will utilize quads. Running 1 program that uses 2 cores and other one that uses 1 or more will also utilize a quad core. If you think outside the box a little bit, you'll realize that there are several different scenarios where a dual and/or quad can be utilized even if you rarely run a single program that can take advantage of them.
 
having used nothing but a single-core chip since I got into a PC ...

mainly ... I ran one app at a time ... was really the best way.

but now I have a quad-core... and have totally changed my computer usage.
several apps running @ the same time ... and can burn off a CD whenever I need.

I must admit ... it took a little time to expand my ways ... now ... totally spoiled :)
 
Whipsmack said:
I mean what programs actually even utilize dual-core let alone quad core? I remember years ago when 64 bit just came out people were going ape shit crazy over it. But most of those people didn't run programs that utilized it.

So why should I believe quad core is going to serve me any better? My purposes for this computer will be Video editing, rendering etc. Will be using Adobe Premiere Pro, I guess i'll read up to see if it even has 64 bit support....

grrrrr
Click to expand...

Video editing, encoding, rendering is probably where multi-core shines the most... Plus the improved multi-tasking and the minimum premium you pay above dual-core are reasons enough.

Q6600s are so cheap now it would be silly not to get one if video editing/etc is your main purpose for the PC. You can get an E7200 and clock it at about 3.5ghz or a Q6600 and also get almost the same speeds although with better cooling - $110 vs $150ish, the math is pretty straightforward. If you check out the AV forums and encoding forums you'll find thousands of posts and benchies on how much faster quads are.
 
You are using as your example pretty much the only case where a quad-core is clearly better than a dual or single - video editing. Kind of shot your whole argument in the foot.
 
Whipsmack said:
I hope so, I just read that Adobe Premiere Pro doesn't even support 64 bit and will only utilize 3gb of memory bleh :(
Click to expand...

i use CS3 sometimes and it uses all my 4GB ram and then goes to swap file, and sometimes uses all 4 cores to encode.
 
Forceman said:
You are using as your example pretty much the only case where a quad-core is clearly better than a dual or single - video editing. Kind of shot your whole argument in the foot.
Click to expand...


did you read the op?
 
yes 4 core is better. Just don't bother with AMD Phenoms below 9850 if you somehow decide to switch over (don't know why anyone would right now..).
 
With video editing and encoding you can potentially take advantage of more than four cores. So yes, a quad core is a FAR better choice than a dual core CPU.
 
Forceman said:
You are using as your example pretty much the only case where a quad-core is clearly better than a dual or single - video editing. Kind of shot your whole argument in the foot.
Click to expand...

flegg said:
did you read the op?
Click to expand...

Yes, hence my comment. He asked, somewhat rhetorically, what programs even use dual-core, let alone quad-core. Then he mentioned that he would be using his computer for video editing and rendering. The fact that video editing and redering are things that take great advantage of quad-core led to my comment. I wasn't aware that it would be so hard to connect those dots.
 
Whipsmack said:
I hope so, I just read that Adobe Premiere Pro doesn't even support 64 bit and will only utilize 3gb of memory bleh :(
Click to expand...

The application is multi-threaded which means that it can take advantage of 4 or more processor cores. So a quad core system will perform better with the program than a dual core will.

It is as simple as that.
 
most people forget that vista will also take advantage of multiple cores via affinity.
 
Forceman said:
Yes, hence my comment. He asked, somewhat rhetorically, what programs even use dual-core, let alone quad-core. Then he mentioned that he would be using his computer for video editing and rendering. The fact that video editing and redering are things that take great advantage of quad-core led to my comment. I wasn't aware that it would be so hard to connect those dots.
Click to expand...

I am still not understanding your statements. :confused:

The OP said he would be doing video stuff. Video stuff is where quad cores shine the best. Hence, a quad core chip makes perfect sense to the OP. How is that shooting his argument in the foot?

They are not the only apps that utilise quad cores though. Having lots of single threaded apps running at the same time, like I do alot, allows them to run faster and smoother as some get assigned to different cores by the OS.

Besides, 4 is bigger than 2! ;)

I remember years ago when 64 bit just came out people were going ape shit crazy over it. But most of those people didn't run programs that utilized it.
Click to expand...

64 bit programs only allow the program to address more memory. You must have an OS and a program written to allow it to take advantage. The program will not run faster. It will only allow more than 4 gig of ram to be utilized by the program saving time with fewer hits on the swap file.

Don
 
I've seen huge gains in gaming going from E8400 to Q9400.

Running Q9400@3.7ghz scores almost 6,000 pts on the cpu portion of 3dMark06.
Great FPS for UT3 and Crysis.
 
SonDa5 said:
I've seen huge gains in gaming going from E8400 to Q9400.

Running Q9400@3.7ghz scores almost 6,000 pts on the cpu portion of 3dMark06.
Great FPS for UT3 and Crysis.
Click to expand...

3D Mark score increases do not equal increases in games. 3D Mark being the useless "tool" that it is places FAR too much importance on CPU clock speeds. Past say 3.0GHz you soon reach a point of diminishing returns with overclocking and game performance. (Especially below 2560x1600 on single CPU configurations.) The differences in FPS in most games is going to be 1-5 or so at resolutions that people actually play games at. In 640x480 testing of course the differences are more pronounced but largely academic. Yet 3D Mark goes up thousands of points from a few hundred megahertz increase in your CPU clock speed. I've typically found that a Core 2 Quad running at 3.2GHz is no better in games than a Core 2 Duo at 3.2GHz in MOST games. There are a few exceptions but generally speaking the results are almost indistinguishable.

Sure if you have it within your budget than by all means go quad core. However don't think that its' required in even today's newest games to get the most out of your system because that simply isn't the truth.
 
I have seen significant gains in games too. Most notably Crysis and UT3.
 
DonDon said:
I am still not understanding your statements. :confused:

The OP said he would be doing video stuff. Video stuff is where quad cores shine the best. Hence, a quad core chip makes perfect sense to the OP. How is that

They are not the only apps that utilise quad cores though. Having lots of single threaded apps running at the same time, like I do alot, allows them to run faster and smoother as some get assigned to different cores by the OS.

Besieds, 4 is bigger than 2! ;)



64 bit programs only allow the program to address more memory. You must have an OS and a program written to allow it to take advantage. The program will not run faster. It will only allow more than 4 gig of ram to be utilized by the program saving time with fewer hits on the swap file.

Don
Click to expand...


64bit is not just about more memory, although that's the most visible benefit.
How about instructions that handle data 64 bits at time? How about having double (quadruple?) the register space that allows you to keep more data immediately available for those operations?
 
I am basing my comments on a thread I read a while back (like a year ago) on Photoshop 32 bit vs 64 bit versions. As long as the size of the files be worked on were small enough to fit in physical memory, there was little difference in the benchmark times. As soon as the files grew to overflow the physical ram, then the differences showed up.

Granted as programmers get more experienced at optimizing for 64 bit, things may improve. But right now, for the most part, they are writing programs in 32 bit since most buyers are still in that environment, and then porting over the 64 bit versions.

Don
 
Having a lot of apps open by itself doesn't use much CPU. If you encode some video while you watch a video and surf the web then you'll be using your cores effectively. If you start up every app on your computer 99% of them will be sleeping unless you are interacting with it.
 
vertigomhs said:
most people forget that vista will also take advantage of multiple cores via affinity.
Click to expand...

Most people forget that multi-core kernels were introduced in Windows NT 4.0. Every OS after that (95 and up) will utilize multiple cpu's/cores.
 
HydroBudz said:
Most people forget that multi-core kernels were introduced in Windows NT 4.0. Every OS after that (95 and up) will utilize multiple cpu's/cores.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server supported x86-SMP. Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME do NOT support SMP of any kind and gain no benefit from multiple processors, multiple CPU cores or even Hyperthreading.
 
SonDa5 said:
I have seen significant gains in games too. Most notably Crysis and UT3.
Click to expand...

I've seen some improvement in some FPS, not much but the thing that kept me with my quad over going down to a super high clocked E8500 was that the difference in Supreme Commander with a quad is much better.
 
HydroBudz said:
Most people forget that multi-core kernels were introduced in Windows NT 4.0. Every OS after that (95 and up) will utilize multiple cpu's/cores.
Click to expand...

As others have stated, 95, 98, and ME did not have multi-core support. Also, Vista's multi-core management is significantly better than XP's and processes are allocated much more efficiently. There is quite a difference in multitasking going from a single or dual-core CPU to a quad in Vista.
 
Zero82z said:
As others have stated, 95, 98, and ME did not have multi-core support. Also, Vista's multi-core management is significantly better than XP's and processes are allocated much more efficiently. There is quite a difference in multitasking going from a single or dual-core CPU to a quad in Vista.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that's why Vista is often faster at multi-threaded apps then previous versions of Windows.
 
If you're only doing one task, then yes, there are only a few things that will benefit, with video encoding being one main example. But quad-cores also allow you to multitask with no worries about any of the programs experiencing slowdowns due to the CPU.

If you had to pay huge premiums for a quad-core then it wouldn't be worth it unless you had a specific need for one. However, prices being as they are, I chose a quad-core and am glad of that.
 
Salavat23 said:
Yep, and that's why Vista is often faster at multi-threaded apps then previous versions of Windows.
Click to expand...

It's not really multi-threaded apps since those are automatically allocated to separate cores. The biggest difference as far as I've noticed is while running many single-threaded applications at the same time. XP was a little stingy when it came to assigning threads to other cores, but Vista balances things beautifully.
 
SonDa5 said:
That article is almost outdated.

The newer Quads (e.g. Q9400) are super fast and run cooler. The newer quads have the 0 type stepping. Very fast.
Click to expand...

You mean E0?

Clock for clock,the Q9400 and Q6600 run neck-and-neck, except for all 3 SSE4.1 optimised apps out there.
 
SonDa5 said:
That article is almost outdated.

The newer Quads (e.g. Q9400) are super fast and run cooler. The newer quads have the 0 type stepping. Very fast.
Click to expand...

What does almost outdated mean? And what does that have to do with the point he was trying to get across?
 
TechHead said:
You mean E0?

Clock for clock,the Q9400 and Q6600 run neck-and-neck, except for all 3 SSE4.1 optimised apps out there.
Click to expand...


q9400, the good ones are R0, no E0 for them and yes they may run neck-to-neck at same clock speed, but the q9400 are getting faster OCs and they run cooler saving money on the electricity over time... so its a wash really against the q6600?
 
Tetrahedron said:
q9400, the good ones are R0, no E0 for them and yes they may run neck-to-neck at same clock speed, but the q9400 are getting faster OCs and they run cooler saving money on the electricity over time... so its a wash really against the q6600?
Click to expand...


so you would say that Q9400 is Q6600's successor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top