Quad Cores slower than equivalent Dual Cores?

L

Lord Twilight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2001
Messages
355
I was also talking to a friend and he was saying that the quad cores are clocked down slower than the dual cores? Meaning that an E6600 would be faster than a Q6600 in single-threaded or poorly multi-threaded apps.

I'm not all that deep into this technology (although this friend is a programmer), but I haven't seen anything indicating that the quad cores are slower but with more cores. I think he's just not up-to-speed with Intel processors? He goes on about how awesome AMD's 4x4 will be compared to Intel because they are native quad instead of dual-dual core. I'm not arguing, I'm just wondering if there is any truth to this?
 
Sounds like your buddy is an AMD fanatic. Most of them talk about processors of the future because their processors of the present aren't competitive with what Intel has to offer.

On an Intel chip, a core is a core. If you have a Core 2 Duo and are running single threaded apps then one core can be doing the work while the other core can handle background tasks.

On a Quad the same thing happens but now there are 3 cores available to run background tasks. In reality all 2 or all 4 cores continuously share what ever work is queued up. At the same MHz and same memory timings, a Quad will always equal or beat a dual core. The core processors are monsters, especially when overclocked. The biggest problem with the Quads is that most of them will spend most of their lives working at part throttle because users don't have enough multi-threaded apps to throw at them to keep them busy. :(
 
I have two systems using Core 2 processors. One is a SFF using a Gigabyte G33 mainboard and my L0629B E6600 that runs at 3.2ghz, 1.225V. The other is the system in my signature which is much higher end, but only recently did I add the Xeon X3220 in place of the E6600. I can say that within Vista, the X3220 at 3.2ghz is just as fast as the E6600 was at 3.2ghz. The system feels more fluent with the quad core processor and I can throw more at it without it choking or lagging. Seriously even a stock Q6600 or X3220 at 2.4ghz is FAST - overclocking is just a big bonus to keep you ahead of the curve for awhile. I got lucky that my X3220 does 3.2ghz at 1.325V which is pretty low for a quad, but not unheard of by any means. The other nice feature is that the X3220 runs the same settings as my E6600 did, 8x400. The multiplier unlocked downwards without any issues and 400mhz FSB is rock solid on my EVGA 680I A1 revision motherboard. The only disadvantage to the Quad Core is heat. However my Stacker 832 along with the Thermalright 120 Extreme takes care of that without any fuss.
 
your buddy is an idiot

Not going to bother going into it anymore since the first two replies cover it pretty well.
 
just to make a statement, it is said that barcelona is a little faster than a kentsfield in some benchmarks. I'm no AMD fanboii, but I'll have to give them that. But what makes me smile is that Intel's Penryn//Yorksfield//Wolfsdale is faster than the barcelona in the same benchmarks :p
 
intels pricing > Amd's whatever they still have left

Gotta remember. Intel will always be on top. Yet AMD is doing a good job staying in the game.

Too bad now that ATI is paired with AMD.. cough cough.. lets just say. Its gone to the shitters.
 
StealthyFish said:
just to make a statement, it is said that barcelona is a little faster than a kentsfield in some benchmarks. I'm no AMD fanboii, but I'll have to give them that. But what makes me smile is that Intel's Penryn//Yorksfield//Wolfsdale is faster than the barcelona in the same benchmarks :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, we will have to see how Agena and Kentsfield stack up, though this situation will be short lived.
 
Your buddy fell for the Native Quad Core marketing AMD started? Im not even going to get into that subject. Every other poster in this thread covered the topic well.
 
Lord Twilight said:
I was also talking to a friend and he was saying that the quad cores are clocked down slower than the dual cores? Meaning that an E6600 would be faster than a Q6600 in single-threaded or poorly multi-threaded apps.

I'm not all that deep into this technology (although this friend is a programmer), but I haven't seen anything indicating that the quad cores are slower but with more cores. I think he's just not up-to-speed with Intel processors? He goes on about how awesome AMD's 4x4 will be compared to Intel because they are native quad instead of dual-dual core. I'm not arguing, I'm just wondering if there is any truth to this?
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. I have an E6600 and a Q6600 running on two identical motherboards using the same memory. They perform exactly the same in everything (within a 3% margin for error which is acceptable) unless the application supports more than two cores in which case the Core 2 Quad rapes the Core 2 Duo.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
Your buddy fell for the Native Quad Core marketing AMD started? Im not even going to get into that subject. Every other poster in this thread covered the topic well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't believe it when I hear people foaming at the mouth about that.
 
I think what he meant is that quad cores can't overclock as well as dual cores because of all the heat they generate
 
HarkovAdm said:
I think what he meant is that quad cores can't overclock as well as dual cores because of all the heat they generate
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right but from what I understood, the OP is talking about the Q6600 being clocked lower than the E6600, which is false because both cpu is running at the same 9x266 MHz speed for 2.4 GHz at stock. It is therefore false to claim the Q6600 is slower.

When overclocking, it might be possible the E6600 is able to reach a bit higher but we are talking about minute differences in actual performance. What the Q6600 lack in top speed, is compensated by the extra 2 core who might offload a few process off the initial 2 cores and letting them have more room to work harder/faster.

 
HarkovAdm said:
I think what he meant is that quad cores can't overclock as well as dual cores because of all the heat they generate
Click to expand...

Not only generate more heat, but pull more power. In any case I'd agree this is probably true and from my experience owning the two processors in question, I think this is true.

Xilikon said:
Maybe you are right but from what I understood, the OP is talking about the Q6600 being clocked lower than the E6600, which is false because both cpu is running at the same 9x266 MHz speed for 2.4 GHz at stock. It is therefore false to claim the Q6600 is slower.

When overclocking, it might be possible the E6600 is able to reach a bit higher but we are talking about minute differences in actual performance. What the Q6600 lack in top speed, is compensated by the extra 2 core who might offload a few process off the initial 2 cores and letting them have more room to work harder/faster.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
it's just retarded for AMD to even try making a monolithic core since it'd probably bring their yields down... lol. That or just make shitty low clocked chips...
 
Thanks for all the responses! Now I just have to decide if I really do want to wait for July 22 and snatch a quad core, or if a dual will be enough. I do 3D and animation so I'll definitely be putting those extra cores to work, but that's only part of the time, the other part will be browsing and gaming.. Plus it's HOT here in AZ so heat can be an issue.
 
Lord Twilight said:
Thanks for all the responses! Now I just have to decide if I really do want to wait for July 22 and snatch a quad core, or if a dual will be enough. I do 3D and animation so I'll definitely be putting those extra cores to work, but that's only part of the time, the other part will be browsing and gaming.. Plus it's HOT here in AZ so heat can be an issue.
Click to expand...

don't you have an air conditioner? I used to live in Arizona and I know the heat, but it's dry heat. Turn on an air conditioner or get water cooling :)
 
Lord Twilight said:
Thanks for all the responses! Now I just have to decide if I really do want to wait for July 22 and snatch a quad core, or if a dual will be enough. I do 3D and animation so I'll definitely be putting those extra cores to work, but that's only part of the time, the other part will be browsing and gaming.. Plus it's HOT here in AZ so heat can be an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, a few weeks difference between owning an E6600 and a Q6600 and you get 2 extra cores at maybe a cheaper price than owning the E6600 now. I understand when people say "if you need it now, get it now", but seriously a few weeks for 2 extra cores which you'll definately use in 3D/anim and future games. Heat will only be an issue if you overclock, but if you overclock you should be going for good cooling nevertheless (btw I'm in the same boat as you ;)).
 
I'm not averse to waiting a couple more weeks to get the computer (though I am itching for it!!!) Now I'm more worried about the heat being an issue. I do have A/C at my house, it's just freaking hot here. We're hitting 110+ right now, so my room is usually around 80 even with A/C, not counting the computer dumping hot air into it. That plus an 8800GTS..

I'm not a big overclocker so I'm not going to be pushing it. Maybe just a mild one.. just for fun :)
 
Lord Twilight said:
I'm not averse to waiting a couple more weeks to get the computer (though I am itching for it!!!) Now I'm more worried about the heat being an issue. I do have A/C at my house, it's just freaking hot here. We're hitting 110+ right now, so my room is usually around 80 even with A/C, not counting the computer dumping hot air into it. That plus an 8800GTS..

I'm not a big overclocker so I'm not going to be pushing it. Maybe just a mild one.. just for fun :)
Click to expand...

go Q6600. I don't think you'll regret it. I'd live with the temp problems if I were you... and I can speak from experience. I've got my choice of a cold P4 630 lapped (gets like 30C idle, 45C load @ 4.0 Ghz) or this Pentium D 950 ES with a horrible mount and bad lap job (55C idle, 70C something load). Out of those two chips, I still took the Pentium D for the performance, lol. It's worth it.
 
Lord Twilight said:
I'm not averse to waiting a couple more weeks to get the computer (though I am itching for it!!!) Now I'm more worried about the heat being an issue. I do have A/C at my house, it's just freaking hot here. We're hitting 110+ right now, so my room is usually around 80 even with A/C, not counting the computer dumping hot air into it. That plus an 8800GTS..

I'm not a big overclocker so I'm not going to be pushing it. Maybe just a mild one.. just for fun :)
Click to expand...

Im here in mesa, so I know how ya feel. I keep it cool and use 120mm fans, lots. hehe
 
StealthyFish said:
it's just retarded for AMD to even try making a monolithic core since it'd probably bring their yields down... lol. That or just make shitty low clocked chips...
Click to expand...

VIA must be shitting themselves about now. 3rd rate Cyrix is going to be ousted by 2nd rate AMD!
 
Via bough cyrix, look at the niche that had to crawl in to. now they must be worries because
AMD will be ousting them in the low power market if they cant keep up.

lets see what happens with their new chips! i hope that can pull it off.
 
Heat MAY be a problem if you're overclocking, but at stock speeds or even a very mild OC, it shouldn't be a problem. I had built a PC using spare parts running an Athlon XP 1900+ at stock speeds running SETI@HOME. I had it on the top shelf of an entertainment center with glass doors (that I usually kept open) however, every Friday afternoon when I came home from work, I'd walk into my room which was an EASILY over 100 degrees in there due to the summer heat and being on the second floor, only to find that our housekeeper at SHUT the glass doors. I was very surprised to find the PC still running, no lockups or errors and the CPU temp was at 74C!

This happened on multiple occasions and that CPU is still running today.
 
DeFex said:
Via bough cyrix, look at the niche that had to crawl in to. now they must be worries because
AMD will be ousting them in the low power market if they cant keep up.

lets see what happens with their new chips! i hope that can pull it off.
Click to expand...

the whole consumer microprocessing market is pushing towards lower power consumption. I think all those companies have already shat themselves. Intel's low power TDP chips already eat 20 some watts... and they're faster than ever...
 
DeFex said:
Via bough cyrix, look at the niche that had to crawl in to. now they must be worries because
AMD will be ousting them in the low power market if they cant keep up.

lets see what happens with their new chips! i hope that can pull it off.
Click to expand...

No, National Semi-Conductor bought Cyrix, then National Semi-Conductor then sold the many of the Cyrix intellectual properties to VIA while others were sold to AMD. What was sold to AMD was what we would all eventually come to know as the AMD Geode.
 
Lord Twilight said:
I was also talking to a friend and he was saying that the quad cores are clocked down slower than the dual cores? Meaning that an E6600 would be faster than a Q6600 in single-threaded or poorly multi-threaded apps.
Click to expand...
But if they are clocked down, they are not equivalent! Or how do you define equivalence?
 
drizzt81 said:
But if they are clocked down, they are not equivalent! Or how do you define equivalence?
Click to expand...

Well, that was the problem, my friend was saying that a Q6600 was not the same speed as an E6600, it was slower but with more cores. I thought that was wrong, and everyone on here confirms that.

Despite being a computer engineer, he's one of those types that buys a fast CPU and video card and cheap ram and motherboard then wonders why he has stability problems. Once in a while he has a good point about computer stuff though, which is why I wanted to run it by the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top