When will core 2 quads be useful?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zero82z said:
It's not the last LGA775 CPU. And there really isn't much of a difference between it and a standard Q9550. In fact, most newer Q9550s can be undervolted to the same level as the S chips, so you can get the same power savings for a much lower price.
Click to expand...


Can you undervolt the S even lower?
 
Unless you are CPU limited in applications/games, an SSD will give you much more "snappiness" in Windows than an upgrade from a dual to a quad Core2 CPU.
 
thenewrick said:
What are the most recent 775s? Don't tell me they are actually still making new ones?
Click to expand...
They've released a few new Celeron and Pentium Dual-Core chips recently, as well as the Q9505 which is basically a Q9550 with half the L2 cache. They aren't making any more high-end LGA775 CPUs, but they'll probably release a few more budget-oriented models.
needmorecarnitine said:
Can you undervolt the S even lower?
Click to expand...
Depends on the chip. Probably not substantially lower than your average E0 Q9550 though.
 
Interesting. I will ride out the Conroe for as long as I can then buy a Q9550. I really want one so I hope Q9550 prices drop to under 150 in the next year.
 
thenewrick said:
I hope Q9550 prices drop to under 150 in the next year.
Click to expand...

If anything I believe the price will increase (like it did for the Q6600) after the production ends. The question is when Intel will quit producing any core2 qauds. Maybe a little after i3 becomes a product.
 
I can't think of any reason for 4 cores. I mean really...encoding? I don't think I have ever encoded anything since I got into computers back in 1996. Oh wait, I used DivX 1 time to switch a movie to that format from AVI does that count? Also, anyone that needs to be playing a game while burning a DVD and having 16 windows open at the same time with messenger open and every other chat program open at the same time is an idiot to begin with and shouldn't be on a PC anyways so.....seriously people that do that have problems to begin with, something 4 cores will not help LOL
 
I can't think of any reason for 4 cores
Click to expand...

As a programmer who spends 10s of minutes to hours each day waiting for my code to compile I sometimes think I made the wrong decision to get only a 4 core machine.
 
maybe when bluray burners become mainstream, and you can reliably find content to burn onto them, i'll want a quad core to help speed that up.
 
Zero82z said:
I summarized that for you.
Click to expand...

+1 utter win

maleficarus said:
I can't think of any reason for 4 cores. I mean really...encoding? I don't think I have ever encoded anything since I got into computers back in 1996. Oh wait, I used DivX 1 time to switch a movie to that format from AVI does that count? Also, anyone that needs to be playing a game while burning a DVD and having 16 windows open at the same time with messenger open and every other chat program open at the same time is an idiot to begin with and shouldn't be on a PC anyways so.....seriously people that do that have problems to begin with, something 4 cores will not help LOL
Click to expand...

I do 3D animation, and Folding@Home (not trying to bring this into everything, but its true).
4 cores = 3.5 times faster rendering speed.

Considering a project, when finalized, takes about 17 hours a frame (tops, typically just an hour a frame, if I am lucky), I don't want to imagine this being any slower, when most projects I have are about 45000-50000 frames long.

This is [H]... we want better performance (or price) despite all the nieghsayers, for what we need.

Some people just need better rendering speeds. Some want better gaming performance. Why do you need 4gb of ram? Windows Vista only need 2GB! Why a 9600GT? Windows Vista only needs an Intel GMA 950! Why a 500W PSU? I run my Atom System off of a 80W PSU! - it runs windows 7 'just fine'.

Who on earth has 16 windows open... have you ever done finance/IT work for a 'medium' sized business? 16 windows is just the start of it...
 
Last edited:
jeremyshaw said:
+1 utter win



I do 3D animation, and Folding@Home (not trying to bring this into everything, but its true).
4 cores = 3.5 times faster rendering speed.

Considering a project, when finalized, takes about 17 hours a frame (tops, typically just an hour a frame, if I am lucky), I don't want to imagine this being any slower, when most projects I have are about 45000-50000 frames long.

This is [H]... we want better performance (or price) despite all the nieghsayers, for what we need.

Some people just need better rendering speeds. Some want better gaming performance. Why do you need 4gb of ram? Windows Vista only need 2GB! Why a 9600GT? Windows Vista only needs an Intel GMA 950! Why a 500W PSU? I run my Atom System off of a 80W PSU! - it runs windows 7 'just fine'.

Who on earth has 16 windows open... have you ever done finance/IT work for a 'medium' sized business? 16 windows is just the start of it...
Click to expand...

Folding@home? LOL What a waste of hydro. You folded any cures yet? How bout you actualy take the extra cash you blow on hydro folding and give the local guy living on the street a warm meal, I mean at least it will benifit somebody right now...

Not trying to target you, I just find most of the reasons why people think they need 4 cores is silly at best....
 
maleficarus said:
Folding@home? LOL What a waste of hydro. You folded any cures yet? How bout you actualy take the extra cash you blow on hydro folding and give the local guy living on the street a warm meal, I mean at least it will benifit somebody right now...

Not trying to target you, I just find most of the reasons why people think they need 4 cores is silly at best....
Click to expand...

I fold in my spare time, when I am not doing a project:rolleyes:

It makes sure I am NOT wasting my computer's power.

And you ignored the rest of my post.

EDIT: and look for PS3's post bashing F@H... they have not found 'cures' but have found many, many intersting scientific finds.
Argue how you might that it's useless, but that is what people thought of the space program, too. Now look at all the stuff it's brought forth.
 
dual core2 upgrade to a quad core2?

HA, get with the times newb

:cool:
 
I also burn DVDs sometimes, which seems to use some decoding and encoding processes
Click to expand...

burning a dvd does not encode unless your doing a decode and burn on the fly, burning an ISO image ot video_ts folders does not encoding or decoding of any kind.


i love my Q9650 @ 4.1Ghz, i do everything you said you will do, game, tab out to IE or FF, have music going, various IM's and game communictors, burn DVD, printer disk covers and so on, i love knowing i wont be scrapping by for CPU cycles with a quad.
 
maleficarus said:
I can't think of any reason for 4 cores. I mean really...encoding? I don't think I have ever encoded anything since I got into computers back in 1996. Oh wait, I used DivX 1 time to switch a movie to that format from AVI does that count? Also, anyone that needs to be playing a game while burning a DVD and having 16 windows open at the same time with messenger open and every other chat program open at the same time is an idiot to begin with and shouldn't be on a PC anyways so.....seriously people that do that have problems to begin with, something 4 cores will not help LOL
Click to expand...

So i am an idiot for being able to multitask?? :rolleyes:

i dont have any problem, nor does anyone else, it seems you do, i die in a round of CS:S i dont want to wait 5 mins staring at a screen to wait for everyone else to die and the round end, so i alt+tab out and do other things, sorry i like to make good use of my time and be efficient at getting things done, maybe you have the problem because you cant multi-task.
 
games are and will continue to become more multithreaded as they make more use of physics engines and other cpu intensive features.

from the [H] arma 2 review:

CPU and Memory

Between the AMD Radeon HD 4890 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285, we found CPU utilization to be nearly identical regardless of the GPU powering the game. This ARMA II is definitely multi-core aware, and will demand at least a dual-core CPU. It used 50% of our quad-core CPU continuously.
Click to expand...
 
Ya, games are finally coming into their own on using more then 1 core, now that dual core + has become more the norm for people, 2 years ago this wasnt the case when say Q6600 was the chip to have.
 
Just some personal experiences but I had an e6850 at stock speeds and when I enable multi-core support in TF2, it would stutter and hitch something fierce. So I couldn't use it. I got a great deal on my q9550 and when I enable multi-core support in TF2 now, no more stuttering and hitching.

But beyond that, only something like F@H or the SETI variant will really see much improvement. Basically, there is not a whole lot out there that is really taking full advantage of quad (Multi) cores, yet. (Games specifically, though they are starting to more and more.)

P.S.

TF2's multi-core support is minimal (Lacking.) and not a good example of multi-core support. L4D is much better.
 
I don't know how much truth there is to this, but I have been told that quad-core processors often perform better than dual-core in multi-tasking situations (i.e. where four single-threaded applications are in use at once). Again, I can't verify this, but I guess it makes sense.
 
Goddamn IT! This is AMERICA and MORE is ALWAYS more BETTER and if you dont have the MOST you are a loser and no woman will touch you !!! TV tells me this so it MUST be TRUE.

Cant wait for Sandy Ridge hmmm 6 core goodness, ALL your babes belong to me !

Carry on.
 
MrGuvernment said:
So i am an idiot for being able to multitask?? :rolleyes:

i dont have any problem, nor does anyone else, it seems you do, i die in a round of CS:S i dont want to wait 5 mins staring at a screen to wait for everyone else to die and the round end, so i alt+tab out and do other things, sorry i like to make good use of my time and be efficient at getting things done, maybe you have the problem because you cant multi-task.
Click to expand...

LOL! That is not multi-tasking...but more like stupid-tasking...Seriously.....You're playing a 10 year old game that dosen't even need a fast multi core CPU and you're justifying it all b/c you want to alt tab out of waiting to do something else? Like what, jerk off in between rounds? LOL
 
maleficarus said:
LOL! That is not multi-tasking...but more like stupid-tasking...Seriously.....You're playing a 10 year old game that dosen't even need a fast multi core CPU and you're justifying it all b/c you want to alt tab out of waiting to do something else? Like what, jerk off in between rounds? LOL
Click to expand...

So now you're calling people stupid for wanting to do more than one thing with their computer? You're a real winner. :rolleyes:

Just to get this straight, what you've been saying is if people don't do what YOU do on a computer, then they're stupid idiots?
 
Quads are useful now. I find them useful for DC programs, encoding, watching movies (especially HD content), gaming and having a large number of programs running. Even better is that I can do all of that at the same time if I feel like it. Hell, I want more cores than what I have and I can make use of it.

Just because a certain percentage of the population doesn't make use of the resources of a quad 100% of the time doesn't mean it isn't useful.

As an aside, I have three quads and they aren't enough for my uses. I can always use more CPU power. Sure, I'm a power user compared to most but that's irrelevant to the discussion since the resources are useful to me and many others like me.

 
I plan on skipping the Q9550 and upping to a full Bloomfield sometime next year, in preparation of Ivy Bridge. :)
 
maleficarus said:
LOL! That is not multi-tasking...but more like stupid-tasking...Seriously.....You're playing a 10 year old game that dosen't even need a fast multi core CPU and you're justifying it all b/c you want to alt tab out of waiting to do something else? Like what, jerk off in between rounds? LOL
Click to expand...

cs:s was an example, also TF:2 which isn't 10 years old and is very CPU intensive, i could go on to list other games, but i feel it would be a waste.

I must ask what your issue is, why is everyone 'stupid' because they are capable of doing more then one thing at a time on their computers and can actually use a quad core...
 
Quads are very useful for gaming IF you have fast graphics.

I benched my Q9550s at 4.0 GHz against my e8600 at 4.25 GHz (in 15 games at 19x12 and 16x10 with maxed out details and 4xAA/16xAF) and the slower Quad made a couple of games playable that were unplayable with the +260 MHz clocked higher Dual. i also tested Q9550s against Phenom II X2 and X3 and also am testing against i7 920.

Q9550 at 4.0 GHz seems to be the "sweet spot" for 4870-X3 TriFire
 
Already ready recieved a warning for hurting your feelings...god this forum is so sensitive LOL

My point or issue is there is no need to be doing 20 things at the same time at home anyways. I can understand a quad for a buisness where you need to be doing as much as possibly all the time but sitting at home relaxing? Sorry, dosen't hold any water for me. So when I read people having a dozen or so appz open at the same time while playing a video game to me is stupid. You want to burn a movie? Fine, burn a flick but you shouldn't be playing a video game and using auto cad while you do that....that is all geez....
 
maleficarus said:
So when I read people having a dozen or so appz open at the same time while playing a video game to me is stupid. You want to burn a movie? Fine, burn a flick but you shouldn't be playing a video game and using auto cad while you do that....that is all geez....
Click to expand...

Your trolling skillz were better earlier, now your just obviously poking a sharp stick at any post you see. :D This one was too blatantly constructed to piss people off. You have potential, but you should have been more subtle my young troll padawan.
 
maleficarus said:
Already ready recieved a warning for hurting your feelings...god this forum is so sensitive LOL

My point or issue is there is no need to be doing 20 things at the same time at home anyways. I can understand a quad for a buisness where you need to be doing as much as possibly all the time but sitting at home relaxing? Sorry, dosen't hold any water for me. So when I read people having a dozen or so appz open at the same time while playing a video game to me is stupid. You want to burn a movie? Fine, burn a flick but you shouldn't be playing a video game and using auto cad while you do that....that is all geez....
Click to expand...

You had no point. You were calling people stupid just for the sake of being contentious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top