dual core VS quad core in Real Life

[dagger]

That doesn't make sense. Torrents is NOT a heavy task and can run on a single core while gaming if you really wanted to fairly easily. The fact is right now most new dual cores (E8000 series especially) are more then capable for most peoples needs. Real world difference - depends on what you want to do. Quad core leaps in when doing more then one heavy task. Say encoding while playing a game. Running VM is useful because you can assign two cores to your virtual machines while encoding / (even play a game) in the background.

It depends on the number of swarm size and half open connections. I don't like to cap my connections limit while seeding. Maintaining more than 50k of peer connections can be taxing on both cpu and memory, and lag down games.

Again, this is identical to the dual vs single core a few years back. For short term, dual is good, as was single core back then. For 2+ years, you need quad.

 

[cisco]

How applications function with multi-cores will change over the coming years. Intel and Microsoft have invested $20 million into improving multi-core usage with applications. So, although dual cores may have an edge today quads will have their day very soon. To be honest I own the Q6600 and even at stock speeds find it to be very impressive at multi-tasking. Can run a multitude of apps at once and never know the others are running. Apps and games will improve in their utilization of multi-cores because that is the future of processors. This is the only real direction processors are heading. We've been stuck around the same clock speeds for years. There have been improvements in architecture, but the clock speeds are pretty stagnant.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I find this all very interesting since soon Intel plans to run raytracing for games. If theyre havong such a tough time with video encoding, whats gaming going to be like? Rasterization seems like its going to be tough to replace, though, time will tell. Speed is the thing still, not multi. But again, time will tell.

 

[tjoepie]

Would it not be better to buy a cheaper DDR2 board with a E8500 and an easy OC to 3800Mhz (=400x9.5) on aircooling today?
And then replace it next year to a nahalem and DDR3 for what a new board is necesary anyway since I read it would use a new socket.
Or would I loose out on a lot not having a quadcore for gaming this coming year?

 

[Mousemonkey]

Would it not be better to buy a cheaper DDR2 board with a E8500 and an easy OC to 3800Mhz (=400x9.5) on aircooling today?
And then replace it next year to a nahalem and DDR3 for what a new board is necesary anyway since I read it would use a new socket.
Or would I loose out on a lot not having a quadcore for gaming this coming year?

Or hedge your bets and get a Q9300, more current and shiny than a Q6600 but cheaper and lower clockspeed than the 8500 by a whole 516mhz. [:mousemonkey:2]

 

[phillyman36]

Before I switched from my e6600 to my q9450 I did some some benchmarking to compare

Convert 30 Days of night dvd main movie

Dvd fab platinum
E6600 = 1:52:10 Q9450 = 1:28:09

Nero Recode (avc)
E6600 = 1:22:31 Q9450 = 45:56

Tmpg Express 4 (mpeg 4)
E6600 = 2:07:45 Q9450 = 1:04:18

multi tasking feels smoother and when dragging multiple files to another internal hard drive it doesn take as long

 

[colore]

nice, but Q9450 is too expensive for such small improvement

 

[Grimmy]

I've notice that even though single thread apps, my Q6600 does use all 4 cores.

For example... good old Super PI. When I ran that on my E4400, one core would be used, on the Quad, it actually different, I see the load change on to different cores. So my XP is actually making the most use out of it.

Games on the other hand, will end up using a single core. Theres one twist I've noticed though, when you run a game that is single core, its going to be either on Core 1 or Core 2. What I mean by that, its using the center cores:

Core 0 - Core 1 - Core 2 - Core 3

I thought that was kinda neat (thermal wise). I was actually expecting Core 0 to be used when I started up single core games.

But it seems as though in XP whether its single threaded, seems all the core interact in usage. Even starting up Gimp pretty much makes me blink a couple of times. When I used my E4400, I could sit there and watch the files load, I don't even see the files load now. :lol:

 

[dagger]

Of course all cores are used. The OS moves system threads and background programs to spare cores, and dedicate a core (or 2, if the application is dual optimized) for the heavy program you're running.

 

[Grimmy]

Heh.. Since I just got my Q6600 not long ago, I just noticing XP use the 4 cores, just seems more usage over my dual core.

 

[halcyon]

Before I switched from my e6600 to my q9450 I did some some benchmarking to compare

Convert 30 Days of night dvd main movie

Dvd fab platinum
E6600 = 1:52:10 Q9450 = 1:28:09

Nero Recode (avc)
E6600 = 1:22:31 Q9450 = 45:56

Tmpg Express 4 (mpeg 4)
E6600 = 2:07:45 Q9450 = 1:04:18

multi tasking feels smoother and when dragging multiple files to another internal hard drive it doesn take as long

That's a notable difference. ...and to boot the Q9450 is cooler and more power efficient? ...worth the extra $$ to me.

 

[boonality]

I bought the quad core because i play flight simulators, of which FSX is better on a quad than a dual.

 

[crazyfish2]

I have a question as I am trying to decide between the e8400 and the q6600 but I still want to continue using XP for a while, so is there a point to getting a quadcore or would I not see much improvement until I make the jump to vista64?

My current system has lasted me about 4 years so I would like get about 3yrs out of this new system.