How do dual cores compare in a quad core age?

[Dougx1317]

Sorry to ask questions about older processors.

I'll be doing mainly office tasks. I will NOT be overclocking.

In AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, how much of a performance difference is there between the processors with 2x1mb cache and processors with 2x512kb cache?

In AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, how much of a performance difference is there between the 90nm and 65nm processors?

Are the tri core processors significantly better for my purpose?

Will I see a significant improvement in a 5000+ X2 over my current Pentium D 925? How about a 6000+ X2 I know I'd need a new motherboard.

What would be a good AMD X2 processor for these days? 4800+, 5200+, 6000+? I want something that I will actually see a big difference in.

What Intel processor will compare to the AMD X2 processors?

 

[Nik_I]

for office tasks, you could get the cheapest athlon x2 there is. the cache differences offer minimal performance increases. and the 90nm vs 65nm doesn't offer much in terms of performance benefits, but it will run cooler. tri cores are unnecessary for office work, unless you'll be doing alot of excel work with huge calculations. and as for the intel equivalent, an athlon x2 5000+ would be roughly equal to the low-end core 2's, like the E6420 and such.

 

[rockbyter]

To answer your question : what Nik said. 2 cores is 2 cores, and you will notice the difference over 1 core, follow that with the faster you can clock it, and more cache there is the better, just match it to your budget. spending more than $150 on a processor you'll want to switch to quad core for the shift in performance available to you in the future.

the number of cores is leading us to a very simple idea that server markets have been putting up for years. More threads at the same time the better the performance for their specific tasks. The more things we do on our systems, the more we will immediately benefit from more threads(cores). We saw something this week that is just crazy. Dual i7 -6 core hyper threaded processors results in 24 threads on a single motherboard. The best multithreaded applications encoding or whatever only took advantage of 16 threads however you could run 2 of those insane tasks at the same time. Software is nowhere near ready for that kind of threading, however having more than 2 threads available is immediately noticeable when you get multiple programs running. Even new browsers are opening an individual thread per page opened. When you take a look at the process list in task manager, divide the number of processes by number of cores times the number of threads available per core. 2 is not going to be enough to get a power user through say 2010, but for a budget mind, it'll do for now.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

I agree with Nik_I!

The AMD x2 5000 is excellent for general office tasks and non-gamers. Prices are quite reasonable. This past year I built a few pc's for friends, neighbors, and girlfriends using that cpu. They're all happy campers. As Nik_I pointed out you don't need anything more unless you will be working with really monsterous databases and very complicated calculations.

 

[sailer]

I basically concur with what has been said. Fact is, one of my office computers runs a S939 4400+ and handles casual things very well, even if it is a few years old. So a X2 5000 should do fine for casual stuff. However, if you do CPU intensive work, then a quad comes into its own. I have two quad core computers, one Intel and one AMD powered, and I load up all 4 cores of these on a daily basis. Then again, I do some intense work on these and the reason I bought the first quad core was because the dual core would slow to a crawl at times.

So, if only casual office work is done, a dual core should keep you going for two or three more years, by which time software will probably outstrip it. And that's about when I'll probably retire my old S939 4400+, unless it dies on its own before then.

 

[megamanx00]

Having more cores allows you to do more things at the same time. Most applications just run on one core and a some are optimized for two cores. The third core will just allow you to run another set of instructions at the same time compared to a dual core. Applications like multimedia encoding will often benefit from having three cores. If you like to have alot of active applications open at the same time then you would benefit from three cores. For most daily office tasks though it won't make any noticeable difference. 90nm AMDs are generally faster than 65nm of the same ratting, but the 65nm require less power and generate less heat. Also those with 2x1MB of cache generally preform better than those with 2x512MB of cache. Still, unless you're playing games you won't notice any difference.

The Athlon 5000+ and 5200+ would be right for you since they are priced so low right now and should be more than fast enough for what you are going to use you computer for.

A 5200 would be a noticable increase of about 35-70% depending on the application while the 6000+ would be more like 45-100%. Intrestingly the chats give the 6000+ a better price/performance ratting than the 5200. You may want to check out the CPU charts yourself

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/benchmarks,16.html

The Pentium 830 is pretty much the same as the 925, except the 830 has less cache and is on an older process. The performance of the two will be similar. Anyway I say go with the 5200 or 5000 since they are so cheap, but the 6000 will give you more performance and is a good deal right now. It runs a little hot though.


As far as comparable Intel Processor your probably looking at a Core 2 Duo E6600/E6700 as being comparable to the Athlon 6000+ while the Core 2 Duo E6400 would be comparable to the 5200.

 

[ZootyGray]

Agree with most of the above. Forget the 6000, it's a gamer. The 5200+ will be fine. Buy 65nm Brisbane rather than 90nm Windsor - Brisbane runs cooler, less power, same performance, newer.

What you could do:
is buy a Gigabyte mobo with a 790GX/SB750 chipset, run the 5200+ in it for now - and it will also run Phenom triple or Quad core if you need that in a couple years - and those are getting cheaper now, and will be even cheaper later. Here is the mobo:
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2887

This board has everything including HiDef full multimedia everything and best onboard video on the market today. Job done. With huge upgrade potential and performance potential.

Similar with slightly less power is a Gigabyte with 780G chipset - mainly the same features with slightly less power handling. This one is probably more suited for your needs as you describe. (see CPU support list)

Gigabyte is a favoured board with AMD people these days re Quality! Avoid ECS, biostar and similar cheap boards with cheap parts - if you want longevity!

If you are only doing office = go dual core.
If you do office, internet, music, vista, movie, photoshop, misc java apps, and a lot of stuff all at the same time = go triple core or quad core.

AMD's 9900 Phenom quad just dropped to 159.99 at some sites.
Athlon 64 x2 5200 approx 71.00 and lower for 4800+

The 780G board is close to 100
The 790GX board is 125-150ish

With 2x2 Gigs ram, you are covered.

Both these Giga boards are fully able to run home theatre - or even office theatre whatever - and you can run HTPC with only a slow dualcore.

You probably need new pow supply too.

Do look at "cpu support list" !!!!

Enjoy

(I am very close to buying that board btw) (lots of reviews are available)

Recommend you run your question through "The Zone" forums:
Deleted

ZG
.

 

[Cymus]

It really depends on what kind of office work. If you mean simple word programs, powerpoint, etc, go with that 5200. I use a 4200 X2 for gaming and it does all right, but I need an upgrade. If you are not gaming with it at all, or old games like 06 on down you will be just fine. Don't even worry about 4 gb ram, although it wouldnt hurt since its so cheap... Just make sure you get a motherboard that supports phenom so you have support for future upgrades, like faster processor, ddr3, pci e 2.0. It will make you future prone for at least a few years by doing that simple stuff. You obviously won't need SLI.

 

[amdfangirl]

Agree with most of the above. Forget the 6000, it's a gamer. The 5200+ will be fine. Buy 65nm Brisbane rather than 90nm Windsor - Brisbane runs cooler, less power, same performance, newer.
.

...however, some models of Windsor are faster than the Brisbane as they have 2MB of L2 cache... the Brisbane has 0.1Ghz frequency... in games the Windsor is faster...

Seriously if you have the Pentium D there's no need to upgrade! Your fine (unless you want to lower power consumption in which case I recommend the Pentium E5200 or Athlon 4850e)

Pair that with any modern IGP and that's alot more than you need

(I am very close to buying that board btw) (lots of reviews are available)

.

Yes, its an excellent board... love the stuff, Gigabyte makes lovely 790GX boards... however I prefer their top-of-the-line 780G with solid caps and everything...

 

[BadTrip]

solid caps rock

 

[amdfangirl]

Can't wait for the Gigabyte extra copper stuff too...

 

[yipsl]

I'll be the odd man out and say that if you just do office work you can still benefit from a triple core, or a quad core. Just get the cheapest in your budget and get the least expensive chipset. The Q6600 is the budget quad from Intel, though it's well over $150 and the 9650 is the budget from AMD (though I got a triple core 8750 for $129 -- but I already had a compatible motherboard).

The reason is that many office workers multitask. Have a core or two for the OS as well as for the one or two applications running is not a bad idea. My old Athlon X2 4600+ used to get bogged down, but not near as bad as the single core Pentium 3 and Athlon XP I've had to work with at a client's location.

What I can't wait for is the death of 32 bit Windows computing except under emulation. While I can't say that Vista's been that worthwhile outside of DX10 for a couple of games, it might have been if I'd gotten the 64 bit version. When Microsoft forces compatibility in Windows 7, and software developers finally support more cores on the desktop, then we'll see major improvements.

Right now, I just see cheap triples or quads from AMD, or the cheapest quad from Intel as the ideal route for an upgrade that allows for more multitasking as more complex versions of productivity software is released.

 

[rockbyter]

While I can't say that Vista's been that worthwhile outside of DX10 for a couple of games, it might have been if I'd gotten the 64 bit version.

Just to clarify, Is everyone aware that any legit Vista code will install both 32 bit and 64 bit without issue? You just need to download the 64 bit iso and install with it instead.

 

[AdioKIP]

In real world performance, Dual core is more then enough. I run an Athlon X2 6000+. (If I wasnt a gamer I would have stepped down to the 5000+ for better power management and less heat.)

A few months back I wanted to see what I would need to run from regular applications that would actually hold both cores near max. In order to do it I simultaneously had to:

Rip 3 DVD's to ISO format
Run A Virus Scan
Start Media Player and watch Sports center
Compile a photo thumbnail database
Had a few yahoo chat windows open
Itunes playing music
Had the PS3 streaming video from the pc
and was still able to browse the web at a comfortable speed.

If building a system today on a budget I would go dual core, use the difference in price between that and the quad and get atleast 4 gigs of ram a descent video card and vista 64bit to utilize it all. When I bought my motherboard (Asus M3A32) it was with the intention that it would allow me to one day go quad core but right now I just dont see the point. I'm a heavy multi-tasker (picture of my system is below) and I still cant seem to slow down my dual core...

http://www.3shiznits.com/image_hosting/Computer_01.jpg

 

[yipsl]

Just to clarify, Is everyone aware that any legit Vista code will install both 32 bit and 64 bit without issue? You just need to download the 64 bit iso and install with it instead.

Okay, I didn't know that, but then again. I haven't spent much time tweaking Vista. It actually seems to work well enough for me. I'll check on Microserf's web site.

 

[zodiacfml]

that's pretty a lot of question for doing office tasks.
there is no difference in cache size for office applications, only in price of the processor.
get the 65nm processor, less heat and power consumed in idle/load compared to 90nm. also, 90nm are being phased out.

running office tasks, you might not notice a difference between your pentium D and a new x2 5000. even if you did, that will be small.

again, for office tasks, amd processors can do very well and is cheaper.