Who Says You Need Four Cores?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]JPForums[/nom]Chris Angelini,It has already been mentioned (even by you), but I feel it needs to be reiterated.A 780G based board would have been much better for this comparison.(It would be even better to have both the 740G and the 780G)You can't really get a feel for the benefits of quad core if your hardware, admittedly, is bottlenecking it, but not the dual core.Then there is the issue of the graphics performance.If the graphics and/or video decode performance is important to you, then the ~$15 difference for the upgrade that will do it should be assumed. (Especially when comparing to a platform that you claim costs ~$110 more)If you really wanted to answer the question of whether or not you should go with a quad core processor you should've done two things.1) Use an AMD board that doesn't bottleneck one or the other processor.2) Add a low end Intel quad core to the mix.You'll likely still come to the same conclusion that the extra money for a quad core in a cheaper system like this is currently better spent on the graphics card, but you'll have data to back it up. You'll also have a better idea of what quad cores really bring to the table.You constantly comment on how a 780G/790GX would show much better results. You also mention that a 780G only cost ~$15 more. Finally, after all of the testing, you conclude that you should disregard the article completely and you get a board based on a chipset that you mentioned, but didn't bother to test. I have to conclude that you know what you should be doing, but for some reason (Upper management, agenda, lack of time, laziness, money or lack there of, etc.) you don't do it. I encourage readers to do the same as you did. Disregard this article in its entirety and use previous knowledge to make your decisions.If you don't find an article useful, why should we? Consider this the next time you decide to print an article that gives little or no relevant information to the reader. A few simple changes and/or additions would have made this article worth reading. I realize it takes more time, but I'm much more satisfied with an article that is late, but well thought out, than one that even the author doesn't feel is pertinent to his buying decisions.[/citation]

JP--thanks for the feedback. In fact, I was interested by the results, which is why I wrote it up into a story. Suspecting the same thing (740G bottlenecking the processor), I did run tests in this piece with the Phenom on a 780G and--surprise--same result. The goal here was to introduce some new hardware (740G/G45)--not with the intention of declaring one better than the other (after all, they represent two different price points)--but to explore dual- vs. quad-core performance using platforms that each respective company is talking about.
 
Right, well when I build PC's I configure them based on usage.

Gaming PC's get the faster clocked dual cores as very few games actually benefit from quad-core processors, you can get a 3.33Ghz dual for the same price as a 2.6Ghz quad. (Save for the rare few such as SupCom).

I build our workstations at work (3d modeling) with quad cores as the software seems to better take advantage of the extra cores.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]waste of time to read, its been known for years that you dont compare clock speeds (in this case, 2.53ghz) - you compare price points! Wheres an Intel Quad? or a lower end Intel like a E4600 etc? and after all that BS, why the cheap AMD board thats "$10 - $15 less" against that expensive ass intel board? pffftttt[/citation]

The E7000 series Wolfdales is the equivalent of the E4000 series Conroes. It's the same price point.

Just another article showing how pitiful a Phenom really is. What happened to all the hype about 3-Core Phenom? Oh right, the 4-Core Phenom cannot even compete against Dual-Core Core 2's..........

 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Thanks for the feedback Wasp. In fact, I certainly hope that this machine isn't going to have to last six years--when things slow down to the point of being unbearable, it's no fun at all. [/citation]

In your article, on the first page, you state.. "So let’s take a look at what it means to upgrade to an affordable configuration with modern components as I build my next six-year system."

So, your response makes as little sense as your article did.

Basically, your penny pinching and ending up with a sub-par system, when for a few dollars more you can have a capable system that will perform on a much higher level and last a lot longer.... no matter which way you slice it.. this "build" is ill-conceived.

Which seams to be the way of things at Tom's of late... every time I read the System Build Marathons, You can see how out of touch with the technology on the market these writers truely are. Every Build lately on this site lately can be done better, within the given budget, by someone with even marginal PC building skills.
 
Look right now no one really needs 4 core except people who do design things with lots of trans coding.
But, I buy 4 core cpu's for all my stuff, I want the software makers out there to see that coding for multi core cpu's is the way to go.
 
780G Chipset is better than any Intel IGP Chipset to date. From powerconsumption to gaming performance plus the ability to have flawless multi monitor support. 780G is the best choice on this article.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]The goal here was to introduce some new hardware (740G/G45)--not with the intention of declaring one better than the other (after all, they represent two different price points)--but to explore dual- vs. quad-core performance using platforms that each respective company is talking about. [/citation]

So if that was the goal, why not use an Intel Quad as well as the Phenom X4, this way you would have a comparison to both platforms, while this "review" seems tailor made to try to make AMD's x4's seem underpowered. As in your "conclusion" you stated: "When a dual-core offering can outperform its competitor’s pricier quad-core solution, you have to take notice."

Ummmm.... the 4850e will do the same thing to an Intel Quad as the Core 2 did to the Phenom X4 in single or dual threaded applications.


 
I think Mr. Angelini deserves more credit here for putting this article, even though I think he could have been doing a better job. What he tried to express in the article, is considerations for average home/office users, but the title is apparently enacted to flame a verbal war.

This is how I think the title of the article should be: "Who Says You Need a Quad Core at Home?" That's more like it. As the whole article is about home/office use with some casual gaming. That's actually most people do with their computers. Virtualization? I know a friend who runs two dual-Xeon virtualization servers to support his small business, and he doesn't think those machines are necessary at home.

This is what I think should be done for a dual/quad article:

1. Select comparable platforms, and put Intel dual against Intel Quad, while use AMD triple against AMD quad.

2. Select representative application categories: home/office, professional, scientific/engineering, audio/video encoding, file server/virtualization.

Computers are becoming so complex, so benchmarking shouldn't be a mixed bag. There's use for most of the stuff on the market, and the purpose of the computer decides what components to be used. This article should have been focusing on home/office instead of other applications.
 
I don't know what kind of business Desktop your using, but it seems like that means email and browsing, which can be done with a 1Ghz system and a Matrox video card. Where I work, we all have two concurrent OSs at Minimum, per workstation because we're engineers and technicians. Actually, at Pricewatch, you can get a full AMD 3200 based system for $97 TOTAL. I bet it would fit your needs.

http://www.pricewatch.com/barebones_computers/

Additionally, your reasons for not getting a quad core are a bit short sighted, and aren't taking in the full lifespan of the system into consideration. I still have a 400MHz P2 serving as my pfSense firewall, and I tend to use my systems long after they leave my desktop. Now that multi-core is the standard, future software will treat this as a baseline, and I would like my system to be able to handle more threads when software finally evolves and takes advantage of it. I use Openfiler for RAID-6 in software on my old system, and the Developers claim they possibly will only be offering 64Bit versions in future releases. Sure, with a dual core it might be faster at some operations. But later on when I'm running Xen or VMware ESX or Microsoft's Hypervisor and am able to have my Router, Firewall, NAS, FTP, Torrent, Web, Ect run on a single system because I had the forsight to get more than 2 cores I will appreciate it. Total lifecycle needs to be taken into consideration, and RAID-Z with multi-terabyte ZFS arrays on SSDs with SATA-3 ports is going to be a little more demanding than Firefox. I mention that because in 5 years, the storage and interface hardware I mentioned will be cheap, and if I have the proper CPU in hand already it will be cheaper.

PS: Why can't we have people who actually do this stuff for a living write reviews? Almost without exception, every article that has been posted in recent memory has a stream of comments pointing out glaring flaws in the work being "reported" on.

Many of the comments are valid, and aren't just idle flamings. Even the flames themselves should be indicative of something, because in years past the articles didn't generate this kind of seething anger and repugnance from people as they do today. People were actually proud if they managed to find a single flaw and point it out, because it was that rare. Now even the kiddies are poking holes in articles, and posting correspondingly immature flames, which says as much about content on this site as it does about their age.
 
Heya,

I think a lot of the criticism has merit, but at the same time, consider that the 6 year old machine costed a lot more for what it was compared to what you can get for a few hundred these days. Instead of dropping several thousand on a complete rig that is using state of the art tech, you can get a very functional and fast rig for $600 and rebuild every 2 years for the same price, never having to "wait it out" as you can actually afford to play with new stuff without completely making the thousands you spent on the previous rig look like an idiotic gesture.

Quadcore is not needed, yet. That's the simple truth here. Dualcore has been here long enough that things support it, it's got a great selection of hardware to run it off and software just hasn't' gotten beyond it's need yet. But in another year or two, this can change drastically as Quadcore becomes the new standard. It quickly will too.

Very best,
 
Why exactly are we comparing an Athlon X2 to a Core 2 Duo again?

If you're going to compare 2 competitor dual cores, why not showcase the Intel and AMD Quads? Besides, last I heard/read the Phenoms weren't as impressive as they should have been anyhow.
 
A best choice could be made with those components :
Gigabyte EP43-DSL3 + C2D E7200 + Asus EAH3650 silent + 2Gb buffalo select D2U800C PC2-6400 DDR2-800 CL5 + Corsair VX550W = $433
More powerfull, more upgradable later
you just need to keep your tower + DVD + HD

Then it's very hard to find your MOBO, the last price i've seen was $138 for an unvalaible item. mine is only $98 ($cad)
 
[citation][nom]bobbknight[/nom]Look right now no one really needs 4 core except people who do design things with lots of trans coding.But, I buy 4 core cpu's for all my stuff, I want the software makers out there to see that coding for multi core cpu's is the way to go. [/citation]

Hilarious. Your drop in the bucket purchase (unless you by thousands of CPU's) aren't going to influence macro level developer decisions. Way to waste money taking a 'stand.'
 
I wouldnt pick any as currently it not a good time to upgrade the CPU, motherboard, or memory. Core i7 and shanghai requires new everything as the core i7 will not work on any current motherboard and shanghai needing AM3. I would highly suggest waiting as surly prices will fall on these once the new stuff comes out late fall to early winter.

Could you please run 2 programs at once when testing any quad. If you can run 2 programs at once on a quad nearly as fast as 1 surly that should count for something. Running multiple programs at once and flipping back and forth is the point. Even a gamer will alt tab to itunes to change music. Dual cores dont even receive a full test without you alt tab as it leaves out windows multitasking code.

Could you please add your current system in as a base line. What is the point of looking at benchmarks if your old system can produce near the same.
 
I read a lot of bad comment about this article; and even though some do make a point, the majority of the comments posted here don't.

I think what's far worse then a bad review, is bashing the review; if you don't like it, then you don't have to read it.

I think the review was good, despite somethings I would have done differently.

I suspect this was a one case scenario; and not many users will follow this article (since most will not buy a pc qt the time of this review, or are different based (more into gaming, or maybe are in need of different settings).

Eventhough it has been interesting for me to see that sometimes it makes more sence to get a computer with faster RAM, and slower CPU then reverse.
thanks anyways!
 
I agree with Cangelini. Why bother comparing a 740 to intels chipset when the 780G is closer to Intels price. Paying $15 more for 780G than a 740 is also a no brainer if you're trying maximize performance per dol. The 4850E is a very good choice when you consider the power factor. I put one with a motherboard in a 4 year old PC and the old power supply kept on trotting along. I usually have to replace old power supplies when upgrading to new hardware due to PS downrating over time.
 
This is worst article I have ever read on Toms, only equaled by Tuan's last pile of rubbish. I really don't understand the point of this article. Do you think you presented us with any information here? If you're trying to build the cheapest machine possible and only use it for business apps, then yes, quadcore isn't necessary, but everyone knows that already. Anyone who still considers a P4 adequate for daily use clearly doesn't need a quadcore. So what are you proving?

You compared the newest Intel chipset (G45) with an old AMD chipset (740G). Then at the end of the article you picked a chipset that wasn't even included in the comparison (780G). You then added a dedicated video card, which also wasn't included in the comparison. If you're going to add dedicated graphics why pick a chipset with integrated graphics to begin with?

You show the C2D is the best performer, show that the quadcore performs noticeably better in several tests, show that the 740G can't even complete all the tests, and then pick the worst performer, while admitting your decision was not based on performance?! The whole point of Toms is to review and compare hardware so you can make the best decision possible and you're doing the exact opposite! With writers like you and Tuan I'm losing faith that Toms knows how to review hardware at all.

And what is the point in building a bare-minimum machine that's only adequate for business use today? Programs are only going to get more multi-threaded, not less. I just cannot express how disappointed I am with this article and with the editors at Toms. The quality has been so bad lately, I'm to the point where I refuse to waste my time any more.
 
This article could appeal to those that worked at eMachines. I mean, isn't this the same low end crap that one could buy at Best Buy? Or you could just go to Dell and select their cheapest desktop. Why bother custom building such a cheapo anyway?

Having already done articles on cheap to expensive gaming rigs, I just don't get this one.
 
740 with quad??? budget mobo with high priced cpu????
Recent articles here seemed to have lost all perception of reality?

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION TO YOUR READERS?
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]While virtualization is indeed an important feature, it wasn't a factor in a business desktop build. Thank you for the feedback, though.[/citation]
Uhm... hello!!!! Business is the key user of virtualization technology right now! Home users and budget builders have extremely limited use for virtualization.
 
hmmm isn't the quad core meant for multitasking??? i mean if u run photoshop n video encoding n cd ripping at the same time won't dual cores be stuck then.. why don't some people get it? it's MULTITASKING=MULTIPROGRAMS!!!!!! huh.. had enough of this rubbish..
 
I upgraded my PC from an AMD Athlon x2 4800+ OCed @ 2800MHz to an Phenom 9750 X4. I noticed a big performance gap between my Phenom and my old CPU. Vista ran alot more faster, real smooth, when I open new windows, taps. Swithcing between aplications real fast. Upgraded to an quad-core CPU grealy improved my working speed on Vista. Before, my PC couldn't keep up with my working speed, but now, I can't keep up with my PC.
I used to hate Vista due to its slow "reaction" time, but since I bought this quad-core CPU, I changed my oponions about Vista.
For everyone who use Vista, Quad-core is a must.

The Athlon X2 4850e isn't suit to be a "work-station" at home.
It suits for the Home theater system more.

If you want speed up your works on Vista, get a quad-core. PERIOD.
 
All these cores are pointless as you still cant computer more then 1 instruction set per clock cycle. 10000000000 cores wouldnt make it any faster without a cpu to manage what each core is doing.
 
Well I have been watching bias in reviews. This is not about bias. It's simply a creative general analysis.

I actually enjoyed the intellectual indulgence. I don't think this is the right place to rag on and on about better reviews. It shows dual is cool for now. I was interested in that.

This demonstrates qualitative analysis rather than quantitative analysis. However some of the negative comments indicate that such intellectual ramblings will never be appreciated - and this of course is not true either; but people are pretty nervous about something else.

I would like some "ultimate unbiased" testing done, quantitatively and qualitatively. Compare Intel vs. AMD for price/performance without bias. I would leave it to the tester to select appropriate hardwares.

Also testing AMD parts on AMD parts with AMD parts would be nice, and might eliminate unexpected bias. People seem to test on ntel and nvidia hardware for some reason. Comparisons of these other hardwares in tests would be interesting too; but it is too much the norm.

I would also like to see an article on how compilers can affect results re software performance, and how these bias or skew results. I have been reading that there is a way to eliminate this common, and little known, problem. (5% to 20% diff in results?). This has something to do with cpu detection and instruction sets, or exclusion of same, through programming. Software can be edited or recompiled to eliminate bias and improve performance. I am still looking into this; but I have read discussions between programmers. That would be an interesting article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom