Who Says You Need Four Cores?

Page 3 - 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]KT_Wasp[/nom]Wow... So, six years ago..in 2002.. you purchased the second fastest CPU on the market (first being a P4 Northwood 3.02GHz). And this is he main reason it was able to last so long.. becuase you bought a CPU that was at the top of the performance "food chain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain " at that time.Now your looking at upgrading to a PC that you hope to last another six years, but your looking at Hardware that is at the lower end of the same "food chain". How on earth do you think that will work ?This article is useless dribble written by a person that has no buisness writing on a PC tech website....[/citation]
I agree..besides,the quad cores won't take much at idle,considering that the cores will basically be inactive...The Q6600 or Q9300 is a great choice..
 
Chris,

I do not know which name brand motherboard you're going to be using for your new AMD system, but is stability a factor in your choice ? Also, why would using a a P35 chipset based motherboard be much different from using the newer P45 chipset(assuming you do use discrete graphics on both systems) ?

Just as an example, I have two similar(as similar as possible) semi-current systems here. One AMD, and the other is Intel based. Both systems have used the same components: eg discrete graphics, memory, power supply, and HDDS. Both system boards are made by the same company( ABIT ). The only difference that I can think of that *may* make a difference is that the AMD system has IGP, where the Intel board does not. The AMD system has an Opteron 1210 for a CPU, and the Intel uses an E6550. Aside from the obvious 500Mhz performance advantage for the Intel CPU, the Intel can also at least OC to 3.33Ghz easily with stock voltages, using the stock cooler. I have had the AMD close to 1Ghz OC, but it was not stable in Windows.

Anyhow, I really like the AMD AM2 system and it *is* very stable. Performance wise in games can be noticeable, but it is not so huge that you could not use it with conservative settings(especially since I only use a 19" WS LCD). That said, it still can not touch the rock solid stability of the Intel system EVEN when the Intel system is OC'd 1 Ghz. My system has never crashed due to hardware EVER. Windows XP Pro gives me months worth of uptimes using this hardware, which says a lot in its self. Especially in a system that has a lot of games installed on it.

Maybe I am lucky ? I would like to point out however that I am NOT an Intel fanboy. This is my first Intel system since the late 90's when I had an ABIT Super7 board with a P55 233mmx(which replaced a Cyrix P200+).
 
[citation][nom]space_pope[/nom]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?[/citation]

Can not say I agree with your assessment of this article, and actually,
a lot of business applications can leverage 4 core more efficiently than
games. What the article writer currently uses for his/her own system is irrelevant. I am not seeing the point in your post here, other than to make yourself look silly.

[citation][nom]space_pope[/nom]
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.[/citation]

The AMD 740G chipset is the latest budget iteration from AMD. There is nothing current from Intel in the retail channels that can even come close to the price of the Foxconn 740G motherboard. That and the P43/P45 chipset boards are actually CHEAPER than their G43/G45 counterparts. The author technically could have chosen a 790FX board and remained close to the cost of the cheapest G43 chipset board. Is this a fair comparison also ? No. So, what do you compare then ? If not by cheapest price for current technology from each camp, then comparable features ? Either way, I could argue that there is no such thing as a 'fair comparison'. You can build an AMD system cheaper than anything current from Intel. Period.

The author made it clear(at least to me) that since performance was already going to increase coming from his/her older system, that system performance as compared to other newer systems was not much of a concern. Perhaps there was also a budget which he/she could not go over ?

Personally, knowing what I know now, I would opt for a P35 chipset based board, made by my preferred motherboard OEM, which offers superior overclockability at a reasonable price, and is 100% rock solid stable. It would still not be as cheap as I could go if I chose even current hardware from the AMD camp, but I have personal tastes/needs. I have no idea what motivates the author when buying system parts . . .

At the end of the day, It would be an awfully boring world if everyone thought exactly the same.
 
My take is if you're not willing to take the time to obtain the hardware, setup a lab, document a method, do the review, and publish and share the opinion with the world, then stfu. The author, i thought, made it clear that this was not a comparison test in the normal sense of the word, but rather a compare and contrast at two price points. And I thought it was also clear that this machine was not going to be used for gaming so for some of you who *are* gamers- the machines will not last 6 weeks, let alone 6 years before you want to upgrade, but I can guarantee that there are a lot of 6 year old machines in the corporate setting because it's good enough to do the job.

Chances are none of us gamer types are going to build up a 740 machine, but maybe someone some where might- maybe Fry's comes out with one of their famous bundles using a 740 board. It could happen. If it does, I'm sure a lot of 740 based builds are going to pop up.
 
Chris honestly this is a pointless article. Your target audience most likely know far more about your ramblings then anyone currently employed by Toms's, what are you amateures thinking. This article might make more sense for a general computer site but not one who's roots are in the enthusiast segment.

I guess I should just move along to site gear more to my interest.
 
Someone might also point out that quad core systems will tend to be more responsive with multiple single thread applications running at the same time for example a virus scan running in the background while maintaining FPS in HL2 or TF2. Another test might be how much does MP3 encoding change while also running a Divx trans code operation. If I were designing a workstation right now I would focus on my ability to run multiple resource intensive applications at the same time. In my house if I am not at the computer at night its because a video conversion is running and I can't tolerate the performance when I try to do anything else at the same time. Dual core and quad core proc are very much worthwhile when the question of how your system will be used comes into question and it might be better to start looking into true multi tasking instead or single application multi threading. Then again I might just have ADD a do more at once then most people or it could be the fact that I never want to be limited to doing just one thing at a time.
 
[citation][nom]ZootyGray[/nom]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.[/citation]

Zooty,

Glad someone "gets it" with regard to the story's intention! Thank you for the feedback. Also, the compiler idea is an easy one, though as devil's advocate, I'd counter that you'd probably be better off testing a wider range of software to take into account the inevitable fact that different apps are optimized for different architectures to different degrees.
 
[citation][nom]yyrkoon[/nom]Chris,I do not know which name brand motherboard you're going to be using for your new AMD system, but is stability a factor in your choice ? Also, why would using a a P35 chipset based motherboard be much different from using the newer P45 chipset(assuming you do use discrete graphics on both systems) ?Just as an example, I have two similar(as similar as possible) semi-current systems here. One AMD, and the other is Intel based. Both systems have used the same components: eg discrete graphics, memory, power supply, and HDDS. Both system boards are made by the same company( ABIT ). The only difference that I can think of that *may* make a difference is that the AMD system has IGP, where the Intel board does not. The AMD system has an Opteron 1210 for a CPU, and the Intel uses an E6550. Aside from the obvious 500Mhz performance advantage for the Intel CPU, the Intel can also at least OC to 3.33Ghz easily with stock voltages, using the stock cooler. I have had the AMD close to 1Ghz OC, but it was not stable in Windows.Anyhow, I really like the AMD AM2 system and it *is* very stable. Performance wise in games can be noticeable, but it is not so huge that you could not use it with conservative settings(especially since I only use a 19" WS LCD). That said, it still can not touch the rock solid stability of the Intel system EVEN when the Intel system is OC'd 1 Ghz. My system has never crashed due to hardware EVER. Windows XP Pro gives me months worth of uptimes using this hardware, which says a lot in its self. Especially in a system that has a lot of games installed on it.Maybe I am lucky ? I would like to point out however that I am NOT an Intel fanboy. This is my first Intel system since the late 90's when I had an ABIT Super7 board with a P55 233mmx(which replaced a Cyrix P200+).[/citation]

Yyr, thanks for the note. P45 gives you the benefit of being able to split the PCI Express connectivity into a pair of x8 slots for CrossFire support. P35 won't give you that.

Agreed--most of my system builds have been Intel based as a result of the platform message you get (processor, chipset, motherboard as a package). However, I'm satisfied enough with AMD and its new platforms that I have no trouble adopting an Athlon/Phenom and AMD chipset.
 
[citation][nom]ByDesign[/nom]Chris honestly this is a pointless article. Your target audience most likely know far more about your ramblings then anyone currently employed by Toms's, what are you amateures thinking. This article might make more sense for a general computer site but not one who's roots are in the enthusiast segment. I guess I should just move along to site gear more to my interest.[/citation]

Thanks for the feedback Design. I'm hoping more folks find the data itself interesting, as I did when running the tests. I understand that many enthusiasts find integrated core logic a waste of time, but as I get older, it becomes more important to have a machine for gaming and a separate box for productivity. Hence, the desire to know more about G45/G35/780G/740G/GeForce 8200.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom] I understand that many enthusiasts find integrated core logic a waste of time, but as I get older, it becomes more important to have a machine for gaming and a separate box for productivity. Hence, the desire to know more about G45/G35/780G/740G/GeForce 8200.[/citation]

Actually, you can still build gaming rig out of these boards. They just don't do overclock, so the strategy is to slap in high-end CPU and pair it with single GTX280 or 4870x2 and forget about SLI and overclocking. With a 4850e and 9800GTX+, you can still play Crysis on medium at 14x9, and while not gaming, the graphics card shuts down. You get the best of two world! It would be funny when GeForce 9300 comes out.
 
The only part that gets me in all this is that at the beginning of this article you say...

"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."

You then replied to one of the posters questions with this saying....

"I certainly hope that this machine isn't going to have to last six years"

If you recognize the advancements in technology as you say you do since you are a hardware analyst, then I'm sure you knew 6 years ago that a budget system of the time wouldn't have given you the same satisfaction that you've had over the years from the P4 you bought. I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that any first gen P4 back in 2002, being one of the budget lineups for the cost, wouldn't run Vista today as efficiently compared to the P4 2.8ghz you bought which was clearly a highend chip at the time. Therefore the point of "Affordability" is subjective. Clearly you were able to Afford the higher price chip at the time and knew it would satisfy you for a very long time vs the budget system.

However it puzzles me to wonder why you would not use the same logic when suggesting the purchase of a product in the longevity sense since you did say it was to be used for another 6 year time frame. You know very well that a dual core of today will only require you to spend extra money later on in such a short time as opposed to the longevity of a quad. Considering the fact that the dormant cores in a Quad of today on mainstream apps will eventually be more active in the upcoming years as these mainstream apps utilize quads more effectively.

You even recognize that...

"when things slow down to the point of being unbearable, it's no fun at all."

Affordability is more or less the illogical route when it comes to longevity. Then again it all comes down to what you can afford. The main difference here is that you are comparing your 6 year old system which used a highend processor at the time with a budget processor of today. The life expectancy of this today budget system simply isn't going to last as long as the P4 2.8 you purchased.
 
Hardware always has a low end with very good price to performance, and a high end that's not so good. Currently top of the low end would be a Q6600, P35 motherboard, low end nvidia/ati graphics card. That buys you a machine that will last for a long time. It is very difficult to ever justify buying less that - sure you could save a few $$$ but the hardware would be massively slower, and the saving is just not worth it.

That's the problem with this article - you probably spent more on starbucks coffee while deciding whether to save a few $$$ then you were ever going to save - and you'll be spending a lot of time drinking coffee while you wait for your low end hardware to slowly do whatever you asked of it.
 
guys you miss the point and start throwing rocks at the writer.

why spend 1500$ today to last 6 years and dont buy something that is enough for the job you need it for, for 400$ and probably 3-4 years later buy a new machine with another 400$ that will do your job for another 3-4 years?(and better than the one with 1500$)

i recently bought an e2220 2.4GHz - g31 motherboard - 2x2GB DDR2 800 - ATI 3650 256MB 1.6GHz 725MHz core - 500W PSU for €280, to use it for an HT-PC.
it is as fast as my other pc with e6750 and it games on 1280x720 without AA or 2AA in some cases.
It even plays crysis at high settings (shadows and post processing at medium) 1280x720 on a 32" Samsung TV.
my only regret is that i didn't buy a 3850 or 3870 GPU for €40 - €60 more, but at the time i was buying the pc i didn't expect it to play games because of the low price CPU and Motherboard. i wanted it for movies, music and surfing. Christmas is near, i thing i'll get a 4850 too.
 
Perhaps you aren't well versed in the fields on longevity with technology Nickchalk but, a good quad core system with alot of up to date tech isn't going to cost $1.5k. You can easily get by with an overall amount of $700-800... possibly less. A Q6600 is a mere $200 shipped now days.
 
Wouldve been interested to know more about the quad display setups on both machines...
 
All I can say is.....WOW! I mean that in a bad, highly confused way....I was an AMD fan for years until the Core 2 Duo platform gained so much attention. At that point, I realized it was time to get back on the Intel boat, but decided to wait until I felt the price point for a Q6600 was worthwhile. I am an IT manager now and have been working with computers since the 8088 CPU. We currently use Core 2 Duo computers in our office, and I would completely agree that a Core 2 Quad is not really worthwhile for typical business use. The muscle of a Core 2 Duo is largely wasted in a typical corporate environment anyway, and most of our users don't really multitask much.

With that said, I would wager most of the people reading this review are not trying to determine the specs for the purchase of corporate desktops, and even for someone who does not play games and does not encode video, a Core 2 Quad is a wise choice.

The omission of the Core 2 Quad is completely wrong considering the title of the article. Comparing the AMD multicore architecture to the Core 2 architecture is apples to oranges. Intel surpassed AMD in every way, and a Q6600 can be had for less than the Phenom 9850. Why would you not include that in the review??? If it didn't work with the other parts you had, get parts that do work. It is simply not objective to omit in such an article.

As for my personal experience and this review, I completely, totally disagree. Four cores, specifically the Core 2 Quad, not the Phenom, is worthwhile. One thing this review does not take into account is real world, multitasking usage. While I agree most applications do not benefit from serious multi-threading, what about multi-tasking?? All of the benchmarks that show how long it takes to complete work are great, but what about what you can do on a 2 core compared to a 4 core computer WHILE you are waiting for the heavy tasks to complete!! That is the real benefit of a multicore computer. To measure how fast a multicore processor completes one job is great, but really misses the point on the real world advantages of multiple cores. I can encode video using DivX 6.8.4 utilizing all four cores, and continue doing other processor intensive work at the same time, and I still have a tough time maxing out all of the cores. I can even play games at the same time I am encoding the video. So why not give yourself freedom from CPU bottlenecks due to high utilization while multi-tasking...go for the Core 2 Quad Q6600, about $180. If all you do is browse the Internet one page at a time, and check your e-mail, why even bother to upgrade at all. However, if you have a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz with Hyperthreading and you feel enough lag in your daily work to warrant an upgrade, there is a good chance you would readily notice the benefit from the OVERALL performance gained by a Core 2 Quad, especially if you want a platform to last six years.

It seems to me this article should have been titled better, something along the lines of building a budget workstation, but "Who Says You Need Four Cores" is bound to attract criticism from those who use four cores and realize this article is not nearly as objective as it should be for such a title.

My advice is to go for the Core 2 Quad Q6600 for anyone who does not mind spending a little extra now for gains that can be appreciated now, and will certainly be even more relevant in the future.

 
I'm sorry, but I don't get your conclusion. First, you needed an Intel quad chip along with the Intel dual chip for proper testing. Looking at the results between like AMD chips, it appears that currently Quad computing is a VERY good return on investment. But we all know that Ghz to Ghz, Intel is better than AMD. So your conclusion seems wrongly deduced from differences in core technolgoy, not in the number of cores. Bad reporting IMHO.
 
Hey I actually like this article. It makes for a great jump off and has some nicely noted comments for what's being tested. For the most part I deal with fixing computers for people in my area and most are about 5-6 years old. For the things that people do on a daily basis (basic surfing, e-mail, and youtube), those machines are perfect. Why trash it if it still works? Why get a Ferrari if all you need to do is drive two miles to and from school, every day? My main desktop is an Athlon XP 2500+ with an MSI board and intergrated graphics and I'm happy with it. Photoshop runs fine, my favorite games runs fine, and heck the internet still works. Sure I'd like to run blue-ray one day and play some future version of Need for Speed, but I'll just stick to what I have and upgrade when something breaks beyond reason - (hoping that may not be be before 2012 though).

Two questions for those who are super critical and negative: if you were to sit at several computers made from 2003 and on, would you notice much of a difference? Would it matter?
 
As a linux user I'd like to see any of these comparisons, particularly 2 corse v's 4 cores, on a linux system to see if the linux software is optimised for 4 cores etc... I'd also like to see a 64bit version included in such an article...
 
Tom's Hardware does these types of articles to increase site traffic. A title like that will always get people all riled up.

Yeah you don't need a Quad Core today, but I'm a firm believer of building with the future in mind.

With upgrades and overclocking I made my P4 2.4GHz last six years and I will do the same with my current build, based around a Q6600.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom