Why do YOU own a quad core?

[werxen]

Uses more electricity, produces more heat, rarely gets utilized to its potential. Just curious, why? If there were better dual core options would you be inclined to get those instead? Lets say a dual core that was 125 TDP like quads these days and came stock 4.5 gig would you still rather get a quad? Its just weird to me seeing as how 99% of are not professionals in our computer field and do not need the raw power of more than 2 cores.

 

[skittle]

I use it for x264 (--preset veryslow keeps it occupied alot 😉 ). if YOU dont need the power, get something ARM based :lol:
Most of the people here own them because we are "enthusiasts", ie not the average consumer.

 

[werxen]

I use it for x264 (--preset veryslow keeps it occupied alot 😉 ). if YOU dont need the power, get something ARM based :lol:
Most of the people here own them because we are "enthusiasts", ie not the average consumer.

I suppose but its like having a ferrari that you cant drive to its full potential unless you are doing something arbitrary like going across the street for milk.

 

[cjl]

Why do I have a quad?

Solidworks flow simulations, CFD, and finite element analysis, Matlab, and FSX.

 

[randomizer]

Because dual cores are too expensive.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Because I can.

 

[Herr_Koos]

Uses more electricity, produces more heat, rarely gets utilized to its potential. Just curious, why? If there were better dual core options would you be inclined to get those instead? Lets say a dual core that was 125 TDP like quads these days and came stock 4.5 gig would you still rather get a quad? Its just weird to me seeing as how 99% of are not professionals in our computer field and do not need the raw power of more than 2 cores.

This is only a valid argument if you stick to one task at a time. Me, I'm an incurable multitasker, which means I always try and do more at any given time than my poor PC is able to cope with. There was an interesting article a while back on Tom's where they tried to quantify the benefit of 2+ cores. They showed that you can quite happily game on a quad-core CPU while running a virus scan or some other CPU intensive app in the background. Even a high-clock dual core simply dies when you try and repeat this procedure.

I prefer to be forward-thinking in this regard. Quads are not being used optimally at the moment, but there are already benefits to having one, and this will become more prevalent as software changes to be more multi-core aware.

 

[dkapke]

Because I have three Virtual Machines running at all times (supporting 3 different companies from home), I do X264 encoding, have several spreadsheets, word docs and Outlook open at all times, have anywhere from 3-10 tabs open in Explorer, have Media Player playing my latest tunes, and will occasionally game when I have downtime. Shoot...I can't wait for the Hex Cores in a month or two - bring 'em on. I can't wait until I can encode a BR into x264 in under an hour!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Because I like to future proof my systems. Right now games are starting to need more than 2 cores or do better (L4D/L4D2 like quads and GTA IV needs a 3 or better core CPU to run decently).

 

[LePhuronn]

Because my video and graphics software is either multi-core aware or I have multiple applications open at once.

And also games are starting to become multi-core aware now too.

 

[andy5174]

Because I want something to brag about! :lol:

 

[mi1ez]

Currently running spotify, 1xvirtual machine, firefox, IE, windows movie maker, Scite, word, and the company database. This machine drags with a quad, I would never consider a dual core.

 

[joshc123]

Exactly, better for running many programs. Also if you want the best build ever, you wouldn't say 'Mehh, quad core is crap, I will get a slower dual core for the same price', would you?

 

[Reynod]

Encoding video and gaming ... a quad handles both well.

Though a speedy dual (my spare is good at the second when clocked over 3.4) is fine for most stuff, it takes a lot longer to render frames ... plus you can't do anything else at the same time.

If you like to do many things a quad is good.

Yes the power bill is an issue ... I agree.

Most users wouldn't benefit from a quad ... in fact many only really need a single core for general purpose work like office and browsing.

 

[joshc123]

Most users wouldn't benefit from a quad ... in fact many only really need a single core for general purpose work like office and browsing.

Most users wouldn't be building a pc anyway, so there choices are limited ...

 

[lunarus]

thats easy, photo editing, video editing, code compiling + rendering, all kind of intensive, but tbh i think i'd be better off with a better graphics set up + more ram.

 

[z06psi]

So I can say I have a quad core. What of it?

 

[4Ryan6]

@werxen

Quad core handles multitasking, but that's old news you should already know that, unless this is an intentional flame thread.

Tell you what; Try burning a dual layer DVD, with your AV full security protection scanning, while listening to your software MP3 player playing music in the background, while surfing the web with multiple websites open and answering questions like this.

One of my friends was joking around saying you needed a Quad core just to safely run Nortons Internet Security 2010 and be able to do anything else, and he's close to being right about that, but I'm not running Nortons anymore, it brought my moms single core machine to its knees.

Is the next question why multiple graphics cards?

Are you really 97 yrs old?

 

[may1]

You'll find that Oc to 4.5 ghz Dual-core, still is not an overall good performer compared to a quad system.

 

[roversjoost]

Easy answer: cause my phenom 2 X2 550 BE has 2 unlockable cores 😀

 

[4Ryan6]

I suppose but its like having a ferrari that you cant drive to its full potential unless you are doing something arbitrary like going across the street for milk.

After looking over your posting track record you seem to have some kind of vendetta against quad cores, but you also seem to be educated enough to know what the true benefits of a quad core cpu is, so what are you actually trying to do with this thread?

 

[joshc123]

How about a better question; what is the cheapest good quad core?

 

[Mousemonkey]

Is this thread trying to revive the arguments about how a Quad is needed for future gaming as they will all be MT? I never subscribed to that myself and I still don't as there are only a couple of games that make use of more than one core let alone all four, that said I do have a Quad but I also have a Dual so I can honestly say I'm on the fence with a foot in both camps. :lol:

 

[joshc123]

A friend told me a while a go to measure how good a processer is by x the amount of cores by the GHz so:
2.6 quad core is 2.6x4 = 10.4GHz.
Is this correct?

 

[saaiello]

Hmm why quad core ridiculous question IMO. Yes rite now a higher clocked dual core will excel at games but you cant beat a quad core it alot of other tasks i have a cheap Q8200 system which sux in gaming but rips threw encoding videos twice as fast as my dual core. Plus allot of games and program in the next year will be utilizing quad cores and beyond.