Hardware Analysis - Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

dark41 — 2007-01-28T18:57:19-05:00

Now that the C2D has been out for awhile, I'm wondering if people agree that its well worth the upgrade from a single core CPU.

The 6300 is currently $50AUD cheaper (at least from our suppliers) than we paid for a 3.0GHz single core 6 months ago.The 6400 is about equal to what we were paying for the 3.0GHz.

My own experience is that the C2D is much faster at everything than the single core or dual cores were. My current system blew my 10,400 3dmark05 score out of the water. I was soo proud of that 805D @ 4.1GHz. The 6400 C2D easily breaks the 12,000 mark. Not a 3dmark fan? (yea, its mostly a video card benchmark.. but the rest of the components are still the same so the entire difference in the score was from the CPU.) How about going from 4900 points on PCmark05 to a whopping 7905!

So benchmarks aren't your thing? I see the performance difference every day. Whether I'm waiting for my 2 hour AVG scan to finish or installing a new program, the C2D is much faster. If I multi-task, which I've been known to do often, the difference is like night/day.

It really doesn't matter how many threads a programs uses. The C2Ds blow away a single core CPU and even the dual cores.

IMO the original article was just plain wrong about them not being worth the upgrade. Who agrees/disagrees?

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

DsL.Dilbert — 2006-12-04T19:49:55-05:00

I don't even think there has to be an argument for this at all!

The point is if you need it, you buy it!!!! Why is that so hard to comprehend with some people? Stop debating whether having multiple cores is useful because they are to some but they aren't to others!

I have a freakin' Celeron D and it works like a champ. BUT, do I use it for any multitasking? NO. If I did, I would upgrade but until then there is no point!!!!

Am I getting the point across yet? I'm so tired of seeing these multiple core battles. If this is just for gaming then don't even bother talking because games now are MOSTLY single-thread.

Yes, the Intel Core 2 Duo is nice, and yes it is faster than the Intel Pentium D series, BUT, if you aren't multitasking and it isn't in your budget, you don't need to get it!!!!

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Brendan Gonsalves — 2006-11-19T20:47:32-05:00

bot said:

not to mock you bob but "...says the guy with an x2" and "dual core processor" writen all over it.

does anybody "really" need dual/ multi core? hardly anybody. but if you want to take it that far, then does anybody really need a 2ghz or 3ghz cpu? minimum requirements for xp are around 500mhz. and joe blow user could work with that and a 1ghz cpu would be a big enhancement.
i certainly don't want take a step back into those times and we wouldn't be where we are if we would only invent things that we absolutly need.

programs, applications and users are becoming more and more demanding. so does the need for supporting hardware. just about everybody at home or work does some typ of multitasking at some point or another. these task can be greatly enhanced with dual/ multi core technology, which increases productivity and saves time. not only at work but at home as well.

is the time right for dual core, certainly. is the time right for multi core, maybe not quiet yet but if we never start then we will never get there.

Good point. You would not be able to see any difference between an AMD Duron 1Ghz and a Core Duo when running MOST Windows XP tasks. (with the exception of gaming, editing movies/ pictures ect.)

The only real users who NEED high frequency's are gamers/ power users. The majority of computer users are neither.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

BoT — 2006-11-19T03:31:49-05:00

extract out of this articel
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/11/05/In_defence_of_multi_core/1.html

"I've heard more than one person say - 'but why?'"

There's been something of a negative tone, however, towards all this stuff recently. I've heard more than one person say - 'but why?' When I appeared on CrankyGeeks a few weeks back, one of the questions I faced was - 'Why do we need 80 or more cores in the future? Why is Intel working on this stuff?' We saw the same thing in much of the technical press this week - 'Kentsfield is great, but it's overkill, why bother?' This is, in my opinion, a very short-sighted way of looking at things.

Throughout computing history, invention has been blighted by what I like to call the Why-ners. (See what I did there?) Why do we need quad core? Why do we need 512MB of graphics RAM? Most famously, why would anyone need more than 640k of system memory?

now, i am not that blunt but you get the point.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

BoT — 2006-11-19T02:45:27-05:00

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Captain Bob — 2006-11-19T02:01:58-05:00

I think too many of u guys are missing the point that sanderson was trying to get across. What he was basicly saying is that for the average computer user, where the market is aimed at, u don't need to feel the pressure into rushing out and grabbing a dual-core or quad-core processor when right now most like u won't be able to tell or see the difference. Obvisously like most products there are times when u need that dual or quad core processor, but there are also those people that say hey look theres a new chip out there thats getting all of the press, i think i need to go get one, when in reality the only thing u've done is spend more money and gotten better bragging rights.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Darren Reynolds — 2006-11-09T14:29:46-05:00

I see your both serious ...
I'll beg to differ and leave it at that.
I hope those with a brain listen to my advice and not yours when upgrading or purchasing a new PC to cope with new (and existing) software ...

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

CrAsHnBuRnXp — 2006-11-07T16:58:57-05:00

Darren Reynolds said:

Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.

Defend the article if you like, but my advice to any sane person is to buy a new PC with a dual core as a bare minimum ... and there are dual core CPU's across all of the market segments.

Dual core as a bare minimum? I dont think so. I ran Vista RC2 with no stutters what so ever on an AMD64 3200+ with 2GB of ram. Ran fine. I had no stutters or slow downs. You do however, want at least 2GB of RAM to be able to run it. It eats over 500MB of RAM on a fresh install. (Or was it 600MB? I dont remember) Anyway, my point is that you do not need a dual core as a bare minimum as a single core will do just fine.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

DublinGunner — 2006-11-07T14:08:51-05:00

I was referring to Core 2 Quad.

Not only that, but any average joe is NOT going to be spending $1k on a CPU alone. So it makes your point and Sanders redundant. (unless of course you're referring to your government saying offices should be outfitted with 1k Core 2 Extreme & Quad CPU's?)

And strange that your government can impose a policy like that, I dont imagine many governments around the world getting away with it. I'd say businesses must be in uproar that they'd have to spend so much on unnecessary hardware.

Quite possibly whoever came up with that proposal has not got the first clue about what theyre talking about.

The fact of the matter is, more and more pre-built PC's are coming with dual core CPU's anyway, so there's no problem there. And I never dissed having a dual core. Even if the extra core isnt doing much, the CPU's are generally faster anyway.

Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.

I take it you havent actually tried Vista then. I've tried 3 different releases so far, and all run perfectly on a 3000+.

Of course, I have ran it on X2 & Core 2 CPU's of my own, and it is faster, but the single core in no way stutters etc as you say.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Darren Reynolds — 2006-11-07T13:27:15-05:00

DublinGunner said ... "I mean, neither Intel nor AMD have ever stated that these CPU's were for your general office duties, and they're not priced in that segment anyway, as I said above."

Er ... it is policy now that Gov standard office PC's here under CUA ( in Aussieland) are all dual core (Pentium D's) and moving to Core2Duo's shortly.

General Office duties ??? Dual Core ???

Um ... what market segment was that you were referring too???

Even the Government are moving to Dual Core ... they are usually last ... after the "average Joe".

Like it or not ... everyone is getting in on minimising the egg timer spin cycle.

Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.

Defend the article if you like, but my advice to any sane person is to buy a new PC with a dual core as a bare minimum ... and there are dual core CPU's across all of the market segments.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

BoT — 2006-11-07T06:31:24-05:00

this is pretty much what i think about it, well put together
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/11/05/In_defence_of_multi_core/1.html

dual core, quad core , multi core - it's evolution. with the better hardware will come better software and with better software will come better hardware.
do i need it? depends. do i want it defenitally.

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Mort1616 — 2006-11-07T00:43:41-05:00

I think the underlying message is just to take stock of what you want your computer to do. And not just to buy it because its the best new thing on the market as some hardware freaks are wanton to do. I don't get anything of 'slagging of multi-core' from Sanders article, just a little pointer. That might seem obvious to most of us who have participated here, but I suspect that this article will go out to more people that the dozen who have participated here. So just try to stick to the discussion instead of slagging off what people have to say.

Cheers
Mort

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

ghost_buster — 2006-11-06T15:09:55-05:00

and
2x 120GH HardDisc

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

ghost_buster — 2006-11-06T15:08:46-05:00

Hi!!!!
My PC:
CPU: Intel Core2 Extreme 3
RAM: 3 GB Kingston HyperX
Graphic Card: HIS Radeon X1950XTX
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 4

that's it...

Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 — 2006-11-02T03:07:40-05:00

Ive noticed that with games, they are smooth with my old stuff, hence a P4 EE 3.4 (Northwood) and a AMD Athlon XP Barton 3200+, both with R9800 Graphics, ya graphics could be upgraded, but my laptop is at its end, the Main rig i can slap in a x1950 Pro for the last of the line for AGP, course reason i havent upgraded to Dual core yet is because i did not notice a difference of performance between my buddies system that had a 7800 GTX, A64 X2 4400+ and 2 Gigs of ram. Perhaps if you were able to permanently assign certain apps to certain cores without having to do it all the time would be great. Those who surf the internet, use MS Office, Play DVD Movies, and play the occaisional game dont need Dual Core CPUs, let alone a P4 or P3. Ive had stuff running fine under XP with a P2 at 266 MHz, and 512 MB Ram.