What's more futureproof?

[skoreanime]

I went from a E6600 3Ghz to Q6600 3Ghz. Is there a difference from me? Yes. Noticeable? Yes. But I'm quite the multi tasker when I am on my computer. If your computer is mainly for gaming, a dual would still be a better idea right now.

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Mutli-tasking is not going to be better on the Q6600, as opposed to what most people may think. Some applications automatically affiliate themselves to core 0, or core 1 at most, and then they don't move away. Only applications that read even core 2 and core 3 will take advantage of a quad-core processor, and most of such applications are encoding softwares.

APPLICATIONS RARELY TELL THE OS WHICH CORE TO USE!

Windows manages this; and few apps directly tell it to use a predefined processor affinity mask.



schumi: i say get the Q6600, its an awesome processor.

i have a 2.9 x2 processor and my brother has a 2.4 q6600 processor.

his PC IS NOTICIBLY FASTER!


don't buy a C2D! its over 2 year old technology!

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

I still am leaning more towards the Q6600 though...just because I know it should be quality...it would be a Fujitsu Siemens Scaleo Pi 2662...and my current PC is a Fujitsu Siemens Scaleo P 3700+ and I love this PC. Biggest downside to it is that it comes only with a GeForce 8600GS 512MB and that Siemens uses OEM parts.

The other prebuilt is that E8400....but I have no clue what it's build quality is like...and what manufacturers parts they use...for all I know it could have a crap PSU (that 300W I mentioned) which dies on me fairly quickly and then possibly have some driver discs missing and other problems. The PC would be put to together by a local PC shop. I would have to add the graphics card in myself...but that's no problem cuz then I can get a 8800GT or 9600GT put in.

So whilst the E8400 prebuilt blows the Fujitsu Siemens away on paper...in reality it might be quite a troublesome and expensive purchase as it's a bit of a hit and miss thing...a shot in the dark. The Fujitsu Siemens however is a pretty risk free purchase, other than possibly finding drivers for XP for it as it comes bundled with Vista Home Premium, but it packs less of a punch.

unless all you're going to run is PCSX2, then get the Q6600 over the E8400.

you're getting 2 extra processors in one!

top that with over 2GB memory, and your PC will never slow you down

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

i have a 2.9 x2 processor and my brother has a 2.4 q6600 processor.

his PC IS NOTICIBLY FASTER!


don't buy a C2D! its over 2 year old technology!

Both CPUs are the same technology. One just has more cores.
I also call shenanigans on your post. It's either completely false, or something is screwed on your computer and you don't know it. I therefore challenge your brother's computer. I will pop my E6850 down to stock and we'll have a benchmark contest. Rather than drag out an argument as to how useful or useless quads are today, this seems like a quick way to resolve it.

[runawayprisoner]

How do you know "notice" that it's faster? Because from my own perception, a 630MHz processor and a 3.8GHz one runs Notepad just as fast.

And I've tried a 3.8GHz Q9450, 4.0GHz Q9450, 4.0GHz E8400, 4.3GHz E8400, 3.8GHz E7200, and... the above all at stock. (Phil knows I don't even need to prove that I have tried these) Also a Q6600 at 3GHz and at 2.4GHz in some cases. (This one... I need to prove, but maybe later. ;p) You'd think I'd notice the difference between a 4GHz quad-core in everyday applications compared to a measly 630MHz single-core netbook processor... but I have to admit... I see tolerable differences. Like... the Eee PC seems a bit sluggish at loading Flash movie clips, and music... when it's multi-tasking, but when the buffer kicks in, it's not as bad.

Now if you moved from AMD to Intel, there would be a difference. Or if you just upgraded your computer... changed a few things around... then there would be a difference.

P.S.: And yeah... AMD X2 is just so friggin' slow compared to Intel Core 2. No excuses there. If you moved from AMD, you're more than likely to see drastic improvements. But Intel versus Intel... and it's a different story altogether.

[cottonvibes]

first of all, both you guys have C2D's at nearly 4ghz.
meaning its close to Q6600's performance when fully using all cores; schumi isn't getting a 3.8 clocked c2d AFAIK.

and second of all, i notice the difference just like when i switched from 1-core to dual-core.

to say that 2 cores are better than 4 is just fooling yourself!
CPU Charts 2007 - Tom's Hardware

just look at any 4-core processor compared to a 2-cored processor and notice it cuts times in half!

it does that when the programs are optimized for multi-threading.
but the same theory applies when running more than 2 programs at a time.


its not a hard theory to understand that more cores = more processing power.

only time its not better is when running a very-demanding single or dual-threaded application.
like PCSX2; then it just depends on the clockspeed.

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Both CPUs are the same technology. One just has more cores.

so why wouldn't you think the one with more cores is better

its a simple concept; its not like this is more complicated than it sounds.



btw RAP; skore compared an intel C2D to a Q6600 and noticed the difference.
it has little to do with my processor being an AMD.

my AMD's clock is 2.9 vs the stock 2.4 C2Q my brother has.
its a good comparison.

[runawayprisoner]

I really do have to question how you "notice" it still, buddy.

CPU Charts 2007 - Tom's Hardware

So... you do intensive modeling in 3Ds Max 9? I don't! I only use MS Powerpoint and stuffs... and I find a E8400 close to, if not equal to, a QX9650. I use 3Ds Max occasionally, and... ehh... my graphics card does most of the work. (Ray-tracing is not my favorite)

I am aware that there are softwares that make use of all four cores... and... how many of us use them on a daily basis?...
...
...
...

Start counting?

And I still don't "see" how you can "notice" something that barely exists?

CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors

You don't want to get me started on how Skulltrail performs now... seriously...

P.S.: And last but not least, I WAS running a 4GHz quad, too. ;p You'd think I'd have noticed it if performance degraded in anyway, since I did some tests with gaming and such... and SADLY, it's a dream to see quad-core scaling... unless you are decoding or encoding something in HD.

[cottonvibes]

you're missing the point.

if you use more than 2 applications, windows will utilize more than 2 cores if windows thinks it would run faster that way.
it doesn't matter if you don't run an application that is coded for multi-threading, because running more than 2 programs = more than 2 threads.


picture this common scenario:

say you run FF3, Winamp, and an Instant Messanger (lets say AIM for simplicity).

what would be smoother?
1) running FF3 and Winamp on core 1 and AIM on core 2?
2) running FF3 on core 1, Winamp on core 2, and AIM on core 3?

choice #2 is the smoother option because processor 1 doesn't have to share CPU cycles with another program.

you might not notice it because the cycles are so fast; but its true.
(well its not true all the time for this example because the programs can IDLE, but this is assuming they're all being used simultaneously)

hopefully thats enough to explain it, cuz i give up


to sum it up: if 2-cores were better than 4, then Intel must be retarded on making Nehalem quad-cored

[mudlord]

I am aware that there are softwares that make use of all four cores... and... how many of us use them on a daily basis?...

I do.

foobar2000.

Its convertor component is multithreaded. And it spawns worker threads on each core, depending how much cores and CPUs you have (which completely kick's Winamp's ass). Not to mention its playback system is multithreaded.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

you're missing the point.

if you use more than 2 applications, windows will utilize more than 2 cores if windows thinks it would run faster that way.
it doesn't matter if you don't run an application that is coded for multi-threading, because running more than 2 programs = more than 2 threads.


picture this common scenario:

say you run FF3, Winamp, and an Instant Messanger (lets say AIM for simplicity).

what would be smoother?
1) running FF3 and Winamp on core 1 and AIM on core 2?
2) running FF3 on core 1, Winamp on core 2, and AIM on core 3?

choice #2 is the smoother option because processor 1 doesn't have to share CPU cycles with another program.

you might not notice it because the cycles are so fast; but its true.
(well its not true all the time for this example because the programs can IDLE, but this is assuming they're all being used simultaneously)

hopefully thats enough to explain it, cuz i give up


to sum it up: if 2-cores were better than 4, then Intel must be retarded on making Nehalem quad-cored

Logic error. Your argument shows only a basic understanding of SMP and only works if all those apps you list each takes the majority of a core's cpu cycles. None of them comes close. ONE CORE could handle all those apps on it's own if need be and not come even close to being maxed out. The only way your argument works is if someone was running more than 2 CPU intensive apps at the same time. And, really, how often does that ever happen?

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

first of all, both you guys have C2D's at nearly 4ghz.

I said I would bump mine down to stock for the purpose of benchmarking.

to say that 2 cores are better than 4 is just fooling yourself!
CPU Charts 2007 - Tom's Hardware

just look at any 4-core processor compared to a 2-cored processor and notice it cuts times in half!

LOL, k, now look at the apps the DON'T use SMP. You'll see the E8500 kicking ass and taking names. For the most part, only some high end development programs use SMP. MOST PROGRAMS DO NOT AND WILL BENEFIT FROM HIGHER CLOCK SPEED FOR MORE THAN MORE CORES. If you want to sacrifice performance for everything else on your computer so you can run that one SMP program you might happen to have faster once in awhile, be my guest.

it does that when the programs are optimized for multi-threading.

Nearly all programs AREN'T and the ones that are aren't optimized for quads, only duals. (ie. PCSX2)

but the same theory applies when running more than 2 programs at a time.

Not when they're non-cpu-intensive apps. One core can handle winamp, aim, and firefox just as well 4 cores could. Multi cores only becomes beneficial when you're maxing out a core. Watch your task manager sometime.

its not a hard theory to understand that more cores = more processing power.

You're not understanding. You don't add all the cores up and there's your performance. The additional cores are only beneficial if they get used. Most of the time, for usual use, they do not.

only time its not better is when running a very-demanding single or dual-threaded application.
like PCSX2; then it just depends on the clockspeed.

Only time? That's almost everything. Very few apps take advantage of 4 cores.

so why wouldn't you think the one with more cores is better

its a simple concept; its not like this is more complicated than it sounds.

Yes. It IS a simple concept. I have $200. Do I want a 2.4GHZ 4 core CPU and rarely ever use the extra 2 cores....or do I want a dual core than 600mhz faster than will benefit me far more across the board for everything I do? Hmmm.......that's a toughie.

my AMD's clock is 2.9 vs the stock 2.4 C2Q my brother has.
its a good comparison.

Ah ha! Problem identified! Now compare a 2.9 INTEL C2D to against your brother's C2Q for everyday use. I have no doubt of what you're seeing, but you're following your observations to the incorrect conclusions. Your brother's computer is faster because the Core 2's architecture is far superior to AMD's, hence their current market domination. His computer is not faster because he has more cores.

----------------------------------

From what I understand, Intel is working on transparent SMP, where distribution of workload is handled internally by the CPU. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.)
When that day comes THEN quads and even 8 cores might be more beneficial. But that day is not today.

[cottonvibes]

maybe i should just go back and get a P4 OC'd @ 5ghz instead of a dual-core since clockspeed is all that matters...

[Squall-Leonhart]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

How do you know "notice" that it's faster? Because from my own perception, a 630MHz processor and a 3.8GHz one runs Notepad just as fast.

And I've tried a 3.8GHz Q9450, 4.0GHz Q9450, 4.0GHz E8400, 4.3GHz E8400, 3.8GHz E7200, and... the above all at stock. (Phil knows I don't even need to prove that I have tried these) Also a Q6600 at 3GHz and at 2.4GHz in some cases. (This one... I need to prove, but maybe later. ;p) You'd think I'd notice the difference between a 4GHz quad-core in everyday applications compared to a measly 630MHz single-core netbook processor... but I have to admit... I see tolerable differences. Like... the Eee PC seems a bit sluggish at loading Flash movie clips, and music... when it's multi-tasking, but when the buffer kicks in, it's not as bad.

Now if you moved from AMD to Intel, there would be a difference. Or if you just upgraded your computer... changed a few things around... then there would be a difference.

P.S.: And yeah... AMD X2 is just so friggin' slow compared to Intel Core 2. No excuses there. If you moved from AMD, you're more than likely to see drastic improvements. But Intel versus Intel... and it's a different story altogether.

download the 24mb PEC cheat list and open it in notepad.
We;ll see which processor is faster then :P

[SCHUMI-4-EVA]

Hmm RAP I am still wondering about something though. You know you said most programs will automatically run on core 0 or core1? can't I set the affinity to say core3 though and basically instruct it to run on the 4th core, making me have those 2 cores opens for regular stuff. Like say I want to zip a rather large file, I could win WinRAR on it, go into my process list and set it's affinity to core3 and then comfortably enjoy a game using the other 2 cores?


My habits using a the PC permitting it's strong enough will be something along the lines of playing a game on an emu, whilst being able to browser seamlessly, whilst my TV card is busy recording something onto my harddrive..or alternatively watch anime instead of playing a game on an emu. Or recording something to my harddrive whilst playing a PC game. Or encoding something whilst either playing a propper PC game or watching anime and browsing.
Plus there are various junk background tasks I want running (let me put it this way...I currently have 70 processes running...and I want or need them all to run).

So knowing this would a dual-core still enough for me seeing as I would frequently want to have 3 somwhat processor intensive tasks running?

[Squall-Leonhart]

get a quad core.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

maybe i should just go back and get a P4 OC'd @ 5ghz instead of a dual-core since clockspeed is all that matters...

2nd core on a dual gets used often enough to justify it. Quad, not so much. You SHOULD go get yourself an Intel tho.

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by Squall-Leonhart

download the 24mb PEC cheat list and open it in notepad.
We;ll see which processor is faster then :P

35 secs on Eee PC and about 1 sec delay on C2D 3.8GHz. :P

But if I use Notepad++, Eee PC takes 2 secs, and C2D... again... instantaneously. And I DO use Notepad++. (Note: Eee is instantaneous as well... if the CPU is clocked at 900MHz. Now there is no difference... at least up until that point)

Originally Posted by SCHUMI-4-EVA

Hmm RAP I am still wondering about something though. You know you said most programs will automatically run on core 0 or core1? can't I set the affinity to say core3 though and basically instruct it to run on the 4th core, making me have those 2 cores opens for regular stuff. Like say I want to zip a rather large file, I could win WinRAR on it, go into my process list and set it's affinity to core3 and then comfortably enjoy a game using the other 2 cores?


My habits using a the PC permitting it's strong enough will be something along the lines of playing a game on an emu, whilst being able to browser seamlessly, whilst my TV card is busy recording something onto my harddrive..or alternatively watch anime instead of playing a game on an emu. Or recording something to my harddrive whilst playing a PC game. Or encoding something whilst either playing a propper PC game or watching anime and browsing.
Plus there are various junk background tasks I want running (let me put it this way...I currently have 70 processes running...and I want or need them all to run).

So knowing this would a dual-core still enough for me seeing as I would frequently want to have 3 somwhat processor intensive tasks running?

Mmm... then get a Quad. And it's only because you are encoding/decoding stuffs. That's about the only reason to justify a Quad right now. Or maybe you're an insane person and you try to play PCSX2, while listening to music... and decoding TV signals... ripping DVDs, CDs, applying Photoshop CS3 filter, rendering in 3Ds Max, Maya... etc... all at once.

[SCHUMI-4-EVA]

Lol whilst I will probably end up making the quad run like a P1 sometimes, I would limit my actions to 2-3 processor intensive tasks so I am not that crazy.

Are my assumptions about core affinity right though?

[runawayprisoner]

Right for the most part... But it won't work all the time. Some applications kind of... "cheat" by affiliating themselves to some specific cores. That way, there would be no delay caused by Windows trying to determine which core to go and such...

But that's only for very intensive softwares. And... I am kind of led to believe that PCSX2 is one of 'em.