Is there much point for quad cores?

[BlueMax]

There's a couple games that benefit from it.... but what's out there that really shows off or pushes quad-core that a dual-core can't do almost as well?

The near-$200 difference from a cheap Pent dual-core could sure buy a spiffy video card instead - if the Quad only really shines in a few circumstances.

[Emancipated]

Good to have and not need it than not to have it when you need it.

[McLaren__F1]

Not much games/apps supports quads yet. [dont quote me on this:lol: ] lol

[Evil Baby]

Well it depends on if you are doing any serious rendering, encoding, or scientific applications. If you are then you will see an improvement in quad vs dual.

However, for most applications and for most users that extra $200 would be better spend on more ram or video card upgrade.

[Emancipated]

Buy it now and enjoy the comfort of knowing you won't need to upgrade for quite long while yet.

Trying to keep your machine current with the "IT" games is a fool's errand.

[woof]

People said the same thing about dual cores when they first came out and now we can't live without them. Yeah, really not a lot of advantages for quad at the moment, but then if you're building a new system you may keep for several years it's more about preparing for the future.

[Evil Baby]

People said the same thing about dual cores when they first came out and now we can't live without them. Yeah, really not a lot of advantages for quad at the moment, but then if you're building a new system you may keep for several years it's more about preparing for the future.

I know lots of people and I would argue the large majority of computer users could easily survive without dual core cpu's.

[willy]

For typical users and gamers, stick with high core speed dual-core for better bang for the CPU bucks ...

Actually, I am still quite happy with my single-core CPU ...

[willy]

I know lots of people and I would argue the large majority of computer users could easily survive without dual core cpu's.
I have to agree with that ... I am actually interested to see how a general user utilize a single-core CPU ...

We need to understand that we (consumers) do not really ask for a dual-/quad-core CPU ... It's the CPU manufacturers that cannot produce a fast single-core CPU in the first place !!

[Emancipated]

I know lots of people and I would argue the large majority of computer users could easily survive without dual core cpu's.

This is a really moot point. How do you go about defining what someone can survive with or without? It's probably a difference between a 30 seconds boot to a 1 minute boot. If you can afford it, go for it. Get the C2D and then have to go through the hassle of finding someone to buy your old CPU when you want to upgrade. It's not advantageous for everyone.

If you're cash strapped and don't know how to pay next month's rent, then building a new computer is the least of your problems. Get QUAD or bust!

[Siefer999]

I know lots of people and I would argue the large majority of computer users could easily survive without dual core cpu's.

im still using my single core for my desktop:)

[fitbrit]

For HD decoding, the new ffdshow builds utilise all cores, I believe. This means that a quad core can be running with a very low load per CPU, and therefore run cooler, quieter etc. compared to a dual core CPU.

[Evil Baby]

This is a really moot point. How do you go about defining what someone can survive with or without? It's probably a difference between a 30 seconds boot to a 1 minute boot. If you can afford it, go for it. Get the C2D and then have to go through the hassle of finding someone to buy your old CPU when you want to upgrade. It's not advantageous for everyone.

If you're cash strapped and don't know how to pay next month's rent, then building a new computer is the least of your problems. Get QUAD or bust!

I'm not recommending people stay with single core, it was just in reply to the earlier post who stated we need dual core machines. I'm a heavy user by most standards but for home use I survive on my celeron laptop :). Of course while I'm doing serious work I use the dual core machine.

Next setup I buy will clearly be a C2D or Quard Core from Intel unless AMD pulls something our of their behinds but the simple fact just about everybody I know uses a single core machine and is fine with it. My paretns, my g/f's parents, all of my moms friends who I've built machines for out of spare parts.

When most of the people in this world just need to browse the web, check email, play a java game or two and use office or even wordpad to write up a quick resume they don't need a dual core or quad core cpu. However, low end dual cores are so cheap it would be stupid not to go at least that way.

I know my parents would be happier with say a e2160 and 3 gigs of ram, rather then a Q6600 and 512-1 gig of ram. I'd also argue that my parents are more like the average computer user than I am.

[BlueMax]

AMD was supposed to be releasing "Tri-cores" by now... quad-core processors where one has failed and is disabled.

Maybe it was just a rumour....?



But $250 for a quad, or $100 for a nice dual-core plus a spiffy video card....

Heck, some of the decent dual-cores are only $70! I'd stick to dual unless you've got a rare app that really shows a big improvement from a quad.

Mac Pros don't have 8-core options for nothing... some apps can really, REALLY use 'em!

Sounds like I'm just not one of those guys. I do use music notation software as my heftiest program (and the occasional game) so a dual with 2GB is more than enough, I'm thinking. ;)

Good to know, since I'm considering my upgrade options - and this time it'll be Intel-based. (I really want to try messing with OSx86!)

[Nuprapture]

I upgraded recently from a P4 3.0 HT to a Quad Core 6700.. I've never used a dual core desktop, but my brother has a core 2 duo laptop.
Speed-wise, the single core is out of the question.. the technology is older and even the ram and hard drives are slower. The newer technology with the SATA2 hard drives and the faster ram makes a huge difference.

Between the dual and quad core I notice a HUGE difference between the two when it comes to things like video encoding, certain renderings on photoshop, and even converting videos to go from avi to dvd. There are probably more things that will show a difference, but they`re beyond the scope of my usage.

It really depends on the user, but I definitely think that the quad core is more than worth if if you're planning to upgrade your system. Get the better processor and just wait till a video card or something goes on sale to get that too!

[torseller07]

I have been wondering the same thing as well: is quad core really worth it? Sure, the jump from single core to duo core is noticeable: overall the system has become more responsive and things seem to run a bit faster. But can we expect this result to scale up further when we make the duo to quad core jump?

I feel kind of disappointed that AMD is currently releasing HT 3.0 enabled CPU on their Phenom (quad core) line only. Currently, if I want to benefit from HT 3.0 on AMD platform, the only way for me is to spend an extra $100 or so on a Phenom. I don't see an immediate application for the extra cores since HD decoding are either done in GPU now or done on duo core CPU (there are words on quad core decode support later on, but it hasn't been realized).

So far from the results that I read, triple core CPUs are not too impressive. (Quad core CPUs have better bang per buck ratio.) I think for now I am happy to stay with a HT 1.0 enabled duo core CPU and wait for HT 3.0 enabled with lower core number.

[gordholio]

The thing is that a lot of people don't keep their computers that long nowadays.
I just upgraded my motherboard, processor, memory and case last year and it has a dual core AMD 4800 processor.
I am going to try to fight the temptation of replacing the guts of it for another 3 years if I can. I run XP, so it's not bogged down like it would be with Vista.
When 8 core processors come out in a few years, some will be saying that 4 cores are obsolete. I don't know how much of it is a marketing gimmick and how much is legitimate. Programmers, including Microsoft need to make their programs leaner and more efficient regardless of how much memory of CPU power you have.

[kiz5]

Give me a nice C2D chip, where I can overclock it +1.0GHz or so, and that's all I want. I don't want the extra heat from the Quads. I have my E6600 running at 3.6GHz, and with the 8800GT, I have no issues with anything not named Crysis.

[ppl4golf]

I think the more core the better...from a multimedia POV.

The only thing that worries me a little is the thermal porperties of the Quad, not sure if it is as easily managed as the E2140.

[ShadowVlican]

i'd take a quad core anyday

but that's only because i encode videos

[xslitx]

I like my Q6600. AutoGK goes zoom zoom... that was the first app I used that actually got to 80% CPU usage.

[torseller07]

I am more inclined to believe quad cores are more a hype than a thing that would benefit most enthusiasts (not to mention your average joe-6-pack users). The extra heat generated by the extra cores would require additional cooling which would translate to more noise (assuming most people are staying with air cooling). While some people may argue better power management could solve this (e.g. shutdown unused cores), I don't really see the point to spend the extra money for all the cores I probably won't use.

I do want a lower core number, low power consumption with HT 3.0 CPU though. If somehow AMD could decouple HT 3.0 from quad cores, I am one happy camper. :)

[hades]

I am also contemplating the move from dual-to-quad... But my old dual will be put to good use either in my server or my wife's machine, so 2 machines are being upgraded...

I found this article really good:

Core insanity replaces megahurtz madness (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/31/core-insanity-replaces)

hades

[CodecX81]

Too early to say myself, but I just finished putting together a Q6000 with 4gb of RAM.... and I installed server 2008 enterprise in 11 minutes.

But, whose counting?

[movieman]

The thing is that a lot of people don't keep their computers that long nowadays.

That's precisely the opposite of my experience; the people I know are keeping computers much longer than they ever did before, because they were already fast enough a few years ago that they have little to no reason to upgrade. If all you do is email and web browsing and playing the odd video file, what do you need even a dual-core CPU for?

[ppl4golf]

That's precisely the opposite of my experience; the people I know are keeping computers much longer than they ever did before, because they were already fast enough a few years ago that they have little to no reason to upgrade. If all you do is email and web browsing and playing the odd video file, what do you need even a dual-core CPU for?


After retiring an Athlon T-bird, I still have 6 rigs in the house. There is no immediate need to retire any of them...4 of them are dual core. My wife uses the woest one - P4 3.04GHz Celeron for book keeping and stuff. They just don't break easily...when there is urge to get another rig, some probably get donated to schools.

However, single core is pretty unacceptable if you're getting into any HD playback.

[dighn]

That's precisely the opposite of my experience; the people I know are keeping computers much longer than they ever did before, because they were already fast enough a few years ago that they have little to no reason to upgrade. If all you do is email and web browsing and playing the odd video file, what do you need even a dual-core CPU for?

Ditto. My ~2 year old rig is still going strong and I do a heck lot more than email and web browsing. It's an AthlonXP 3800x2 + 2GB RAM. It runs big apps (visual studio, matlab etc) and recent games (hl2, c&c3, sins of a solar empire) just fine. I want to upgrade to something like a Quad Xeon but have a hard time convincing myself to do so.

[Insane_Pikachu]

I eat homework for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

[silentio]

When CCE supports Quad, then I'll know the companies are serious about Quad.

[torseller07]

I think for people whose major application (excluding heavy duty gaming) don't change much in the last 5-10 years, and they don't mind invest about $100 or so to maintain their hardware (mainly for the cooling fans and hard drives, since they tend to die first), it's very probable and economically beneficial to keep old rigs going.

In the past year, I phased out 2 / 4 PCs at home and upgraded the remaining 2 PCs. The main reason is because I am running out of room at home, not because they are inadequate to handle daily computing tasks. The upgrades are mainly to make the PC run more quiet and only my main desktop was being upgraded for performance.

But for now, I still don't see much merit in quad core CPUs in my case. I rather spend the money on something else, such as a bigger hard drive. :)

[Beradon]

However, single core is pretty unacceptable if you're getting into any HD playback.Not really as you can offload the HD playback by getting a videocard like the ATI 2400/2600HD or Nvidia 8600GT series.

[ppl4golf]

Not really as you can offload the HD playback by getting a videocard like the ATI 2400/2600HD or Nvidia 8600GT series.

I think my wordings are a little over the top, single core are not ideal but may still work - YES

Single core does stutter easily...and it doesn't have to be @ 100% to stutter. It even stutters playing bread and butter SD MPEG2 when you're opening other applications...and that's with a video card.

The improvement moving to my first x2 (A64 3800+x2) is pretty big...back in question, I don't know if moving to a x4 is just as dramatic.

PS - The video cards you're listing are a bit dated and not the best bang for buck to say the least.

[Composter]

who buys a computer and expects it to last for years any more?
just like TV's ...........years ago if a TV didn't last 20+ yrs then it wasn't worth the box it came in. Now people are buying TV's by the year because of the advancements.

[Sgt_Strider]

The thing is that a lot of people don't keep their computers that long nowadays.
I just upgraded my motherboard, processor, memory and case last year and it has a dual core AMD 4800 processor.
I am going to try to fight the temptation of replacing the guts of it for another 3 years if I can. I run XP, so it's not bogged down like it would be with Vista.
When 8 core processors come out in a few years, some will be saying that 4 cores are obsolete. I don't know how much of it is a marketing gimmick and how much is legitimate. Programmers, including Microsoft need to make their programs leaner and more efficient regardless of how much memory of CPU power you have.

I agree with you on this, but recently I haven't upgraded as often. Prior to my latest upgrade 3 weeks ago, I was using a single core Opteron 144 for the past 2 years. I thought about going quad right from the get-go, but I figure I'm probably better off waiting. My dual core system is doing pretty well right now and hasn't choked at all on me, at least for what I do. I probably won't upgrade again later this year except to buy next generation videocard, but other than that, I'll wait.

[blahraptors]

That's precisely the opposite of my experience; the people I know are keeping computers much longer than they ever did before, because they were already fast enough a few years ago that they have little to no reason to upgrade. If all you do is email and web browsing and playing the odd video file, what do you need even a dual-core CPU for?

I totally agree. I'm running XP on an Athlon XP 2600+ and 1gb ram. It's totally capable of doing everything I want it to do - email, playing videos and music, homework, and of course, browsing RFD. The only thing I can't do anymore is play new games, but I gave up on games since I got into university anyway. The system's still as responsive as ever, and I just can't convince myself to build a new rig.

[Starkicker]

I was just playing around with a new Quad-Core Dell box we got at work; it kicks the pants off the dual-core boxes some of us have. Both boxes run Windows XP, I couldn't believe how much faster the Quad-Cores were. Crazy.

[BlueMax]

I was just playing around with a new Quad-Core Dell box we got at work; it kicks the pants off the dual-core boxes some of us have. Both boxes run Windows XP, I couldn't believe how much faster the Quad-Cores were. Crazy.

Doing what tasks? Where do you see/feel the biggest increase?

I remember my first experience with Hyperthreading (not-quite-but-almost dual-core)... everything just felt "peppier".... that windows were popping up sooner with less "thinking" or drawing time....

[willy]

I was just playing around with a new Quad-Core Dell box we got at work; it kicks the pants off the dual-core boxes some of us have. Both boxes run Windows XP, I couldn't believe how much faster the Quad-Cores were. Crazy.
Which quad vs which dual ? Which app(s) ? How much RAM on both ?

[Starkicker]

Doing what tasks? Where do you see/feel the biggest increase?

I remember my first experience with Hyperthreading (not-quite-but-almost dual-core)... everything just felt "peppier".... that windows were popping up sooner with less "thinking" or drawing time....

I only played with it in passing, so stuff like booting up, logging on, opening up browser windows, I installed a few applications (Adobe, Solidworks, some statistical plotting software, etc) and the installations flew by. Normally, Adobe software (Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Photoshop) would take me about 30-40 minutes to install, but on the Quad-Core, it installed in 10-15 minutes thereabouts. Browser windows opened up right away, I didn't notice a momentary lapse between clicking the icon and having it open it. It happened right away.

Which quad vs which dual ? Which app(s) ? How much RAM on both ?

Both sets of boxes have 2GBs of Ram, I have a Optiplex 745 which is a dual core PC and the one my co-worker got was a Optiplex 755 which is the Quad-Core. I'm not sure of the specific chips involved on either box.

[torseller07]

If your PC is running with a lot of tasks, quad cores would definitely help speed things up. It also helps if you run application that scale up to quad cores.

[Bing]

I totally agree. I'm running XP on an Athlon XP 2600+ and 1gb ram. It's totally capable of doing everything I want it to do - email, playing videos and music, homework, and of course, browsing RFD. The only thing I can't do anymore is play new games, but I gave up on games since I got into university anyway. The system's still as responsive as ever, and I just can't convince myself to build a new rig.

Same here. Currently running a Barton 2500 w/ 1GB of ram and it suits most of my needs (surfing/office/basic photo editing). Only now looking to upgrade to a Core2Duo cuz of the shuttering of videos and firefox as I watch TV/movies while surf.

[rivet]

My new Q6600 PC does not feel faster than my original S939 *2 3800+ dual core computer at all, in fact, it feels a bit slower because my new hard drive is slower (with a 8M cache instead of 16M one for my original PC). However, I can justify my purchase as I run 4 matlab simulation programs at the same time regularly. So it really depends on your needs, if you run 3 or more CPU intensive program at the same time, even these program does not utilize more than one cores, you benefit from more than two cores.

[nuropa]

great for running virtual machines.