AnimeSuki.com Forum

AnimeSuki Forum (http://forums.animesuki.com/index.php)
-   Tech Support (http://forums.animesuki.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Intel Core 2 Quad?! (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=51562)

Potatochobit 2007-07-22 18:12

Intel Core 2 Quad?!
 
So I was shopping around looking to see what features I want in my next computer and I came across this.

here is the computer I was looking at
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1179877253081

and here is the chip on newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017


is anyone using this monster? I'm a big AMD fan, and I the AMD computer I was planning to buy is about 860$ and was like a 5600+ dual core. does the performance of this intel processor justify the over $1000 price?

Garet Jax 2007-07-22 19:52

I don't think you'd find much of a performance increase, if indeed any at all. While I'm no expert in this, I don't believe many apps yet take advantage of the multi-core architecture. (People with information to the contrarary, please link!) If you're running a program that was coded for a single CPU, it's still sadly only going to use one core on your nice, shiny 4-core.

2005-ish article: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000285.html

Quote from the article:
Quote:

Will the apps run faster just because there a now 2 processors on a single chip? I guess not really. There are benefits for the OS that may relate to improved performance. But the app itself? Well, you can run multiple instances easier and better for one. But what about a single app? A single threaded (client) app that has been designed with a single processor and a single thread of execution in mind, will not benefit and therefore users will not benefit from multiple processors or multiple cores.
As time goes by, we'll almost certainly see more programs that use 2+ cores, depending on the need. And if there's ever a way to automatically take a program and split it across cores so the coder doesn't have to manually handle that, then you'll see a huge increase in performance. But not right now. Having said that, there's no harm in being prepared for the future! AMD is supposed to be launching quad cores soon, so you might want to keep on eye on those.

Zero Shinohara 2007-07-22 20:12

In fact, a lot of programs seem to be still having trouble with the Multi-core platforms. I still need to manually set my Azureus' affinity to either core one or two so it won't close on me.

And, well, to be frank, I really don't think that having two more cores would really matter for now, unless Vista has some new features that make use of multiple cores more efficiently than XP - since I'm not a Vista expert, I really can't tell. But like Garet said above, as time goes on, more and more programs are gonna start using multiple cores to reduce the required throttle from just one or two.

So, if you plan on keeping that computer for a while, then I'd really think about the Quad-Core. If you're the type that changes specs every one to two years, then you might not need it that much.

And wow, an Intel Quad-Core for $300... I guess the new 1333FSB chips really lowered the price for their older chips.

problemedchild 2007-07-22 21:33

AMD really starts to lose to Intel after the $150 price rage. The 5600+ gets crushed by the E6550. Don't forget that the E6550 will OC far more than the 5600+.

Getting a Quad core right now really depends on how long you would like to keep your computer and what you work on. If you're constantly encoding, get a Quad core. It kicks ass in those applications. If you're just gaming, go get a 6X50 chip. The 1333 FSB does help a bit.

Don't bother waiting for AMD's quad core offering this year. It's pretty much public that the Phenom will have supply problems at its release. Therefore, you'll be paying a pretty hefty premium.

I'm suprised that the mark up on those Quad cores are still so high. Intel seems them for only $266 dollars in 1000 units to retailers.

Gundam Master 2007-07-23 04:23

Also right now I think that the intel-quad core are still two core2s connected by the FSB or a bridge of some kind.

theDarkHorse 2007-07-23 05:52

Yeah, AMD's been going on about Intel's quad core not being a "true" quad-core processor. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but anyway...

It's been mentioned many times before...your performance increase is going to depend on whether said program has been optimised for quad-core. If you're spending heaps of time on multimedia (PS, Premiere, etc) then quad-core will be a huge boon. These multimedia programs have already been designed with multi-core in mind.

problemedchild 2007-07-23 07:42

I love AMD's current "quad" platform. Instead of having two chips glued together, let's take an expensive server board, then shove two duo cores on it.

That's even more crude than Intels........

arcadeplayer987 2007-07-23 15:10

My advice is to get a C2D dualcore and a better graphic than that 7530.
Also 2 gb RAM are enough

Gundam Master 2007-07-23 16:41

2GB is more than enough for XP but you might want to upgrade to more ram later if you're running Vista and have a lot of memory intensive apps.

Furuno 2007-07-23 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by problemedchild (Post 1056156)
I love AMD's current "quad" platform. Instead of having two chips glued together, let's take an expensive server board, then shove two duo cores on it.

Agree... i've always dreaming of this :
2x AMD Athlon 64 FX-74
ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual Socket L (Socket 1207FX)

problemedchild 2007-07-23 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by furuno (Post 1057144)
Agree... i've always dreaming of this :
2x AMD Athlon 64 FX-74
ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual Socket L (Socket 1207FX)

I think you missed my point =P

AMD was calling out Intel for not having a native quad core solution. It was only weeks afterwards that AMD comes out and markets its amazing quad core......:heh:

Gundam Master 2007-07-24 05:35

the dual socket L can is said to support the new quad-core chip from AMD when it's released meaning that all someone would have to do is swap out the current chips and put the new ones in for a total of 8 cores. All that's need is I think a bios upgrade

and furuno, I think you missed the last line of problems post

Claies 2007-07-24 05:56

I believe I've heard of applications that let users control what cores to run which processes. Has anybody used/heard of such?

I'm quite sure that new products are coming out with multi-core processes...it's just that using a multi-core CPU right now is a little bit ahead of the times.

theDarkHorse 2007-07-24 06:16

Yeah, Windows' own Task Manager can be used to set process affinity; i.e. to say which program runs on which core.

I don't think I'm in much need of multi-core right now, simply because I don't use my computer enough for it to be worthwhile.

hobbes_fan 2007-07-24 11:45

Crysis looks like the only thing that will kill dual core's. But for non gamers I don't think its absolutely necessary, it still doesn't have the bang for buck ration that x2's in the budget range have and c2d e4xxxx's and up have in the midrange.

arcadeplayer987 2007-07-24 14:57

Crysis will kill dual-core:D
I assure you that E6600 with a strong video card like 8800GTS or x2900XT will max Crysis. But you can go if you want with quadcore for 5 fps more

Potatochobit 2007-07-24 17:19

well I do play some games, but the computer will be used for work too. I have the older adobe suite CS1 and will probably be upgrading to the CS3 design package at the end of the year.
Indesign and illustrator support multithread processing?

Gundam Master 2007-07-24 18:14

Actually I forget which apps they were but some apps actually ran slower on the quad-core than on a dual-core or single core. I think I read it in PC World, PC Magazine or Maximum PC. I forget which.

hobbes_fan 2007-07-24 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcadeplayer987 (Post 1058422)
Crysis will kill dual-core:D
I assure you that E6600 with a strong video card like 8800GTS or x2900XT will max Crysis. But you can go if you want with quadcore for 5 fps more

Everything I've read so far indicates its been written specifically to use all available cores. So try running on an E2xxx or E4xxx or X2 which the majority of the population has, it'll be a struggle on a mid level or budget system. The 320mb 8800GTS doesn't look like it will be able to deal with all the eyecandy turned on either, the 640mb will do it.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2926

So before you start laughing, consider this. Look at what the benches say for FEAR and Oblivion, now think about how much more improved the gfx is for Crysis. Now look again at the benchmarks for the 8800gts for FEAR and Oblivion with all the options on, what do you think will happen with Crysis? also additionally you're pretty much locked into getting that white elephant of an o/s Vista in order to take full advantage of dx10.

problemedchild 2007-07-24 20:05

I beleive Crysis will support for both DX9 and DX10. Either way, nothing is out at the moment, and everything we post is just pure speculation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:41.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.