1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Brian Cryer, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. Brian Cryer

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    >interesting problem:
    >
    >- Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    >- Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    >Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
    >correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    >completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
    >mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
    >
    >"A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
    >double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
    >the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
    >loss
    >of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
    >memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
    >many cores and threads)."
    >
    >Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
    >fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
    >quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
    >
    >Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    >there's a clear consensus about which to buy!


    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html seems to provide an
    interesting view on this - just one that stood out when I did a google just
    now.

    Most of the time my pc (single core) is idle, and waiting for me to do
    something. I do run some cpu intensive applications where I'm left waiting
    for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest most
    applications can't even take advantage of dual core. Its only those
    applications that are inherently multi-threaded (or which can be made so)
    like databases, webservers, some games, that will be able to truly take
    advantage of the move from two to four cores. Whilst the number of
    applications that will be able to make use of multiple cores will inevitably
    increase, is it something that you need?

    Despite all this, my plans are for my next pc to be quad core, and given the
    choice that's what I'd go for even if the clock speed is slower. Whatever
    you do be sure to chock it full of as much RAM as you can, ie 4GB if you are
    using a 32bit OS.

    Hope this is useful.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    www.cryer.co.uk/brian
    Brian Cryer, Jan 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian Cryer

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Brian Cryer" typed:
    > "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    >> interesting problem:
    >>
    >> - Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >>
    >> - Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >>
    >> Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am
    >> I correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    >> completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies,
    >> as mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
    >>
    >> "A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can
    >> rarely double the processing ability of each of its constituent
    >> halves (e.g. the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the
    >> Conroe), due to a loss
    >> of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the
    >> narrow memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling
    >> twice as many cores and threads)."
    >>
    >> Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded
    >> and fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the
    >> 2.4GHz quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
    >>
    >> Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    >> there's a clear consensus about which to buy!

    >
    > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html seems to
    > provide an interesting view on this - just one that stood out when I
    > did a google just now.
    >
    > Most of the time my pc (single core) is idle, and waiting for me to do
    > something. I do run some cpu intensive applications where I'm left
    > waiting for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest
    > most applications can't even take advantage of dual core.


    Maybe so but I do like the fact that I can have my dual-core PC doing
    something heavy-duty like encoding and still have it responsive and snappy
    if I want to check email etc. Encoding on my old single-core was an
    overnight job as the PC was useless for anything else once I hit "start".
    --
    Shaun.

    > Its only
    > those applications that are inherently multi-threaded (or which can
    > be made so) like databases, webservers, some games, that will be able
    > to truly take advantage of the move from two to four cores. Whilst
    > the number of applications that will be able to make use of multiple
    > cores will inevitably increase, is it something that you need?
    >
    > Despite all this, my plans are for my next pc to be quad core, and
    > given the choice that's what I'd go for even if the clock speed is
    > slower. Whatever you do be sure to chock it full of as much RAM as
    > you can, ie 4GB if you are using a 32bit OS.
    >
    > Hope this is useful.
    ~misfit~, Jan 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian Cryer

    Matthew Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-CoreQ6600

    >> waiting for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest
    >> most applications can't even take advantage of dual core.

    >
    > Maybe so but I do like the fact that I can have my dual-core PC doing
    > something heavy-duty like encoding and still have it responsive and snappy
    > if I want to check email etc. Encoding on my old single-core was an
    > overnight job as the PC was useless for anything else once I hit "start".


    I find myself in exactly the same position as the original poster.

    I've found the same problem with single-core video encoding, but how to
    decide between dual and quad core? With quad would I be able to do some
    dvd compression, burn a dvd, encode some wavs to mp3, and still have a
    responsive pc to do some text editing, web browsing, etc.? In other words
    would each of the processor intensive tasks get assigned a core and stick
    with it?

    What about the OS, do I need 64bit xp or vista with dual/quad processing?
    I've heard that if you get 4GB RAM, a 64bit OS is recommended - is that true.

    Thanks all.
    Matthew, Jan 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Brian Cryer

    Sir-Les-MP Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-CoreQ6600

    Matthew wrote:
    >>> waiting for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest
    >>> most applications can't even take advantage of dual core.

    >>
    >> Maybe so but I do like the fact that I can have my dual-core PC doing
    >> something heavy-duty like encoding and still have it responsive and
    >> snappy if I want to check email etc. Encoding on my old single-core
    >> was an overnight job as the PC was useless for anything else once I
    >> hit "start".

    >
    > I find myself in exactly the same position as the original poster.
    >
    > I've found the same problem with single-core video encoding, but how to
    > decide between dual and quad core? With quad would I be able to do some
    > dvd compression, burn a dvd, encode some wavs to mp3, and still have a
    > responsive pc to do some text editing, web browsing, etc.? In other
    > words would each of the processor intensive tasks get assigned a core
    > and stick with it?
    >
    > What about the OS, do I need 64bit xp or vista with dual/quad
    > processing? I've heard that if you get 4GB RAM, a 64bit OS is
    > recommended - is that true.
    >
    > Thanks all.

    you don't need a 64bit O/S to use either a dual core ore Quad core cpu
    however you are correct if you intend to use 4gb or more Ram then a
    64bit O/S is recommended as it will be able to address all the memory
    available where as 32bit xp/vista will have some issues past 3gb
    depending on the motherboard and memory set-up you may see just over
    3.5Gb using a 32bit O/S
    Sir-Les-MP, Jan 16, 2008
    #4
  5. Brian Cryer

    kony Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:37:45 GMT, Matthew
    <> wrote:

    >>> waiting for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest
    >>> most applications can't even take advantage of dual core.

    >>
    >> Maybe so but I do like the fact that I can have my dual-core PC doing
    >> something heavy-duty like encoding and still have it responsive and snappy
    >> if I want to check email etc. Encoding on my old single-core was an
    >> overnight job as the PC was useless for anything else once I hit "start".

    >
    >I find myself in exactly the same position as the original poster.
    >
    >I've found the same problem with single-core video encoding, but how to
    >decide between dual and quad core?


    You don't need either, just go into Task Manager,
    right-click on the list item using the processor time, and
    set it's priority to "low". It's largely a myth that
    anything that isn't realtime needs more than one processor
    (core). In some cases the application doing the encoding
    even lets you set it's process priority ahead of time so
    it's always what you want... and IMO most people will want
    "low", even if they had a dual core or quad system.


    >With quad would I be able to do some
    >dvd compression, burn a dvd, encode some wavs to mp3, and still have a
    >responsive pc to do some text editing, web browsing, etc.? In other words
    >would each of the processor intensive tasks get assigned a core and stick
    >with it?


    The answer is that you will have more processes running than
    cores even with a quad core. Seldom do people want to
    consider this truth. Adding more cores does give the system
    more processing power in general when more than one process
    is linearlly bound instead of just idling away most of the
    time. Yes once a process is assigned to a core it will
    continue using it. What remains is as mentioned above, that
    with more than 4 processes whether your system remains
    responsive for what you are doing in the foreground depends
    on that task running at higher priority than what is running
    in the background. Merely putting the app in focus by using
    it does elevate the priority but not necessarily enough in
    some cases.

    I'm not trying to talk you out of a faster new dual or quad
    core system, I'm just saying for years I had no problem
    using a single core to do video encoding or the other things
    you list in the background while the system was fully
    responsive for text editing or web, email, etc in the
    foreground. With a good dual or quad core what you get is
    the background linear processor consumer jobs get done a lot
    faster.



    >
    >What about the OS, do I need 64bit xp or vista with dual/quad processing?
    >I've heard that if you get 4GB RAM, a 64bit OS is recommended - is that true.


    Your applications and drivers are the other factor to
    consider, 64bit OS is not needed for dual or quad core
    processors.
    kony, Jan 16, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    682
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  2. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  3. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    438
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
  4. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    379
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
  5. Brian Cryer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,037
Loading...

Share This Page