Quad core rant.

[jermaghs07]

i'm tired of everyone asking should they go to quad core.

Here is my answer

NO!
Quad core is a waist of money right now, we don't have any need for it. quad core was developed for server use. it was designed to be able to run a massive ammount of programs at once.

I think the common misconseption is that if you have quad core it will be alot faster. but that is not really true. it isn't any faster, it can just run more things at a time. they still run at equal clock speeds, the quad core just has the equivalant of 4. for example, just because you have a 2GHz quad core CPU doesn't mean that you have 8GHz. you just have 4 2GHz.

I have an intel 2.66GHz dual core, 4GB of RAM and i run dual 19" widescreens, i can open every program on my computer, and my ram will fill up long before my CPU will bog down.

So for those of you out there who want a quad core so bad you can taste it. don't waist your money trying to show off, go buy something usefull, like dual Nvidia 8800 GTX's, or a USB beverage cooler. lol

[mb523]

So true! Someone after my own thoughts... only if I could get my friends to think like this.

[The New Normal]

Well that's all true, but I don't upgrade my 'puta very often, so when I do I want to be set for quite a few years.

If I can get 4 cores running at the same speed as your 2 cores with a bit for a FSB pump for an extra $100 I will do it.

Fairly useless for the next year or 2, but I work on a long life-cycle. I don't get a free upsize every 12 months like some people.

Oh yeah, and don't buy dual GTXs, now THAT is a waste of money, lol.

[jermaghs07]

That is true but quad core technology won't be needed for anything but servers for many years to come. oh and the only Quad core worth having is the core 2 extreme, and they're about $900. the rest won't really offer much of a performance boost, aside from EXTREME multitasking. :-)

Oh and i meant the GTS OC 512Mb not GTX they are over rated.

[DimaYasny]

it all really depends on what you're doing with your PC. mine is core2duo 1.83, and it has trouble running as many VMs as I need at once. If I had a quad core, I'd be able do distribute CPUs in a more efficient way.

[jbennet]

my quad - cpu server (quad pentium 3 xenons) kicks the ass off of my core2 extreme using windows server 2003 OS

[DimaYasny]

I think the common misconseption is that if you have quad core it will be alot faster. but that is not really true. it isn't any faster, it can just run more things at a time. they still run at equal clock speeds, the quad core just has the equivalant of 4. for example, just because you have a 2GHz quad core CPU doesn't mean that you have 8GHz. you just have 4 2GHz.

just go to wikipedia and read what multithreading means, and why developers stopped adding to CPU speed, and started expanding the number of cores instead.

[jermaghs07]

my quad - cpu server (quad pentium 3 xenons) kicks the ass off of my core2 extreme using windows server 2003 OS

Your also using a Server OS. like i said earlyer, the quad core was developed for server use. so your OS was built to utilize all aspects of the quad core technology.

BUT IT STILL ISN'T PRACTICAL!!!!! which was my big problem in the first place. you pay way too much for something that really isn't that much better.

[jermaghs07]

just go to wikipedia and read what multithreading means, and why developers stopped adding to CPU speed, and started expanding the number of cores instead.

Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.

Second, it's still a new technology, and they haven't perfected it yet. they have also had alot of security issues with hyperthreading, and alot of problems with cross talk.

Third of all, Wikipedia is a REALLY BAD source, because any yahoo that thinks they know something can post things there. they don't have to be true they just have to sound good.

[jermaghs07]

it all really depends on what you're doing with your PC. mine is core2duo 1.83, and it has trouble running as many VMs as I need at once. If I had a quad core, I'd be able do distribute CPUs in a more efficient way.

thats just because you are using a 1.8. if you had a 2.3 or a 3 you wouldn't have that problem.

why do you think AMD hasn't built many quad core CPU's. because they realize that they can still get alot of performance out of dual core without driving the cost up.

[The New Normal]

Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.

I think they're both valid terms. Hyperthreading is a form of multithreading.why do you think AMD hasn't built many quad core CPU's. because they realize that they can still get alot of performance out of dual core

I feel sorry for AMD. They have the only true quad-core CPU (the intel is just 2 dual cores squashed together while the Phenom is 4 cores on 1 die) and yet the AMD is still well behind on performance. If they could get it together we could all enjoy unlocked multipliers at decent prices, yay!Second, it's still a new technology, and they haven't perfected it yet

Very true. If you want optimum price/performance right now, quads are not the way to go. Personally I want to future-proof, but that's just me. I'll be getting a Q9450 in the next few months ;)

[san_fran_crisko]

All I know that is that I find the Quad Core excellent for running DAWs like Pro Tools. The LE version of Pro Tools uses the host processor to run everthing, including CPU thirsty plug-ins. HD systems come with PCI Express cards with DSP processors to take the load off the processor but cost way more.

So, now the bedroom musician/engineer is getting roughly half the perfomance of a low-end HD system but about 4 times that of an LE system at a fraction of the cost!

I haven't noticed that good a performance jump in Windows XP, but I reckon thats partly due to having one hard drive but HL2 only uses 55-60% on a single core!

Granted jermaghs, you may feel Quad Core is pointless, so go for the Dual Core option instead. It's certainly capable of what a standard user right up to a gamer needs, but the Quad Core isn't totally useless. It's been an absolute joy for me working with high-end audio software and not maxxing out my CPU.

If I was sloppily mixing a recording I could definetely max out the Quad Core! And it wouldn't bog down my 2Gb of RAM (yes, 2GB!) before that because plugins are barely 1Mb in size and I/O streams do not increase to or from the RAM when more are added.

[Passmark]

I think they're both valid terms. Hyperthreading is a form of multithreading.

Hyperthreading was a term Intel made up for a hardware feature they included on their P4CPUs which allowed multiple threads (and processes) to run partially in parallel on the CPU.

Hyperthreading was like having one and a half cores.

But it didn't work very well. Multiple threads got in each others way when they needed the same part of the CPU at the same time. Plus the cache wasn't well designed for multiple threads, they would end up throwing each others data out of the cache. This actually decreased performance in some cases. This resulted in some software companies issuing advice to disable hyperthreading.

Multithreading is more of a software / operating concept for having multiple light weight tasks executing at the same time. It isn't a hardware feature. Meaning you can have multiple threads on any CPU.

With the right software, quad core CPUs (and 8 core, dual CPU quads) thrash the pants off dual core and single core CPUs. But at the moment there isn't much of the 'right' software around. This is slowly changing.

I would predict that almost all of the games that come out in 2009 will make good use of quad core CPUs. As will mainstream CPU intensive programs like Photoshop.

[jermaghs07]

Granted jermaghs, you may feel Quad Core is pointless, so go for the Dual Core option instead. It's certainly capable of what a standard user right up to a gamer needs, but the Quad Core isn't totally useless. It's been an absolute joy for me working with high-end audio software and not maxxing out my CPU.

If I was sloppily mixing a recording I could definetely max out the Quad Core! And it wouldn't bog down my 2Gb of RAM (yes, 2GB!) before that because plugins are barely 1Mb in size and I/O streams do not increase to or from the RAM when more are added.

I don't think that quad core is useless, like all things they have their place. My whole problem is, they aren't practical. there are some things that could definitely utilize a quad core. But for the average user it is almost pointless.

Im just saying that there is no need for the average computer user/Gamer to buy a quad core. they are really expensive and the performance increase isn't really noticeable unless you are doing some hard core computing.

[jbennet]

yeah hyperthreading was bad - they removed it for the Core chips (the xenons still use superthreading i think)

the p4 was bad - it was all about clockspeed but they couldnt keep incrreasing it (4ghz barrier essentially) so it was scrapped and they based Core on the pentium M (which was based on the pentium 3 and the celeron) as these were more efficient. Its this increased efficience that matters. A core solo (1 core) of lower clockspeed than a P4 can outperform it under benchmarks by a large margin due to this.

[DimaYasny]

Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.

just read what I said.thats just because you are using a 1.8. if you had a 2.3 or a 3 you wouldn't have that problem.
that's total bs.
I have friends who were part of the core tech development team in Intel, and according to them core technology is there to 1. make multithreading a usable option for all platforms 2. expand CPU capacity horizontally, meaning expand parallel tasking instead of speed and 3. due to speeds staying the same - reduce power consumption and heating.

[jbennet]

yes

like i said, a core outperforms a faster clocked p4

its efficnency that matters

[jermaghs07]

just read what I said.

that's total bs. I have friends who were part of the core tech development team in Intel, and according to them core technology is there to 1. make multithreading a usable option for all platforms 2. expand CPU capacity horizontally, meaning expand parallel tasking instead of speed and 3. due to speeds staying the same - reduce power consumption and heating.

You missed my point!

You said you had a 1.8 dual core and where having roblems with running programs. all i said was if you had a 2.3 or a 3 dual core you would have less of a problem.

And you can't argue that a 3GHz dual core will out perform a 1.8GHz Dual core.

[DimaYasny]

yes, but a quad core 1.83 will outperform a 3ghz dual core

[Passmark]

but a quad core 1.83 will outperform a 3ghz dual core

This is a generalization, that is only true in some circumstances. It really depends on what software you are running.