So I'm building a my first build and I'm not sure which CPU to get.
I want it to be something that will last ages and still be decent in the long run so that's why I'm thinking of the quad, for longevity. But surely I must be giving something up with them being the same price, like FSB, but what else?
Any ideas? Thanks
Jump to PostI recently had the same choice to make and I also chose the same Quad as you. I have an application that can work across as many processors that you tell it and so 4 is better than 2.
Another point, I can do 4 things on my PC …
Jump to PostXp doesnt use more than 2 cores or virtual cpus effectively. Quad core is a waste on XP.
I picked up the quad so lets hope it all works when i put it all together
I recently had the same choice to make and I also chose the same Quad as you. I have an application that can work across as many processors that you tell it and so 4 is better than 2.
Another point, I can do 4 things on my PC where the E6850 can do 2, albeit very quickly.
Finally, I chose XP 64 bit for the sound reason that 64 bit applications can use larger memory transfers and especially floating point operations in XP 64 are then 64 bit.
Xp doesnt use more than 2 cores or virtual cpus effectively. Quad core is a waste on XP.
Xp doesnt use more than 2 cores or virtual cpus effectively. Quad core is a waste on XP.
Sage though you are, that's not quite the case.
XP Pro (32 bit or 64 bit) is constrained to 2 Processors, each with as many cores as are designed into each CPU. These constraints are not present on the more expensive Server versions of XP. Same goes for Vista.
Indeed I know this empirically because the 4 cores in the Q6600 deliver their results in just under half the time of the Core 2 Duo.
Quad core is NOT a waste on XP.
Its to with how XP allocates timeslices. 2003 uses a different model.
Its to with how XP allocates timeslices. 2003 uses a different model.
There are differences between XP and Server 2003 on timeslice allocation. But that bites principally when you have to balance a stack of high demand background process with foreground processes (user applications).
In any case, you can vary the foreground or background priority in XP.
I repeat, the Q6600 scales performance fully where you have a multi-threaded application or one that can spread its load across CPUs. "Old" single threaded applications will be distributed across the 4 cores and that has to be better than 2 cores.
Of course, a single "old" single threaded application won't work any better on a dual core processor save for the fact that background processes have the other core available. With quad core it's obvious that the single threaded application has a better chance to run.
If I'm wrong, where's the evidence to be found?
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.