0

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

3
Contributors
6
Replies
7
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Suspishio
0

I picked up the quad so lets hope it all works when i put it all together

0

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.

0

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.

0

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?

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.