Quad core processors
 

Hi

I don't know much about processors, but I guess the more the better/faster?
At the moment, is it only Intel that has quad-core processors or are there other types as well? If so, what is the recommendations?

I'm not the gaming type, I just want a faster pc so that my graphics renders faster.

My PC specifications:

- Duel Core
- Vista Ultimate 64 bit
- 4 GB RAM
- 500 GB HDD

Both Intel and AMD have quad-core processors out. AMD hawks their quad-core as having four independent cores as opposed to Intel having two two-cores side by side, but I haven't read how that makes a difference. Either should do fine for greater multitasking power.

I would recommend going for Intel's quad-core series only because they run on LGA 775 boards, which are currently cheaper than AMDs AM2+ boards and won't bottleneck your hardware options. If you also know how to overclock a processor, Intel's Q6600 is capable of going far above stock speeds with the right cooling equipment. Lastly, upgrading your HDD to a 10,000 RPM drive can help increase your computers performance by a small degree, if you really want to explore all options.

Do you know where I can buy a quad-core processor at a reasonble price? (has to be a website since I live in Europe).

Not off the top of my head. Tigerdirect has the Q6600 listed cheaper than newegg, but it only ships to the UK, France, and Germany.

Maybe somebody here on GFF works at Best Buy/Fry's and gets special prices :)

Anybody? I'll pay for the shipping and little extra ;P

Dual, and so forth core processors CAN go faster IF software is tailored to take advantage of this. The general idea is each processor is a mind that can do stuff. So, if you have two, three, four, or so forth minds working on parts of a problem that can be solved in time, or if they each solve a seperate problem at the same time, then you can theoritically ge tmore work done. Unfortunately, from what I have gathered, it seems that software is mostly written for single and dual core processors. You may want to check into this though because it would be a shame to pay a ton of money only to find out that no software will totally use all the processors.

I think you're right. Not all softwares are developed for quad-core processors.
I guess the time is not right for me to buy one... :|

Quad cores are indeed a waste at the moment unless you are doing massive amounts of video encoding which is the only application type that is actively making good use of all four cores. Right now you are much better off waiting on the higher clocked E8000 C2D line to come out and pick one of those up. You will still see much better application and game performance from a cheaper, higher clocked dual core than you would from a quad core.

I think we should all just sit back on our asses and wait for Intel to make their Teraflop chips the standard in 3 to 5 years.

http://techresearch.intel.com/articl...Scale/1449.htm

Mmmmm...

And all you'll need is a new bottle of liquid nitrogen every month.

80 cores? IBM was having issues manufacturing a chip with 8 cores so this thing would be a yield nightmare. Pretty interesting though as this is pretty much Intel's version of the Cell processor.

Man quantum computing needs a breakthrough quick.

I imagine by then all kinds of tech will be improved and made more efficient by then so it won't be such a problem. Smaller, thinner, ultra fast, and better cooled. There will be shit like silicon photonics to make things speed up. Motherboards are going to look pretty different in five years time.

Ownage:
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...cus-1-ajhd.jpg

Heh... I'm planning to get a new PC in like 6 months, I guess I'll go dual core after all.

I've noticed some familiar applications taking advantage of quad core -- dbpoweramp has four threads running at once for batch encoding, for instance.

And considering that Q6600 doesn't cost much more than dual core at the moment (and is quite OC friendly), it's not really a waste.

Indeed. I'm quite enjoying mine. I upgraded shortly after you, Blah. =)

THE IGNORANT IS CONFUSED! - MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Now, should I go AMD or Intel?, I heard AMD isn't very good days... or at least, it isn't what it used to be.

Get an Intel Q6600. AMD isn't as great as it used to be. Intel is winning big time right now. As is Nvidia versus ATI.

Go for Intel.

A quad core costs a significant amount more than an equally clocked dual core. You are better off spending the same amount of money for a higher clocked dual core unless you are doing what I said, and you mentioned -- lots of encoding.

And again if you don't need a new processor RIGHT NOW, the E8000 series will be out in a few months and offer higher clock speeds, less power consumption (45nm process meaning higher overclocking potential) and improved cores than the current C2Ds and Quads and will be priced roughly at what the current C2D series is at now. The top of the line E8500 for example will be $270, matching the current E6850. And it's pretty obvious which you want by looking at the primary benchmarks:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/i.../sysmark-1.png

Well sure, a 2.4GHz quad costs almost twice that of a 2.4 GHz dual core.

I mean, it's a quad after all.

And for a 1/4 increase in dual core clock speed (i.e. the E6850) the price balloons to just about the same as a quad. I'd rather get a quad and overclock it.

The difference is in the clock speed. Look how much an E6600 costs, which is the C2D clock equivalent to the Q6600. I was pointing out that you are going to get better performance from a 3.0Ghz dual core in most applications than you would a 2.4Ghz quad core. So buy the 3.0Ghz dual over the 2.4Ghz quad because most application use one, maybe two cores at most and the extra clock speed will net you more performance than the two extra, slower, un-used cores on the quad.

A Q6600 will probably stably overclock to 3.2Ghz. An E6850 with stably overclock to 3.8Ghz. You're still better off with the dual core.

I edited my post after I realized what you were talking about, but yeah.

And if you're going to talk about underutilized potential, might as well start with that 64bit OS...

Woah, what? Current top of the line Intel chips cost upwards to one thousand bucks. How are the new, faster, better chips yet to be released going to be a quarter of that right out the door? Seriously, where do you get this info?

Those are the extremes. The E8000 line is to replace the 6000 line. Also..well I don't really want to get into the complexity of yields are pricing.

Roadmap + pricing:

Tech ARP - Intel 45nm Core 2 Desktop Processor Pre-Launch Update Rev. 2.2

Amazing what a 45nm process does to the price, eh? BTW The E8000 series will have SSE4, larger cache sizes and the people are overclocking the E8500 samples to 4.7Ghz on air. There is no reason not to wait for one of these things.

Damn, that's nice. And in a few months that'll go down even more. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Q9550 become the new favorite.

Well I just upgraded and for what I do with my computer I have absolutely nothing to complain about with my Q6600 and 8800GTX and stupidly used 4 gigs of memory for a 32 bit Vista.

So AMD is in problems... man, I have been under a rock for way too long.

Btw, can anyone hand me a good, organized, simple and cute site to try to catch up with this stuff? (And if possible, a good link for memory technologies would be appreciated.)