the problem is whether the games/applications can utilize quad core processors .. for gaming i think high end dual core is enough ..

what they have said are very true...so the best bet is to get a dual core and spend the extra money on something else like better gc or better mobo..=)

help me.. then .. what should i buy? Quad6600... or the new C2D E8400?? which one better? i want better.. and perfect.. dont care if more power usage or anything.. what i want to know which one good.. coz i doing heavy job... like adobephotoshop.. programing and so on...

then can somebody propose to me what motherboard brand is suitable for this core... coz for me..gigabyte is such!.. any others? TQ

i already used athlon64 3500 with gigabyte mother board SLI..always hang!!...

---

Added on May 12, 2008, 8:52 pmthe prob is.. Quad 6600 only 2.40Ghz.. but C2D E8400 is 3.0GHz... for me E8400 is higher than Quad 6600... any ideal? which one good in term of performance? or Quad6600 much better?

This post has been edited by teromen: May 12 2008, 08:52 PM

Hi,
Actually im deciding what machine to buy also, wanna buy it for better photoshop, flash, video editing/rendering and some gaming.
I read some reviews somewhere, E8400 is better in gaming such as crysis.. but lose in 3d/video rendering and photoshop.
Correct me if wrong

The way that the whole industry is moving, the more cores are going to be utilized. Obviously. It need not to be just for video rendering or folding.

Even Tim Sweeney is thinking back about software rendering - which have consistent output across display card. Even GPU is moving to multi-core + general purpose. So having 'software' rendering entirely in CPU or GPU might happen sooner.


I often max out a dual-core when testing multi-threaded programs on both host and wmware-ed environment. By that time, the whole response were sluggish.

The most suitable CPU right now should be those have the most cores as well as a good power-saving performance-on-demand features.

"photoshop, flash, video editing/rendering" = Quad core
If you don't do all these, get the Dual Core

---

Added on May 13, 2008, 11:43 amIt is always case by case basis and if everyone runs vmware then perhaps everyone should go Quad core. If a typical PC user that only does Microsoft Office, Internet surfing and gaming then a Dual Core works just as well. It's not easy to max out 100% CPU usage all the time unless we're doing something very extensive.

However, if the person has extra cash to spend then by all means get the most expensive CPU out there

This post has been edited by clawhammer: May 13 2008, 11:43 AM

u shud get a quad....get q6600, great value!!!

those application dat u mention is design 2 utilized full potential of quad core.....................
u could always OC ur q6600..................

OC it to get a performance that can match those Extreme processors at stock.

get a dual and get a quad raptor raid 0 array.

i would assume the .BMP files are larger then 1gb

but seriously, quad doesnt have much use in everyday usage. unless you wanna run megui and convert stack of dvd's to h264 la.

in gaming, well, its never utilized to the max, most i see on rivatuner would be like say, 75% maximum per core on crysis and assasins creed.

This post has been edited by bryanyeo87: May 13 2008, 11:49 AM

crysis & assassin's creed is built 4 dual core....dis is y..............
the only game dat i know which fully support quad is supreme commander & lost planet..............

the fact is, wen u use ur pc, u dun just run 1 application @ a time...........
u might run game, antivirus scan, nero, browser &............@ da same time........
dis is wen more cores come in2 play...............

The statements are indeed very true and that being said, there are many reviews showing comparison on this. Many people had a misconception that more cores would give you a big boost in performance which isn't true. Again, it is very case and task specific to realize the gains of a Quad Core.

Couldn't agree more. The advantages will be to those really using applications that will help boost performance during their working task. Usually dual-core would be sufficient enough but having those quads will really help on certain areas and applications needs.

the only reason I'm eyeing on 4 cores is cos i plan to OC and run folding@home on all 4 cores. or at least keep 2 cores running while i play games.

That's pretty nice idea. Contribute to the environment nevertheless

Quad Core only if use heavily multithread application and folding.For normal usage,dual core definitely win.Quad Core is good for f@h

crysis doenst even optimize 4 cores, when running the cpu benchmark of crysis, iw as looking at rivatuner on my 2nd monitor.

max it used was 75% 50% 25% 25% on all 4 cores at a particular time in the benchmark.

supreme commander is the same too, it will only ramp up to all 4 cores when u have like 8 players spammed across the map with 500 units each.

lost planet is 4 core optimized? recheck your facts pls.

assasin's creed uses like 90% 90% on a dual core. that i cannot confirm now, unless someone is willing to report back

AV scan uses 20% max, and that is for norton crapvirus, a better solution would be to get a raid0 array, since there will be more read/write access to the hdd. Nero conversion afaik, uses single thread. browser? wow, we need cpu powah to surf LYN D:

bottemline, what will you ever do with a quad? is it truly worth it or does it seem to be worth it.

and does the E8400 vs E2160 vs q6600 @ 3ghz differ much in everyday usage? hell no, in gaming? maybe a lil, but you barely notice it unless you're a dual monitor junkie like me keeping an eye on task manager and rivatuner

This post has been edited by bryanyeo87: May 13 2008, 12:39 PM

oh. one thing about Photoshop. most of the time the core runs at like <4%.

only useful when applying filers and / or manipulating huge documents IMO.

quite often it doesn't actually utilize quad-core, not even dual-core capacity - especially when all you do is manipulate a few layers, cut here, crop there, apply filters over small area. more RAM and more HDD space would actually be more helpful.

*yes, I use photoshop on nearly daily basis*

no you dont need more space, you need 4x raptors in raid 0

or as much as your sata ports raid 0 on 320gb hdd's D:

coz afaik, .BMP files are a real pita when using photochop. its like 900mb files D:

up to 8 players only leh. units is one thing, the thing is that in order to reach the # of unit, the game has to go pretty long.

I've compared using A64 2800+@2.5ghz, X2 3600+@2.5ghz and E2140@3.2ghz

the difference is not noticeable at the start of the game.

it's during the later parts of the game that you appreciate the processing power.

the game lags. in the end 1 second in the game translates to 3 secs in real life, it could stretch even more meaning everything goes like 3x slower.

from my findings, when i was on single-core, i'll face the slowdown signficantly faster than on dual-core systems.

and comparing the my OCed X2 and PDC, i also saw the difference. took much longer before the PDC OCed system starts to slowdown.




the E2160 would lose out quite a fair bit. AFAIK it has to go a bit more in mhz to be comparable to the E8400 / Q6600 on a particular speed, due to the stripped down features like lacking of cache for example.

---

Added on May 13, 2008, 12:39 pmspace for the SWAP / TEMP files la. it can grow pretty big.

of course, i won't be wanting 4x RAPTORS la. if you consider my usage, it doesn't warrant 4x RAPTORS on RAID 0. you can consider that should your files be like what you mentioned, 900MB where a lot of R/W. not in my case.

This post has been edited by goldfries: May 13 2008, 12:39 PM

Most photoshop filters will probably be GPU accelerated soon. If you have a decent GPU it will likely be many times faster than a CPU. There are already beta CUDA photoshop filters. http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry367663