I'm sure many of us here, being enthusiasts, have either dual core or quad core processers. And while quad-core seems to shine in syntethic benchmarks, the real world performance paints a very different picture . Of course, that's not the end of the story. Having quad-core enables u to run many apps at once, like torrents and gaming, along with say RSS feed downloading, virus scans, sytem utilities at full speed.

Has anyone found a piece of software/game that makes good use of the extra cores? Do u think that having 2 extra cores boosts productivity? Or is it just an over-hyped, over-expensive innovation from Intel meant to squeeze every last bit of enthusiast dollar they can get their hands on ? Let the world(or at least LYNians) know what u think!

P/S : My personal opinion is that quad core is worthwhile, mainly because it future-proofs ur cpu investment

nah...softwares still cant utilizes all four cores..

Errr like what TS mention as mainly because it future-proofs ur cpu investment?

hurmm.. if u a designer.. or someting like tat.. then u should change to quad core.. quad core r produced for heavy computer usage.. if u only used to play games or just watching movie n download anythings.. just stay with dual core.. much more, dual core also can handle much application at one time.. haha..

if you go video conversion and video burning

you see dffer when dual core cant do it

multiple (whether its dual, quad, etc.) core efficiency... this is a very interesting issue.

technology in hardware has advanced quite far. however software advancement has not been in pace. this is the results in the software not being able to take the advantage of the hardware.

in order to fully utilize multiple cores available on the processor, the software must be programmed in that manner.

but i believe that soon more and more programs will be coded with multi-core in mind.

well.. i have over 700 running threads on my OS, so i think additional cores are always welcomed

although I just everyday surfing forum, and 20% gaming only.
I would say Quad Core ftw too !

You can always join the Folding Community.

One thing about technology is that you shouldn't buy tech for future-proofing as it will be obsolete before you know it....

Dual-core at the moment unless you are doing heavy multitasking, using video/audio apps or apps that can take advantage of all cores e.g. folding......

For games, there are none yet that fully utilizes all 4 cores, except maybe crysis....

Quad is good for Graphic & Video Renderings.

price per performance, not worth the money

dual core still the middle ground

but personally i'm still okay with single core on XP....

Currently, I'd say Dual-Core. CoD 4 seems to take advantage of this (which is nice).

i can't agree wif this statement cuz future-proof got lotz of type... like i recommended 1 of my fren to get this spec last July:

Intel Celeron 420 1.6GHz
Abit IN9 32X Max WiFi(fire dragon)
2GB Corsair XMS26400 C4
Forsa 8600GT
160GB Seagate SATA HDD
Panasonic SATA DVD burner

this spec is not very high end... but it's kinda future proof cuz it's upgradable easily and don necesarily need to spend a lot... this Celeron OC to 2.8GHz Super_PI gt 28s n 3Dmark06 got 5.8k... not a bad investment... and i think can consider future proof also...

Depends some ppl prefer productivity rather than save cost.

Wow! That's future proof? Like you said, "lotz of type of future-proof"...... guess your definition and mine is different....

Future proof means it can still performs well with new hardware/software, where there's no need to upgrade just to cope with new stuffs.

depend wat u nit n demand for ur pc stats..

Some pretty interesting comments made by both camps. Single core supporters...dun just vote...we want to hear ur opinions.

When i say future proving, i mean that it saves u the hassle of having to upgrade ur pc so often. Coz after upgrade u need to go thru the trouble of selling the old parts again. I'm optimistic that we'll see more multi-threaded software and games released in this year and the next.

As my frined who work in a project that how to fully utilize a quad core for intel company, my friend say even dual core, there is also not much program or game that can fully utilize dual core yet ^^ so quad core for me is the future xD ( sorry my eng weak)

Just run fold and gaming at the same time.I use dual core but i say quad core is the best choice with the best $$$$$.

All u need to do is run a program like Videora n u'll know the advantage of 4 cores.

some video encoders like x264, xvid, divx, and ffmpeg, they will take advantage of additional cores to speed up encoding/decoding process.

for example running x264 on diffrent processors:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=122318
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=129849

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Jan 3 2008, 11:09 PM

For those who keep on saying that dual core is enough and quad core hasn't been utilised yet....
It's the best chip for both non-overclocker and overclocker under rm1k.








read more here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/

This post has been edited by sukhoi37: Jan 3 2008, 11:02 PM

the quad core does come in handy when encoding vidoes to be watched on the phone ..

Dun u think disk intensive programs will become the future hindrance to multi core experience. To think of it, the proc can only be as fast as the HD is meant to be. Maybe in the future, we need RAID as standard or something.

i vote for QUAD CORE !!!
before i use Q6600, i was using E2160...

now my crysis played smoothly than ever !!! thanks to the additional 2 cores and HUGE L2 Cache !!! 8mb

usually it depends on the software architecture+driver itself
if it only run in dual core quad core will get the same result...

---

Added on January 3, 2008, 11:34 pmgaming use cahce ar?
i go google 1st...

This post has been edited by nelienuxe_sara: Jan 3 2008, 11:34 PM

That true oso Quad Cores lots improvement gaming, especially after overclocking it.

The more the better. Photoshop, 3dsmax, and believe it or not, Bioshock, utilize those cores very well.

obviously quad core ah cant utilize wateva i dont really give a fark really as long as i can run crysis high with no bloody problems can dy lo

Cache used by the central processing unit of a computer to reduce the average time to access memory.

I don give fark on Crysis, Crytek is a great liar anyway still there some improvment Quad vs Duo. As long running my 3D Rendering application, i still can do multiple drafting in the mean time.

This post has been edited by zeustronic: Jan 4 2008, 12:23 AM

go go quad core......

what about the triple core?lol...huhu

U mean Xbox 360? Lose out to PC Core 2 Duo for sure.

Forget it. Triple core processor already loses the battle. Beside the processor itself aren't fit to be called a "triple core processor".

UT3 is best on Processor with more L2 Cache, u can google it

Many people have upgraded their rig to Quad because of Crysis "optimised" for Quad

i get quad core because it has more core and is Cheaper.....

In my worthless opinion, more Cores is better as long as the price of coherency maintenance doesn't affect general performance eg; flood the stupid interconnect until there's no time/space for other things.

simply, more core will be better

No doubt more cores are better. For better future-proofing, definitely current quads would be better.

The issue here is that for current usage, is dual- or quad- more appropriate? No question about this if you're using apps that taxes heavily on all 4 cores. However, what about the majority, the average consumers that run BT, anti-virus, playing games, surfing, etc. For them, I shoudl think dual-core is the appropriate number of cores AT THE MOMENT.

Quads yes, especially when the Q9450 is introduced!!

Definitely more core will have better performance. Since quad core being popular and dual core getting cheaper, not doubt dual core will kill single core within this year... May be not more single core available in market.

hmm...that way i have to sell my athlon64 faster... ...what's price gonna be??

You might as well keep it

@jimmydotnet:Use ur athlon 64 system as backup and as a home server perhaps.

I do agree with kmarc statement that future-proofing should not be ur no 1 concern when buying tech. However, consider this: A new E6750 costs RM635 while a new Q6600 costs Rm935(latest price from C-zone). So it seems that the premium for the extra 2 cores isn't that high, right(about 50% more expensive)? And when multi-threading takes off, the quad cores have a potential for twice the speed of the dual-cores.

oktacore 2 ade lah

8 cores in one proc

Keep it as collection, for backup or other purpose. You won't get much if you sell it.

less than 100

i think most software already "multi core support" no more dual core optimize only eg crysis

Intel already got 128 core product, if i not get wrong info ^^ More core is better for user who run many program in same times,but for only a heavy run program, still cant fully utilize a quad core yet ^^ even dual core too.

wahhaah, who wants a quad quad? 16 cores ftw.

-POST DELETED-

This post has been edited by joe_star: Jan 10 2008, 09:24 AM

Sure quad core.If not why quad core made for?Sure better agaisnt dual core.Mayb nowadays application still haven fully utilize the advantage of quad core.

Hmm.........looking at the question posted by the poll starter, I would have to say dual core, or maybe in some cases even single core at the moment. Of course I'm looking at it from the average(and i mean reli average word using, bt downloading, dota-playing) joe's perspective. But multi-cores are the way to go for high end gaming, video encoding etc.

You have to see the quad core and the dual core clock speed when u comparing both them.

Wah joe_star how post the same entry 3 times! Single core is best for office use i think. U dun want ur employees using torrents or encoding dvds at work anyway!

Quad core can beat dual core by comparing the clock speed ?

An example of what I mean. Now using E6750 as it is enough for current usage. Q6600 would be better if you can utilize all 4 cores but more expensive.

Next upgrade for me would be Penryn Yorkfield Q9450 which is cooler, slightly faster clock-for-clock and have newer features such as SSE4.1. At that time, hopefully quad utilization is more in terms of programs/games/apps.

Can then sell off my E6750..... who wants to buy?

Edit : So my strategy is, go for the best bang for buck hardware appropriate at that moment in time, upgrade when necessary while selling off the older hardware..... Of course, I'll loose some money on selling but I guess that's the price I have to pay.....

This post has been edited by kmarc: Jan 4 2008, 05:39 PM

err... the spec i mentioned can juz change the proc to quad core... and upgrade the GC... no need to change the whole thing.... but if u got a 945 or equal level mobo then u have to change the whole board.... and if the board is DDR1 lagi teruk kena...

my definition of future-proof means flexible and easily upgradable and need to spend less overall cuz if u buy a RM10k spec PC it's gonna worth RM4k nex year or so... and u will end up spend another 10k to rebuild a rig... tat's not really future proof... so to me most important is the mobo can support future hardwares... tat alone might make ur rig last for at least 2 years plus having u juz need to upgrade a few parts...

Reason: Technology moving 2 fast... Spending RM300+ last few months for a 8600GT then wait for next gen GC... maybe a 3870 or 9600GT next month is better than spending RM2k+ for 8800GTX and get pwn by 8800Ultra and pwn by 3870... rite...?

My vote goes to single core cpu. P4 FTW! (Dont flame me since it a discussion thread! )

Well.. Im kinda agreed that its depend on the usage on the user. Casual user that didnt use much processing power (just like me), they will think that normal single core are just more then enough for them.

Who says single core cannot torrent while encoding things?Juz slow abit only.

not many ppl can tolerate tat "juz slow abit only"....

---

Added on January 4, 2008, 7:46 pmu should had compared E2160 and E6750 at 3.5GHz b4 paying for it... RM600+ vs RM300+ but the performance not really noticable...

This post has been edited by t3chn0m4nc3r: Jan 4 2008, 07:46 PM

Looks like I stepped on someone's tail here. Ooops.
I also used single core before. Athlon 64 3200+. Currently only using it as a backup rig/server since got my new comp.

Quad-core gives you best value per processor. RM 900 / 4 compare to others, you're paying less per processor core.

Yeah.. paying almost the same price as E6850.

Phenom X4 9500 RM860

between E6850 and Q6600, which one is recommended? because the price is about the same rite? at pczone around 915, but when take a look at benchmarks from tomshardware.com, it shows that E6850 is better in overall performance, for Q6600, it only win in 3d rendering...

i'm planning to buy new rig, so now i'm confuse which processor i've to choose..i do 3d rendering, photoshop and other graphic stuff..

E6850 is true dual core, Q6600 is not a true quad core. Suggest you consider E6850.

Single Core user here.
P4 630, 3.0Ghz OC @3.6Ghz..
actually to me..I still feel satisfied with it..
compare to my friend new bought rig C2D E6550..n OC@ 3.1Ghz..
If say like encoding/decoding video..3d renderin..photoshop..
n playin new release games..
of course my speed is slower a lot n bottomneck my GC a lot...
but..i'm not a user tat always do encodin/decoding video..3d renderin..
n not always playin games...but only listen to music..suft the net..
download video n watch..n if juz doin tis stuff..i dun feel any slower than C2D or C2Q..with this CPU..I still feel satisfied..anyway..feelin wan to upgrade to athlon x2 5000+ BE already.. ^^

most people boast dual-core is good but fact of the matter is most people aren't even utilizing 50% the processing capability of 1 core most of the time.

I think most people doesn't even know their processor usage is that low?

both also gonna be obselete soon and stock is clearing out... might as well wait...

after waiting, new stuff come out. then new threads mushroom. then we're all back to square 1 again, by having to find out the details and feed _____.

edited : remove the word. you can put what you want la. the lazy, the clueless, the like-to-be-spoonfed.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Jan 5 2008, 02:59 AM

When Nehalem comes out sometime in 2009, Penryn/Yorkdale would be outdated also anyway. It's an endless waiting game bro.

At a high vcore for the E2160? No thanks...... Risk:benefit ratio not acceptable for me.... not to mention the heat.....

E6850 vs Q6600 performance quite close, but after overclocked it Quad Cores is in the lead.

Intel still have 45nm compatiblities issue, unless u pick a mid high end mobo P35 or X38.

repost due to image link problem.





source from here
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dua...uad/page20.html


the winner is clear.

but the E6750 is cheaper it would be better if they compare E6850 with Q6600.

Mana ade? It is not that straight forward.

If you look at that table, quad is good for video and 3D rendering but lose out on games and office apps. Disadvantage is quad is about rm300 more expensive and it is hotter, requiring better cooling for equivalent overclocks.....

In the end, it depends on what apps you use.......

Well, I utilizes all my 4cores@100% running Folding@Home. My PS3 is not spared too. Looks like I am a Folding freak!!!

so if im onli a gamer and not running those heavy software,
which shud i go for between dual-core and quad core?
i mean heavy games like crysis, world in conflict etc...

ya, but q6600 G0 has better ocibility.

hmm...quite true.
i see the chart wrongly...

haiya... juz a few months or weeks only ma... if nex year than no need to wait lo...

err... not really high... it's still below 1.4V... and temp below 60C... no risks... unless u use crappy Mobo and crappy PSU... if not everything should be fine... tat's wat slightly more pricey mobos are for...

I thought u wanted the most bang for ur buck? A E2160 isn't that ex anyway. Even if it fails in 1/2 years time(very short for a proc) u can always used the money u save to get a newer proc

Definitely best bang for buck but not with increased risk of damage. If need to RMA, then no more bang for buck wor.....

Anyway, next CPU I'm aiming for - Q9450

---

Added on January 8, 2008, 7:09 amReally? If that is the case, then the proc would be excellent. However, I think a lot of users had to set high vcore to get high OC, IINM.....

This post has been edited by kmarc: Jan 8 2008, 07:09 AM

For me...if I have that money, I sure will go for quad core...but I now is a student, can't afford to get quad core...so I will get dual core...like E8 series... maybe wait for it to be a bit more cheaper...

If u using Nvidia Chipset board...no need wait 45nm Quad or Core2Duo....Nvidia chipset no support those Processor

if i got money, sure go for quad lo..

definitely quad core even at crysis very high, you might need 4 cores 2 power up all the graphics with higher end GC too

I will go for Quad too.
More PPD in folding.

-pWs-

Thumb for you mate!

totally maniac folder haha

knowing that you had a reserve extra power is good feeling already.. doesn't matter if it is used or not.. the more the better.

still using single core though..

Fold sama2.

-pWs-

sooner or later.. there will be no dual core or quad core.. there will be a more n more core in one single die chip.. i wonder when it will be..

n then all application will be bigger n storage may exceed 1 Terabyte..

GC oso can get fully advantages of this supermulti core.. n maybe GC oso can get quad core.. who knows..

Well this is what u call technology..and were always chasing to be on par with it..