Dual Core or Quad Core?!

[mad0maxx]

I mean seriously... people say that applications and games do not really even take advantage to the Dual Cores so why are they even releasing a Quad Core CPU?

 

[jiffylube1024]

To make money.

 

[stevty2889]

Because there are buisness and server applications that will thrive on quad cores. Probably an overkill for a desktop in most cases, but there are uses for them.

 

[Duvie]

I agree...if you look at what it takes to power 4 separate boxes alone, 4 cores is nice...FH ppl would love this....

CAD app program like mine would be nice...I need the power in my animation....extreme multitasking of several projects at once...probably not full use though

 

[NaOH]

Way overkill for general and even some power users at home. I would like to have one though =)

 

[Quinton McLeod]

I agree... It is overkill... I'm sticking to Dual Core until I find a legit reason to get Quad Core

 

[TecHNooB]

I'd get one just to see the four bars move around. But that isn't going to happen.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Not overkill, I'm even finding my dualcore someone restrictive now that I know how to use it. With quadcore I could setup some tasks for at least two of the cores to run while I have free access to the other cores. My computer can be doing some serious work while I'm free to play on the unused core(s) while I wait for that work to be done. If that work is being crunched by multithreaded programs, and it can be done faster with all 4 cores, then already it isn't overkill and I'd just have to wait to play while my computer does its job and gets me the results all the more faster for using more cores.

 

[Duvie]

essentially i will have one later today with dual dual core 270s....i will see how much I use them real shortly....

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Duvie
essentially i will have one later today with dual dual core 270s....i will see how much I use them real shortly....

what motherboard are you using for 270? are you buying 2-270's?
and overclocking them?
what 2xx board is a good overclcker if any?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: designit

Originally posted by: Duvie
essentially i will have one later today with dual dual core 270s....i will see how much I use them real shortly....

what motherboard are you using for 270? are you buying 2-270's?
and overclocking them?
what 2xx board is a good overclcker if any?

YHPM

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Not overkill, I'm even finding my dualcore someone restrictive now that I know how to use it. With quadcore I could setup some tasks for at least two of the cores to run while I have free access to the other cores. My computer can be doing some serious work while I'm free to play on the unused core(s) while I wait for that work to be done. If that work is being crunched by multithreaded programs, and it can be done faster with all 4 cores, then already it isn't overkill and I'd just have to wait to play while my computer does its job and gets me the results all the more faster for using more cores.

Thats a lot of mumbo jumbo. In other words, mumbled babble.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I am excited the prospect of, and yet I shudder at the thought of programming applications that take advantage of quad-core CPUs.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Not overkill, I'm even finding my dualcore someone restrictive now that I know how to use it. With quadcore I could setup some tasks for at least two of the cores to run while I have free access to the other cores. My computer can be doing some serious work while I'm free to play on the unused core(s) while I wait for that work to be done. If that work is being crunched by multithreaded programs, and it can be done faster with all 4 cores, then already it isn't overkill and I'd just have to wait to play while my computer does its job and gets me the results all the more faster for using more cores.

Very much agreed,

for power users, it would be a great boon to let two or more CPU intensive tasks to run in the background, and yet being able to work smoothly. It is especially useful if you are constantly testing multiple versions of interpreted (or compiled for that matter) code.

 

[TuxDave]

If we start getting quad core computers, I wonder how popular it would be to have a shared home computer with multiple terminal around the house. Could be a new change to how we use our computers at home. The network structure is definitely in most homes today.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

To keep from botlenecking your quad-sli setup.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Once AMD rolls out the quad-core Opterons on Socket F, we can have 8-way quad-core Opterons for 32 cores of goodness! Yeehaw.

I wonder how many multithreaded apps out there could take advantage of 32 cores on an x86-64 platform.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Once AMD rolls out the quad-core Opterons on Socket F, we can have 8-way quad-core Opterons for 32 cores of goodness! Yeehaw.

I wonder how many multithreaded apps out there could take advantage of 32 cores on an x86-64 platform.

But wait, there's more! AMD is supporting a new 16P platform with socket F...that's 64 cores of goodness!

Seriously, I was astounded at Intel's announcement that they were coming out with the MCM quad cores for desktop (and not for servers or workstations!). It makes absolutely no sense to me except as a marketing ploy...
I can understand AMD's quadcore for server-only MUCH better, as that is about the only place you'd want to use them (along with WS platforms).

 

[Loki726]

Why multicores? Because we can.

Chip area increases every new process generaion (like every 2-3 years). This means that you can cram more function into the same chip at the same price.

It took thousands of engineers over 5 years to design the pentium 4. Now we have twice the area needed to build a pentium 4. Soon we will have 4x or 8x the area. Rather than spend another 10 years designing a core that is complex enough to use that much area, take what we have now, and make copies of it.

 

[RussianSensation]

We need quad cores and 8 cores, etc so that developers take multi-core setups seriously and we dont get 0.1 increase in framerates in gaming on dual cores. It would be nice if dual core setup helped not just in multitasking scenarios but if any program took advantage of the added power similar to 2 videocards splitting the load on screen.

I recall reading that the first quad-core from intel will be Extreme Edition version. It is unlikely for quad-core to be affordable at reasonable prices ($300) before Q4 2007 at best. In my opinion even if dual core benefits today, it hasn't reached appropriate price levels to justify itself. Just because you get 2x the speed for 2x the price, that does not mean progress. Progress is getting better performance for same price or less than 2x the price increase for double the performance. Slapping 2 3000+ cores and charging 2x the price of 3000+ is the result of improved manufacturing, not what I call real progress. And since dual-core hasn't even reached mainstream or reasonable price levels today after being out for almost a year or so, quad-core will only appeal to those with high disposable incomes. Hopefully with introduction of quad-core cpus the price of dual-core processor will start to come down though.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
We need quad cores and 8 cores, etc so that developers take multi-core setups seriously and we dont get 0.1 increase in framerates in gaming on dual cores. It would be nice if dual core setup helped not just in multitasking scenarios but if any program took advantage of the added power similar to 2 videocards splitting the load on screen.

I recall reading that the first quad-core from intel will be Extreme Edition version. It is unlikely for quad-core to be affordable at reasonable prices ($300) before Q4 2007 at best. In my opinion even if dual core benefits today, it hasn't reached appropriate price levels to justify itself. Just because you get 2x the speed for 2x the price, that does not mean progress. Progress is getting better performance for same price or less than 2x the price increase for double the performance. Slapping 2 3000+ cores and charging 2x the price of 3000+ is the result of improved manufacturing, not what I call real progress. And since dual-core hasn't even reached mainstream or reasonable price levels today after being out for almost a year or so, quad-core will only appeal to those with high disposable incomes. Hopefully with introduction of quad-core cpus the price of dual-core processor will start to come down though.

Intel's first desktop quad cores will be MCMs (multi-core modules), in other words they will be 2 Conroes glued together. I doubt they will use the EE chips for this as even in a package the heat is additive...
My best guess is that they will run ~20-30% more expensive than 2 DC Conroes (i.e. they will NEVER get below $900 or so, and probably will be EOL before they drop below $1200).
Intel can keep the prices higher on their QC because AMD has no plans to release one for the desktop at all (at least not for the forseeable future).

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I agree... It is overkill... I'm sticking to Dual Core until I find a legit reason to get Quad Core

I'm sticking to single core until I find a legit reason to get dual core. -

 

[hans007]

dual core i think is totally worth it.

if you've ever tried to run any virtual machinse , like say vmware you will see it is a lot slower on a single core.

that said, quad it hink is a bit much at this point. for servers, especially transactional ones that get a lot of hits, with very non dependant threads (like say every one of us request a webpage be rendered on anands) quad core it hink would really help. similarly to that 8 core machine sun puts out that anand has a review of.


but for desktops probably not so big a deal. the quad core intel kentsfield i think is only extreme edition and well , anythin gextreme edition is really just overkill for any normal person. people dont really need quadcore, but people dont really need EE or FX cpus eitehr.

 

[Duvie]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Ofcourse check out my review....

I have extensive encoding by TMPEGenc done...I am, working on getting up a H.264 codec review....Did a quick Cinebench, and should have my ADT2004 animaion review done later this week...