Quad-core or Dual-core ? Which one do I pick ?

[Markfw]

First, let me say that I am taking a shot at this, please feel free to suggest things I missed. Of special interest, are a list of software and games that are multi-threaded, so please post those, and I will update the master list here.

So, the first thing you need to think about is what software will I be using ? If its primarily on the multi-threaded list, or you want to be prepared for new software that IS multi-threaded, go for a quad. Below is my short list(soon to be updated, please validate is when I am not sure, 3 or more posts ? then I will be sure):

Multi-threaded games:
Supreme Commander
Far Cry 2 (please validate, I just read this)
Flight Sim X2 ? (please validate)
ut3 validated !
fsx (please validate, isn't this Flight sim X2 ?)
wic (please validate)
coh (please validate)
fc2 (please validate)
GTA4 (please validate)

Multi-threaded Software:
F@H and many other distributed computing projects
Pinnacle Studio 9
Pinnacle Studio 12 (confirmed)
Cinnebench ??
Many Rendering software...
xvid (please validate)
divx (please validate)
x264 (please validate)
lightwave (please validate)
3dsmax (please validate)
Ulead DVD MOviefactory (confirmed)
video editing (please validate)
Photoshop CS3
cs4? (please validate)
vmware & serving? (please validate)
converting media (please validate)
mp3's / lame / etc (please validate)

So if your primary software is not mostly on the above list, then you are a good candidate for a dual-core. Also, most dual-core CPU's are clocked faster than quads, and almost always con be over-clocked more than quads. So if most if your software is games that are NOT multi-threaded, get a dual-core.

For those that game mostly, one more note: Any Intel C2D (core 2 duo) 3 ghz or better cpu does pretty well, and the video card is more important MOST of the time than the CPU. You have to get into crazy SLI situations with quad-optimized games for this combo NOT to work. So for example, a 3.0 ghz C2D and an 8800 GT or better can handle virtually any game pretty well. ( for ATI, 4850 or better ? please comment)

For those that use IE, browsing the internet, Word, Excel, and have 15-20 windows open doing those things, a dual-core and lots of memory work just fine.

Comments welcome.

 

[Drsignguy]

Nice work Mark, This will help out a lot



Here is a previous Thread First dated on 7/5/07 by Graysky on programs that actually use all 4 Cores.....Links are available


THE LIST:
Real-World Applications
3D Studio MAX using Mental Ray Renderer (>99 % of 4 cores)
Adobe Premiere Elements v3.0.2 )52-85 % of 4 cores depending on source type, filters, etc.)
AutoGK v2.40 (30-53 % of 4 cores depending on source type, filters, etc.)
Cinema 4d Rendering (>99 % of 4 cores)
Dr. DivX v2.0.0 (47-65 % of 4 cores depending on source type, filters, etc.)
DVDShrink v3.2 (~90 % of 4 cores)
Lightwave 3D (>99 % of 4 cores)
Nero Suite v7.x (~90 % of 4 cores)
Noise Ninja v2.13 (~80 % of 4 cores when doing the noise reduction on an image)
Sony Vegas 7.0e (83-100 % of 4 cores depending on source type, filters, etc.)
TMPG XPress v 4.2 (65-100 % of 4 cores depending on source type, filters, etc.)
Winrar v3.70 (~85-90 % of 4 cores on benchmark; ~75% in practice)
x264 v0.55.663 (>99 % of 4 cores when doing the 2nd pass of a 2 pass encode)

 

[Tempered81]

just guessing here:

games:

ut3
fsx
wic
coh
fc2
supcom


apps:
xvid
divx
h264
lightwave
3dsmax
f@h
crunching/dc
encoding/ripping
video editing
cs4?
cinebench
vmware & serving?
converting media
mp3's / lame / etc

edit: btw, thanks for this sticky mark, 50% of cpu & oc forum clutter now cleared up

 

[Markfw]

Thanks for the list jaredpace, I added your list above, but I do need people to validate, or at least for many to agree that they are multi-htreaded. I don't want to pass on bad information.

 

[Gillbot]

I'd also like to add that if you spend 95% of your time browsing the internet and 5% playing a game (approximations of course!), the extra cost of a quad may not be worth it for the minimal use it would net you for less than 5% of the usage of the machine. You need to decide if the extra cost of the quad is of value to you, or if those extra funds could be put to better use toward other components such as more ram, HDD space or a better vid card.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Quad-cores take more power, and will cost more than dual-cores to operate. Keep that in mind too. Also the added costs of additional power (meaning better PSU) and cooling (better heatsink) for quads.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Quad-cores take more power, and will cost more than dual-cores to operate. Keep that in mind too. Also the added costs of additional power (meaning better PSU) and cooling (better heatsink) for quads.

I agree 100% !

The main thrust of my post was based on need, so if you need a quad, then cost is Irrelevant, but this is certainly very true, valid and important to consider for those that just "want" a quad.

 

[JPB]

I didn't know Far Cry 2 was optimized for a Quad.

There are 5 games on that list I am going to be playing. So I guess the choice is clear for me then.

I game at 1920x1080

 

[n7]

UT3 utilizes all cores on a quad, no question about that.

It shows in reviews where slower clocked quads beat higher clocks duals, & i've done lots of testing myself; minimum fps is better with four cores than two.

For UT3 & actually most UE3 games, i'd recommend a quad.

 

[Budmantom]

Great thread, I have a question:

I'm thinking of getting a new rig, right now I have a P4 3.8ghz with 3 gig of memory & I have a x850xt pe and 8800GTS with 320mb the most demanding (and only game) is Nascar Racing 2003 (multi thread game).

The system and X850xt pe does well at everything maxed but I would like it a bit higher, the 8800GTS has better frame rates but the picture quality is substantially lower and the card is louder.


In a perfect world I would like to get a big gain and the system would be substantially more quite.

I'm thinking that I'm limited by my cpu & gpu any thoughts and suggestions. I'm thinking on going with an Intel dual core set-up but I'm not sure I'll have substantial gains going from a P4 3.8 to a dual-core 3.0.

Thanks for your help,

Tom

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: n7
UT3 utilizes all cores on a quad, no question about that.

It shows in reviews where slower clocked quads beat higher clocks duals, & i've done lots of testing myself; minimum fps is better with four cores than two.

For UT3 & actually most UE3 games, i'd recommend a quad.

I went from a 2.8Ghz Dually to a 3.4 Quad and my UT3 frame rates had a massive improvement. Went from going between 30 and 60 frames(very annoying when things got intense) to never ever ever going below the maximum of 62 in an online game.


Winrar is multi threaded. I am pretty sure Crysis is multi threaded.


As for the thread itself. I think it's silly to recommend a dual over a quad because of individual games and programs someone runs. Benchmarks do not reflect real world performance most of the time. They are run on fresh install machines with nothing at all running in the background, sometimes sound is even disabled. Real people have things like winamp or media player, an antivirus, and a few other apps open at the same time as their game.(Web browsers, etc..)

For one thing, if you play a game that uses both the cores of your dually, you will already be at the limit of what your machine can do without reduced performance. Forget running torrents, virus scans, making a dvd or pretty much any of that jizz or your game will studder. Dual core users pretty much have to stop doing anything stressing(such as gaming)if they want to do anything productive on their pc. A quad user could run a virus scan, encode some movies and burn them to dvd, and play a game at the same time.

Cliffs:

*A quad will run a game that doesn't benefit directly from a quad core + windows and other apps at the same time better than a dual core will.

*A quad will run future games significantly faster than a dual core will. I do not buy the "Your quad will be obsolete before that happens." It didn't take too long for the Pentium D 820 to beat the Athlon 64 FX55 in games.

The argument was the same as it was before about dual vs single. It was almost completely unanimous back then. If you can afford a dual, there is absolutely no reason to buy a single. The same goes for quad vs dual, assuming performance is the only concern.(Low power/low heat machines have reason to run a dual or less) The whole clock speed argument is silly too, a stock Q6600 is fine for any game, and the average OC of a Q6600 is fine for any game as well. Future games will stop running well on a 4Ghz Duo before they stop running well on a stock Q6600, let alone an overclocked one.

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Quad-cores take more power, and will cost more than dual-cores to operate. Keep that in mind too. Also the added costs of additional power (meaning better PSU) and cooling (better heatsink) for quads.

interesting read here realistically how much money year wise are we talking here? to say you should choose your CPU based solely on how much it will use electric bill wise is crazy IMHO

 

[bryanW1995]

just a nitpick, but the 8800gt is slightly slower than the new 4830 and significantly slower than the 4850. Otherwise very well reasoned post.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
just a nitpick, but the 8800gt is slightly slower than the new 4830 and significantly slower than the 4850. Otherwise very well reasoned post.

It was just an example. I am sure there are many more cards that are faster. What is the cost vs the performance of the cards you are mentioning ? I got my last 4 8800 GT's (factory clocked at 720) for $104 each, and they do F@H like the GTX 260's (or very close, 5800 ppd), and faster than the two 9800 GT's I got.

 

[NGX]

Well i just got a e8400 and looking at getting an x38 board. i have had a q6600 g0 befor eon my p5k and i am very anxious to notice a difference, if there is one

 

[NGX]

But anyway I lost focus of what my question was about originally, which is in part this thread's fault, it has strayed a little from what it started out as. So I just got a e8400, Ive got 4x1gb sticks of ballistix tracer and no motherboard or gpu yet. Ive been out of the mix for a year, last chipset to come out before I fell out of the loop was the p35. I want to go crossfire eventually, Im liking where ATI is going : ). What I really want is what everybody else wants, a board that will overclock very well and come with the stability to boot, but wont cost me $200+. Ive gotten back into clocking and benchmarking for the winter, its a good cold-weather hobby, and will be using my board for multiple cpus as well. Does anybody have any suggestions for mobos?

 

[Duvie]

Also keep in mind there are many apps that will gain with 2 cores but may show little to no gain with anything past 2 cores...I have some CAD programs that are like that....

Things I have verified as multithreaded

3dsmax9
Viz Renderer inside LDD2004 (will benefit up to 3 cores when used with radiosity)

most CAD programs benefit only in rendering or regeneration with multi cores. Just working in the model drawing and what not...not so much...

DVDshrink is multithreaded capable, though for most people DVD-rom and HDD speeds can make it extremely I/O limited
I tested this by ripping the files to the HDD and then doing the shrink to another HDD. very very fast compared to off of an optical drive.
Also biggest advanatge comes when using the deep analysis option.

Pinnacle Studio 10

Also my software that came with my Cannon HD10 hidef camcorder will use all 4 cores when processing video into blue-ray format...i will get that name for you....

Most all encoding apps for Xvid, divx, h264, etc are multithreaded...


Bottomline just look at review sites to see what apps they are using that are multithreaded...

 

[daw123]

Just a quick question, does know if AutoCAD 2008 use multi-threading?

I know that it is CPU and memory intensive when rendering a 3D model.

Before you ask, I don't have 2009 because the liscenses are so bloody expensive

 

[novasatori]

encoding/playback with x264 is multithreaded

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: daw123
Just a quick question, does know if AutoCAD 2008 use multi-threading?

I know that it is CPU and memory intensive when rendering a 3D model.

Before you ask, I don't have 2009 because the liscenses are so bloody expensive

It does but in moderations. Paning, regeneration it does, but in rendering is where it does most of the work...Just working in a 3d model or 2d plan view will have little benefit

 

[Duvie]

I can confirm Ulead DVD MOviefactory does....

when I convert my captured clips to mpeg2 dvd compliant video (720x480) 29.97fps it really only hit 47% on cpu usage for the quad....

when I convert to AVCHD or blu-ray HD compliant video I am seeing 65-75% usage...so 3 cxores definitely not much of a 4core but allows a person to still have a responsive PC to do some other things without tremendously adding to the time of the rednering of the video.

I think IO limitations exist...Though I am runnig a RAID setup...source videos on separate drive and written to a raid 0 setup

 

[Grubbworm]

Have you looked at any of the DFI boards? I understand they overclock nicely and are very reliable.
http://us.dfi.com.tw/index_us_noflash.jsp?SITE=US

 

[Duvie]

I can confirm Pinnacle STudio 12 Ultimate is very multi-threaded...

I took AVCHD clips from my HD camcorder and made them into a DVD I can give the family and rendering it to an iso on the HDD has 70-79% cpu usage.

 

[Dadofamunky]

In a year or so I'll pick up a cheap quad (9550 or something) as an upgrade!

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
fsx (please validate, isn't this Flight sim X2 ?)

Apparently some multithreading effort were put into SP1 for FS:X.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/...mance-work-in-sp1.aspx

But I have never seen a benchmark showing the difference between quad and dual core as far as Flight Simulator is concerned.

A year ago FS:X was a beast both on CPU and GPU. I believe this is still the case, so I am a bit disappointed that several similar-performing fpses are picked for benchmarking, but FS:X is rarely benched. A huge oversight IMO, because AFAIK it will stress most components.