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

[molsim]

hello,

i do not know whether this is the appropriate place to ask this question.. but i am giving it a shot.

i am doing some molecular simulations. i usually use machines having Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor (or Opteron Dual Core 2218). i was testing out my code on a Xeon X5560 machine and i am getting runtimes less that the Core 2 / Opteron machines.. i am not doing any parallelization.. just submitting single-processor jobs. does anyone have any idea what could be the problem ?

 

[dainfamous511]

I have a question that might not be apart of this section. I am upgrading my Dell gx280's cpu. I would like to get an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 to replace my current P4. I'm not sure if I'll run into any issues after installing it, such as compatibility or bios issues. Can someone advise if this is a good thing to do?

 

[aequasi]

ur prolly gona need a new mobo, arent those two different socket sizes?

 

[pockets83]

i agree

 

[Ben90]

Originally posted by: dainfamous511
I have a question that might not be apart of this section. I am upgrading my Dell gx280's cpu. I would like to get an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 to replace my current P4. I'm not sure if I'll run into any issues after installing it, such as compatibility or bios issues. Can someone advise if this is a good thing to do?

99% chance it wont work;

Each generation of mobos have a chance to work with a future generation of processors; but ur looking at 3 different changes:

p4->c2 architecture
90->65->45nm shrink

I dont really know that much about compatibilty; but i would be looking at seeing if u can run a 65nm core2; which is still highly unlikely

 

[mtnd3vil]

Won't work at all.
GX280s ARE the same socket, LGA775, but there are other prohibitive factors related to motherboard and BIOS. The best you could ever hope to upgrade to would be a Pentium D dual core, but even this would require extensive research into bios upgrade history / change log for all the GX280 BIOSs.

Consideration#2
Dell power supplies are also pretty closely matched to the demand of the system and don't allow for much more power; upgrading to a high amperage Pentium D model might push it past its limits especially if you already have the ram maxed out to 4GB and a 2nd hard drive.

The Prescott 1M P4 2.8 that my Optiplex GX280s have is 68Watts and a typical Pentium D 830 3.0Ghz is 130W. HUGE difference.

 

[cbn]

It seems multiple cores are really only useful for games and video editing.

I guess Intel thinks this is true too (considering 32nm LGA 1156 will be dual core).

Does anyone think we will eventually see the notebook and desktop market completely split? Power efficient Dual and possibly quad core notebooks for internet surfing and other office tasks. Octo-core processors (and beyond) for Video editing/gaming with multiple monitors (Eyefinity, etc)

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of modern games are multithreaded. It doesn't necessarily mean they will benefit from more than 2 cores, but they definitely use more than one core. Some games I tested are Bioshock, Mass Effect, COD 4, Oblivion, and Stalker CS.

Add GTA 4, Company of Heroes, Riddick Dark Athena and Nfs Pro Street, which was unplayable for me on dual cores, just like GTA 4.

CoH is not unplayable on a dual core It was released in 2006, quad cores weren't even available then.

 

[MikeShunt]

Is there actually a list anywhere of what games support how many cores?

Thats would be useful to know, I personally suspect that not many fully support quad cores.

 

[netxzero64]

well. for me I'd go for the quad core... why? because since the release of athlon 2 X4, it is the sign that the quad cores are going to be the mainstream processors and games also are starting to utilize quad processors...

and also you'll benefit from it if you're into much of multitasking...

 

[bigriggg]

when im playing tf2 or l4d2 demo, when i exit, my task manager's all 4 cores are like 85% usage, all of them....rappin it out, and thats at 3.8ghz, so each core is using about 3.5Ghz, so....

 

[extide]

Hey you can add my app (Imagizer2) to the list of multi-threaded apps. (Shameless plug )

Here is a little rundown:
Features:
-FREE
-Converts an entire folder at once (even does sub-directories too)
-Can convert to all of the popular formats
-Supports percent based and exact size resizing as well as aspect ratio locking
-Multi-threaded
-Light weight and fast
-Open Source GPL
-Single EXE for 32bit and 64bit
-Requires .NET 2.0 or later
-Should run under Mono on Linux and MacOSX (not yet tested)


rar archive, ready to run here

SVN address (to download source): https://imagizer2.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/imagizer2

Main Info Page: https://sourceforge.net/projects/imagizer2

 

[hymy]

might as well add office excel 2010 to that list.

 

[evolucion8]

Free 3GP Video Converter is fully multi threaded, most of the time is able to use all 4 cores close to 100%, something that Nero Vision can't, it barely reaches 85%.

 

[cbn]

As far as games go I did these rough calculations with respect to Core i5 660 vs Core i5 750.

Both are $196 processors.

Core i5 660 is a 32nm dual core running at 3.33 Ghz with hyperthreading.

Core i5 750 is a 45nm quad core running at 2.66 Ghz with Turbo mode.

In games scaling 50% with four threads the dual core with hyperthreading is actually faster. (see below)

Core i5 660= 3.33 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 threads hyperthreading 20%= 7.992 Ghz
Core i5 750= 2.66 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 cores at 50%= 7.98 Ghz

P.S. If I used these calculations here --->http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28993997&postcount=325 I could have given the dual core with hyperthreading even more an advantage.

[From the link] "In multi-threading, Bulldozer would act like 0.9 x 2. Hyperthreading is 0.65 x 2, a dual core is 1x2"

 

[Aqeel1]

markfw your given information is very nice and tell me some about it.

 

[proadba]

There are two things that are common in many Intel processors, they are designed to save heat, and power by lowering the multiplier and the core voltage of the processor at times that the "power" or extra speed is not required. These CAN be disabled in your BIOS, and in some cases it is recommended (overclocking is one example), but if the processor needs the speed, it will "wake up" and utilize all the speed it has, so its not required that you disable it in the BIOS. If you want to know more, read the links below. You can also ask other specific questions here

 

[Tech_savy]

I like quad core and Q6600.

You should overclock the quad to 3.0ghz so that you get two extra core.
With these you may get 3.2.

 

[Phanuel]

As far as games go I did these rough calculations with respect to Core i5 660 vs Core i5 750.

Both are $196 processors.

Core i5 660 is a 32nm dual core running at 3.33 Ghz with hyperthreading.

Core i5 750 is a 45nm quad core running at 2.66 Ghz with Turbo mode.

In games scaling 50% with four threads the dual core with hyperthreading is actually faster. (see below)

Core i5 660= 3.33 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 threads hyperthreading 20%= 7.992 Ghz
Core i5 750= 2.66 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 cores at 50%= 7.98 Ghz

P.S. If I used these calculations here --->http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28993997&postcount=325 I could have given the dual core with hyperthreading even more an advantage.

[From the link] "In multi-threading, Bulldozer would act like 0.9 x 2. Hyperthreading is 0.65 x 2, a dual core is 1x2"

Your math doesn't make much sense. If you're saying the game is scaling 50% for cores above 2, then your dual core needs that penalty on the 20% (average performance gain for HT) hyperthreading portion.
(3.333 * 2) + (3.333 * 2 * 0.2 * 0.5) = (6.666) + (0.666) = 7.332ghz

That's without the turbo, with the 660 turbo of 3.6ghz -
(3.6 * 2) + (3.6 * 2 *0.2 * 0.5) = (7.20) + (0.720) = 8.44ghz

However, with the 750's turbo of 2.8ghz -
(2.8 * 2) + (2.8 * 0.5) = (5.60) + (2.80) = 8.40ghz

With the turbo the 660 is a whopping 40mhz faster than the 750. I'll take the quad core any day. These dual core + HT chips would have been fantastic a year ago, but these days with the frequency walls we run into, more physical cores is where we're headed for performance increases. And when software developers start coding for more cores rather than raw single core performance, these chips will have limited lifespans in enthusiast level gaming platforms.

 

[cbn]

Your math doesn't make much sense. If you're saying the game is scaling 50% for cores above 2, then your dual core needs that penalty on the 20% (average performance gain for HT) hyperthreading portion.
(3.333 * 2) + (3.333 * 2 * 0.2 * 0.5) = (6.666) + (0.666) = 7.332ghz

That's without the turbo, with the 660 turbo of 3.6ghz -
(3.6 * 2) + (3.6 * 2 *0.2 * 0.5) = (7.20) + (0.720) = 8.44ghz

However, with the 750's turbo of 2.8ghz -
(2.8 * 2) + (2.8 * 0.5) = (5.60) + (2.80) = 8.40ghz

With the turbo the 660 is a whopping 40mhz faster than the 750. I'll take the quad core any day. These dual core + HT chips would have been fantastic a year ago, but these days with the frequency walls we run into, more physical cores is where we're headed for performance increases. And when software developers start coding for more cores rather than raw single core performance, these chips will have limited lifespans in enthusiast level gaming platforms.

I originally thought hyperthreading scaled 100% as long as threads 3 and 4 were at least 20% as large as the primary threads. (ie, the full 20% boost in speed-up could be achieved even with poor scaling quad threaded programs)

 

[TridenT]

I suggest quadcore if you ever want to do desktop streaming. I've found that people who have quadcores tend to be able to stream at much higher qualities because they can just dedicate the stream to certain core(s) and then put their games on others. Whereas on a dual core you only have two to choose from :/ Idk, quadcore systems tend to have better streams from my viewing experience!

 

[Phil1977]

I am hoping my input is of value.

I will be building a P55 system shortly. I will wait for the 32nm dual core reviews to make my final decision.

The thing is that the i5 750 quadcore has Turbo mode. So it will run faster if you run a single or dual threaded application. Specifically it will run with 3.2 GHz.

So the 750 is allready faster than any of the 32nm i3 dual cores (they don't have Turbo mode).

The 750 also matches the rated speed of the 32nm dual core i5 640 (3.2 GHz).

Turbo mode will narrow the gap in single / dual threaded applications between quads and duals.

Still looking for reviews, but from what I can see the i5 750 is the way to go. I have no idea why intel is selling Dual Cores with 3 GHz+.

Now the 32nm dual core will support HT. So this will help them somewhat. It will very interesting.

But I think we are getting close to the stage where you just go with a quad.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

sorry if this is a dumb question but are the new i7 processors quad core?

 

[Markfw]

sorry if this is a dumb question but are the new i7 processors quad core?

Yes

 

[Chiefcrowe]

thanks! i am speccing out a new machine and i think i'll go with that processor.