multi-cores, waste of time?

J

Joe2003

New Member
Hey

Need a new pc, was looking at new cpus and doing research. I currently have a single core P4 @3.2ghz. Is there much point in going multicore. Was looking at getting a phenom system but will all the cores get used? Do many apps support multi-threading?! Will probably be running linux but want to know for MS to? Just dont know whether to throw my money a quad core or stay single with a ton of ram? Whats gonna give me the best performane?

It will be used for number cruching and developing code mostly, so no graphics

cheers!!
Joe
 
atm not many apps/games take advantage of multi-cores cpus but give it time and im sure they will.

if your a gamer take Alan wake for an example,thats soppose to take advantage of multi-cores.

Why not get a Intel Quad core?
 
Dual core = been the "normal requirement of 08" quad core will turn into the "norm" by the end of 09 since Intel is pushing quads over time now.

If your gonna upgrade do it right go with a quad-core.

While not everything uses quads now a current Q6600 while not superior to the new I7 core will easily last people till the end of 2009-2010 the only people who will want the I7 is the enthusiasts that can't play a game without 200 FPS.

If you buy a good cooler you can do a subtle clock on a Q6600 of 333x9 = 3.0ghz with no voltage increase. You can also take the chip to 3.6ghz where some get stable of 4.0ghz that have a low VID.

I have a funny feeling that by July that we will see MANY titles with quad support. Though gaming companies are STARTING to learn that making a game with jackass requirements is not wise so Dual Core could last you if you don't fall for the "must max it out" crowd talk.
 
Last edited:
Dont want to go intel, Prefer the phenoms cause they have the bus arcitecture right, each core runs at full duplex.

So basically no real reason given, im not a gamer and not many apps support multi cores so there really is no point in running MS in a multi core enviroment? Think I will still go for it but leave MS alone
 
Joe2003 said:
Dont want to go intel, Prefer the phenoms cause they have the bus arcitecture right, each core runs at full duplex.

So basically no real reason given, im not a gamer and not many apps support multi cores so there really is no point in running MS in a multi core enviroment? Think I will still go for it but leave MS alone
Click to expand...
Have you seen the new Intel Core i7's? They are everything the Core 2 line should have been from the start. They offer way more performance per clock then the AMD Phenom, not to mention they are excellent overclocking chips.
 
Even if you don't game, dual core is pretty much the standard/minimum these days. Not only for multitasking, but clock for clock, any modern dual/quad core processor will smoke any remaining single core CPU.

If you're only browsing the Web and writing emails, then yea, don't upgrade. But even with that, you're looking at slower load times. If you were like 70 years old and can only do one thing at a time, I'd say a single core is sufficient. But most people like to have multiple windows open and run various processes without slowdown.

*And by "MS," I'm assuming you mean Windows (Microsoft)? Sorry, just never heard anyone use that for shorthand before. Oh, and to address your thread title, I think it's a waste of time waiting for old, slow technology.
 
Last edited:
Also, regarding the RAM issue, depends on how much you currently have. If you had something like 1 gb (or, God forbid, 512mb on Windows XP), then yes, that would be priority #1. But if you have 2gb or more, then you'll see more noticeable performance increases with a multi-core CPU upgrade.
 
Looks like we have to assimilate one more into our ranks, join the intel zombies or die!

but seriously intel is better. its not fanboyish to say that, its fact.
 
mmmmmkay, still no real answer.

Having 2 windows open is not multithreading, the system will still only view this as one process.

How will I see more of a performance increase with multicore over ram?! If an OS doesnt support multi threading then having additional cores is a waste of time?! You may say its the norm but who cares if its still not being utilized? Thats like a car having two engines but leaving one turned off all the time

i7 looks great, but uses ddr3? that stuff is a fortune, completly different socket etc. Also keeping up with the cutting edge is a waste of money, the price will 1/4 in a year.

AMD over intel, mmmhhh. Benchmarking is fine but the intel quads (minus the i7) are still in effect two dual cores glued together, each core cannot comunicate at full duplex.

So appart from all the hype no one can give me an actual scientific answer as to the benifits of multicore? Advertising gimmics and bench mark programs designed for multicore systems me nothing when it comes down to major processing.

I want a new system to develope code, will be doing lots of mutithreaded apps and will be running in linux, was just curious as to whether such a system would have any merit in a microsoft enviroment, and so far I have not been convinced!
 
I believe multi cores still help whether you game or task.I have a P4 also so I know its at its end of life and I can tell when I try to play a game or run pretty much any program.


On a side note and not meaning to get off topic but I see that you have been a member of this forum since Aug.2004 yet only have 32 posts currently.

You arent the "Bizzarro Cohen" are you? :D Just Curious.
 
With all the patches and hacks and tweaks and everything out today im suprised some programmer out there hasn't got say crysis and COD4 to run in 4 cores. I mean if its a software issue right now for why they arent, i never got why they couldnt just rewrite parts of the game to just run on all 4 cores. I'm betting its way more complicated than that, but i dunno. . . i think its time to do some googling. . .
 
MrBucket said:
With all the patches and hacks and tweaks and everything out today im suprised some programmer out there hasn't got say crysis and COD4 to run in 4 cores. I mean if its a software issue right now for why they arent, i never got why they couldnt just rewrite parts of the game to just run on all 4 cores. I'm betting its way more complicated than that, but i dunno. . . i think its time to do some googling. . .
Click to expand...

It's not as easy as you think it will be. Programming is a tough job and often really hard to rewrite some of the major things inside the script itself. If you change one little script to work with 4 cores, there are many other scripts and programs inside the game that would have to be altered so that it will work under those conditions.
 
Intel_man said:
It's not as easy as you think it will be. Programming is a tough job and often really hard to rewrite some of the major things inside the script itself. If you change one little script to work with 4 cores, there are many other scripts and programs inside the game that would have to be altered so that it will work under those conditions.
Click to expand...
ya ya i know i know, im just sayin ive seen some crazy stuff done to game engines like in oblivion and HL2 and stuff. Most of em are probably just extensive mods and such not program rewrites, just wonderin if anybody knew of anything like that. And i know how crazy programming is. I took visual basic in HS and im taking java now in college and that alone is kinda rough
 
You will probably notice a difference between a dual core and a single core but not so much between a dual core and a quad core.

I have an intel Q6600 at work and an AMD 4400+ at home (both have 3 gigs of ddr2 ram) and the quad doesn't really shine as being much better than the dual. They both load Windows quickly and are about the same when using it.

I say go for dual core.
 
Dual core is a massive step from single core but dual core to quad core isn't.

I have an intel Q6600 at work and an AMD Athlon 64X2 4400+ at home and there really isn't much difference between them. They both have 3 gigs of ddr2 ram and there doesn't seem to be much difference in speed between them. However I haven't run them along side so I can't really comment in that respect but the quad core doesn't shine miles ahead of the dual core.

I say go for a nice AMD dual core.
 
Hugh9191 said:
I have an intel Q6600 at work and an AMD Athlon 64X2 4400+ at home and there really isn't much difference between them.
Click to expand...

There really is! I guess with simple things like multitasking on the desktop and internet browsing, there isn't, but do any design work, rendering or gaming and you'll see the difference.
 
As I say, I havn't used them side by side so I can't really comment in that respect.

Also (sadly) I don't think my supervisor would be to happy if I was using my work machine for gaming!
 
To generalized of a statement. As with everything it depends.
HD video editing (along with editing/encoding) benefits largely from the i7 architecture (even with hindered 920+). Everything else provides a miniscule ROI.

Of course you don't have a choice. There are no single cores anymore, just dual/quad. Thus, your answer depends on this question: Do I want to upgrade or stay in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top