Quad-Core, whats the big deal?

[Trio]

I'm new to this computer stuff, and I've been interested in this processor for a while. Obviously its the lastest and most powerfull kind of processor (at least I think so), but after doing a bit of searching I noticed that a Quad processor ran almost as quick an ordinary one (Clock speed). I found most Quad-Core processors to run at a max of 2.5 GH and a few ordinary processor (A Intel Pentium 4) at 3.33 GH. So I was wondering, whats the big deal about a Quad-Core processor if it runs just as quickly as an ordinary one?

 

[Computer_Freak]

ok well thats just the clock speed (how fast it is)

Now what is special about it is that there are 4 cores (the rest like pentium, celeron, have one)

Now these CPU's are better for multitasking as information is processed by all four cores eg each core processes a bit or a whole of what is needed, therefor working much quicker. Think of 4 builders building a 1metre x 1metre wall. Now picture one builder doing the same. 4 builders will be quicker, and you could do more as you have more builders "cores" at your disposal (multi tasking).

Each core works at whatever frequency (eg 2.5Ghz, but the whole CPU speed is 2.5Ghz, you dont add all the cores)

I dont know i probably just blabbed but thats how i understood it and i know how they work, i just cant put it in words.

All i can say is that they make a HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

from my P4 to a Duo, i saw a huge performance increase....

From CPU 101

Dual/Multi Core
A recent craze, Dual and multi core processors are, for all intents and purposes, "two processors inside one convenient package". Each processor will have independent access to cache and stackspace; by having multiple cores the processor as a whole can deal with multiple threads of execution (i.e., multiple applications, multiple instructions etc) without any [significant/measureable] overhead (i.e., Dual Core processors are what marketers hype-up HyperThreading to be)

 

[Trio]

ok well thats just the clock speed (how fast it is)

Now what is special about it is that there are 4 cores (the rest like pentium, celeron, have one)

Now these CPU's are better for multitasking as information is processed by all four cores eg each core processes a bit or a whole of what is needed, therefor working much quicker. Think of 4 builders building a 1metre x 1metre wall. Now picture one builder doing the same. 4 builders will be quicker, and you could do more as you have more builders "cores" at your disposal (multi tasking).

Each core works at whatever frequency (eg 2.5Ghz, but the whole CPU speed is 2.5Ghz, you dont add all the cores)

I dont know i probably just blabbed but thats how i understood it and i know how they work, i just cant put it in words.

All i can say is that they make a HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

from my P4 to a Duo, i saw a huge performance increase....

From CPU 101

Dual/Multi Core
A recent craze, Dual and multi core processors are, for all intents and purposes, "two processors inside one convenient package". Each processor will have independent access to cache and stackspace; by having multiple cores the processor as a whole can deal with multiple threads of execution (i.e., multiple applications, multiple instructions etc) without any [significant/measureable] overhead (i.e., Dual Core processors are what marketers hype-up HyperThreading to be)

Ooh, I see. Would you recommend a Quad-Core to someone who'll only play games? I plan to only play games, but I'm not sure if its over doing it, I'm not really a hardcore player whos looking to play the most intense graphical game thats out there, but I don't want a lame processor either. Will a duel-core suffice?

 

[hermeslyre]

whats the big deal about a Quad-Core processor if it runs just as quickly as an ordinary one?

That's the thing, they don't. Clock speed cannot be compared cross platform, which is to say a P4 2.5ghz clockspeed is not equally to a Q/C2d 2.5ghz. A better core architecture ensures that. A c2d, clock for clock, is considered around 30% more efficient than the AMD X2, which itself was almost double the efficiency of a P4's clockspeed, hence the reason a Athlon at 2.0 could beat a P$ at 3.2 or whatever.

As for the quad, I'll add that 4 cores, on paper, are better. In execution that may be an entirely different matter. Software has to be built around the hardware, your favorite game may only use 2 of the 4 cores of a quad, effectively nullifying the benefit of the other two. In truth, most games are still at that point. Going into the future, change on a large scale is obviously expected, but when is the big question yet to be answered, though it's been alluded to quite abit.

The dualy versus the quad, for gaming and such, is debated on a daily basis here. http://www.computerforum.com/116459-comparison-question.html Good thread to read to the end, if only because I posted in it, and I've confirmation from a reliable source that I'm smart.

 

[Computer_Freak]

well they say the E8400 is the best, a core 2 duo at 3Ghz....

But games are starting to use quad cores (crysis?)

For gaming now, get a E8400, but for later, a quad core, but the problem with that is that by the time quad will be used (it could be a year, and you will update anyways)

I believe go for the quad...

 

[hermeslyre]

But games are starting to use quad cores (crysis?)

Yeah, crysis. But not very well. I used to scan through the crysis forums and most of the benchmarks posted revealed that it only uses the 3rd and 4th core in the 5-10% range. T.T

 

[Computer_Freak]

but yeah, it shows that its being used...

see im thinking of the Q6600 over the E8400 cause of these reasons:

1066FSB - No need for a better mobo
Quad core - Future proof (if i can say so)
I can overclock to 3Ghz

Also they the same price here in South Africa...

 

[hermeslyre]

but yeah, it shows that its being used...

Yeah, i guess it's a start, lol.

see im thinking of the Q6600 over the E8400 cause of these reasons:

1066FSB - No need for a better mobo
Quad core - Future proof (if i can say so)
I can overclock to 3Ghz

Also they the same price here in South Africa...

I agree. Q6600 would be my choice of the two, and that we're both overclockers, it would seal the deal.

 

[Trio]

I didn't understand much of what you two were talking about... but basically you two said that I should go with a Quad because games will eventually need them to run properly? Alright.


hermeslyre, if clock speeds can't be compared, than how can you tell the difference in speeds between two processors?


Also, I'm planning on buying an ASUS Commando, so I can buy a Intel next generation 45nm Multi-core CPU ( I have no idea what this is), Intel Quad-core and Intel Duo-extreme, so I'm limited to only Intel, unless I decide to go with another motherboard.

While we're on that subject, I was wondering... Do motherboards come with chipsets? Because I'm not sure if the ASUS Commando comes with the Intel P965 chipset, heres the link:

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=117&l3=0&l4=0&model=1480&modelmenu=1

Thank you for helping.

 

[hermeslyre]

I didn't understand much of what you two were talking about... but basically you two said that I should go with a Quad because games will eventually need them to run properly? Alright.

hehe, alright. That's the jist of it. Other people might give you different opinions, no less correct.

hermeslyre, if clock speeds can't be compared, than how can you tell the difference in speeds between two processors?

Benchmarking. The testing of 2 or more processors at the same task to record performance. Tons of sites for this out there, Anandtech, guru3d, techspot, etc.

I'm planning on buying an ASUS Commando, so I can buy a Intel next generation 45nm Multi-core CPU ( I have no idea what this is)

It refers to the fabrication process. In laymans terms it means the transistor on the chip die are smaller, better refined. This equals a cooler (temperature wise) chip, and is customarily sporting a slightly different/better architecture, equaling better performance or possibly overclocking. You didn't ask, i know.

While we're on that subject, I was wondering... Do motherboards come with chipsets? Because I'm not sure if the ASUS Commando comes with the Intel P965 chipset, heres the link:

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=117&l3=0&l4=0&model=1480&modelmenu=1

Thank you for helping.

motherboards come with their respective chipsets, no worry there.

 

[Trio]

It refers to the fabrication process. In laymans terms it means the transistor on the chip die are smaller, better refined. This equals a cooler (temperature wise) chip, and is customarily sporting a slightly different/better architecture, equaling better performance or possibly overclocking. You didn't ask, i know.

So... does that mean that new processor will be faster than a Quad?

motherboards come with their respective chipsets, no worry there.

Thats good, I was worried I'd have to spend more money lol. Are these chips upgradable though?

 

[hermeslyre]

So... does that mean that new processor will be faster than a Quad?

Possibly. The difference wouldn't be so great however, slight architectural changes don't usually yield that great a gain.

Thats good, I was worried I'd have to spend more money lol. Are these chips upgradable though?

No siree. They are integrated in something fierce.

 

[Trio]

Ok, thanks alot hermeslyre.

 

[Trio]

I found a Quad-core thats a whole lot powerfull than the one I wanted to buy. Its an Intel core2 Extreme QX9770, and it runs at 3.2GHz. I'm very happy that I found this processor (or rather finally looked it up, it was on the mobo specifications lol), because now I won't have to OC or anything if I need the computer to run faster.

But this CPU might be a problem, right? A Quad-Core running at 3.2GHz will produces a lot of heat, correct? What do you suggest I use to tame the heat, fans or water-cooling? Also, if I want to OC with this processor, how high could I go?

 

[Trio]

Theres a problem with the Intel core2 Extreme QX9770, it has a 1600mhz FSB but the Asus Commando only has a 1066mhz, is this bad? Also, the QX9770 uses DDR3, but the Commando uses DDR2... Do this mean they aren't compatible?

**I wanted to add that I just found another Intel core2 Extreme Quad processor that has a 1066 FSB, so nvm what I just said, but I'm still not sure about the memory DDR3 thing. Well, the prices is outragous, costing about $1,000, but I found an unbeleivable price on it, for only $700, here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000P05F1Y/ref=dp_olp_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1208563745&sr=8-1

the vendor is savingcost. Is this, well, real? If so, I'm definantely buying it.

 

[Computer_Freak]

the extremes are a waste of money in my opinion. Rather get a Q9450 (2.66Ghz) and oc that, or even a Q9550 (2.8Ghz) and OC that....

The QXxxxx series cost like $1000

But for $700 its quite a good deal, see what others say.

Also yes the FSB will be a problem, youll need a mobo that supports it. I still say get a mobo that supports 1333/1600 and get a normal quad and OC it. Stillcheck that your mobo supports that CPU (eg my mobo doesnt support older quads, but has a FSB of 1066)

DDR3 is way overpriced and not needed now. Try find a mobo that supports DDR2 and 3 for future proof, but if not, just get DDR2 (1200 and overclocked is more than enough)

So if you want a "future proof" comp heres what id do

Q9450 (OCed to 3 or more Ghz)
X38 or X48 mobo that supports 1333/1600FSB and DDR2/3
rest is your choice

Good now and future (not as future proof cause no DDR3 support and 1600FSB (depends on what you get))
Q9450 (OCed)
x38 or X48 with a 1066/1333 or 1333/1600FSB depends on cheaper.

the way i see it, you dont upgreade computer that often (once every 2 years?)

So by the time 2 years are up, there will be new CPUs and FSB, so because you payed more for new technology now, you might not even use it later...

So i woulg go with the second option, with DDR1200 ram (oced, this will be killer fast)

 

[Trio]

the extremes are a waste of money in my opinion. Rather get a Q9450 (2.66Ghz) and oc that, or even a Q9550 (2.8Ghz) and OC that....

The QXxxxx series cost like $1000

But for $700 its quite a good deal, see what others say.

Also yes the FSB will be a problem, youll need a mobo that supports it. I still say get a mobo that supports 1333/1600 and get a normal quad and OC it. Stillcheck that your mobo supports that CPU (eg my mobo doesnt support older quads, but has a FSB of 1066)

DDR3 is way overpriced and not needed now. Try find a mobo that supports DDR2 and 3 for future proof, but if not, just get DDR2 (1200 and overclocked is more than enough)

So if you want a "future proof" comp heres what id do

Q9450 (OCed to 3 or more Ghz)
X38 or X48 mobo that supports 1333/1600FSB and DDR2/3
rest is your choice

Good now and future (not as future proof cause no DDR3 support and 1600FSB (depends on what you get))
Q9450 (OCed)
x38 or X48 with a 1066/1333 or 1333/1600FSB depends on cheaper.

the way i see it, you dont upgreade computer that often (once every 2 years?)

So by the time 2 years are up, there will be new CPUs and FSB, so because you payed more for new technology now, you might not even use it later...

So i woulg go with the second option, with DDR1200 ram (oced, this will be killer fast)

I'm thinking about going with another mobo, but I'm not very sure... ASUS Commando has a lot of positive reviews, but the newer ASUS gaming motherboards seem way better.

Well when I was looking into mobo I just did a search on google for gaming motherboards, and I found it, thats why I chose it.

So, if the FSB is set to 1066mhz, and that Quad core I want is exactly 1066mhz (FSB), will there be any issues when/if I OC?

If this all becomes an issue, then I'll take your advice and upgrade to another, better ASUS gaming mobo, Maximus Extreme or Striker II, unless theres another gaming mobo or the like that you recomend? I really only plan to play games.