How useful is a quad core CPU these days?

Anusha

Member
Jun 13, 2006
25,864
5
0
chanster said:
I assume it has something to do with the threads. Writing 3 DVDs in the same time requires 3 threads and the installation requires 1 so, the Q6600 can handle 4 threads at the same time. But my E2180 can only do two. Not that it cant write 3 DVDs in the same time but it is rather slow and it takes decades to open something while doing that. The Q6600 on the other hand was extremely smooth compared to the E2180. Everything would open as you fired up windows!
Program launch times are hardly dependent on the CPU. Hard disk, yes. Crap running in the background, yes. CPU, HARDLY!

Your argument will work only if each core runs at 100% when doing those things!
 

Anusha

Member
Jun 13, 2006
25,864
5
0
chamithal said:
4G, 9600GT... i c a Quad-Core coming next???

Mate, I only think of upgrading once I can't use my PC/Lap for my day-to-day work... So when I'm upgrading - I'll go to my best option - depending on how much I can spend...
I'm el-cheapo.....It's a continuous upgrade process, but I'm not going for the best. I'm going for the best value for money.
 

Anusha

Member
Jun 13, 2006
25,864
5
0
fallenzeraphine said:
ugh this is a serious dilemma, u see im not satisfied with my core 2, even @ 3.4Ghz lol, but since i have spent 25K on a LCD recently i wont be able to buy a damn Quad core in near future, But i really really need one of those 45nm Penryns because

A. Its a fraking quad core
B. It will Encode Videos much faster than a Dual core on x264 and Xvid
C. Penryns overclock so much u cant get enough of it
D. And it will back some neat games yet to come that will utilize the full potential of 4 cores, like Project Offset, not to mention the current Poster Boy Crysis, and the CPU hungry My Fav Supreme Commander.

Why i wont buy one is

A. they are so fraking expensive
B. I dont need a cut down version of the Penry core that bring us back to point A and C
C. I dont have money to buy one currently
If you are buying one...you might wanna give yours E6420 to me :D
 

chanster

Member
Oct 14, 2007
1,670
0
0
Ratmalana
Anusha said:
Program launch times are hardly dependent on the CPU. Hard disk, yes. Crap running in the background, yes. CPU, HARDLY!

Your argument will work only if each core runs at 100% when doing those things!

Maybe but how can you prove that the Quad wont make a difference while running those tasks? How do you prove that the Quad is not smoother than the Dual when i experienced it?

CPU does not run @ 100% it barely reaches 15%. All im saying is that the Quad multitasks better than Dual,A lot better. I used the same hardware only the CPU was different....Although had to use both IDE and Sata DVD-RWs.
 

Anusha

Member
Jun 13, 2006
25,864
5
0
chanster said:
Maybe but how can you prove that the Quad wont make a difference while running those tasks? How do you prove that the Quad is not smoother than the Dual when i experienced it?

CPU does not run @ 100% it barely reaches 15%. All im saying is that the Quad multitasks better than Dual,A lot better. I used the same hardware only the CPU was different....Although had to use both IDE and Sata DVD-RWs.
Because it doesn't make any sense! Quad Core CPUs are better at multitasking, but the bottleneck is the hard disk! Not the CPU :/
 

zCexVe

Active member
  • Sep 12, 2006
    8,550
    22
    38
    Where I'm now
    Its beter to have a quad if you deal with video and animation stuff,basically ppl like me would like it.But an average one would not benefit.Even not many gamers since they are not much quad optimized.But if considering what money can buy a Q6600/6700 is the best deal rather than a dual core at its price range.In my PoW it is a E2xxx or a Q6x00 is what you get.All others will just do a very few seconds advantage wich aint worth for money.
     

    Anusha

    Member
    Jun 13, 2006
    25,864
    5
    0
    zCexVe said:
    Its beter to have a quad if you deal with video and animation stuff,basically ppl like me would like it.But an average one would not benefit.Even not many gamers since they are not much quad optimized.But if considering what money can buy a Q6600/6700 is the best deal rather than a dual core at its price range.In my PoW it is a E2xxx or a Q6x00 is what you get.All others will just do a very few seconds advantage wich aint worth for money.
    Why not an E7200?
     

    zCexVe

    Active member
  • Sep 12, 2006
    8,550
    22
    38
    Where I'm now
    Anusha said:
    Why not an E7200?
    Since I know you very well,you want me to tell my opinion about your next CPU to be and it will not in any case affect your dominant overlook on your choice and it will lead to some posts going over Intels current CPU trend and line , then to critisize AMD on their part only looking at technology and few days later you will announce of the replacement of E6300 with an E7200 which will make all this unuseful and you and I both know what is the sweetest spot to hit on these things..So to prevent further development of this conversion I would say its the hottest bitch you can screw for free.:D
     

    ashain

    Member
    Feb 21, 2007
    242
    3
    0
    Dubai, U.A.E
    9tgzkm.jpg


    macho hw is core 2 E4700,and this processors new E7200 Prices are all most same 145$ any idea……see this Article this is by Windows Magazine
    meddle east.............
     
    Last edited:

    Anusha

    Member
    Jun 13, 2006
    25,864
    5
    0
    zCexVe said:
    Since I know you very well,you want me to tell my opinion about your next CPU to be and it will not in any case affect your dominant overlook on your choice and it will lead to some posts going over Intels current CPU trend and line , then to critisize AMD on their part only looking at technology and few days later you will announce of the replacement of E6300 with an E7200 which will make all this unuseful and you and I both know what is the sweetest spot to hit on these things..So to prevent further development of this conversion I would say its the hottest bitch you can screw for free.:D
    That will not be my next CPU unless I really get bored and need to play with a new toy. The current CPU is good enough, but not exciting at all! :P

    The thing with the quad core is that though it sounds great, I am (most probably) going for a clean system build in another year's time. I believe a quad core by then, or maybe even a low end Nehalem would suit the sweet spot.