Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad

[JDArt]

If anyone is trying to decide between a fast Core 2 Duo-based machine and a Core 2 Quad, my recent testing (subjective, not benchmarks) suggests that a fast (-> 3.1 GHz) Core 2 Quad is just as fast if not faster feeling than a Core 2 Quad (3.0 GHz or lower). When you get into the differences in speed for running most apps, I'd say other components--graphics, memory, hard disk--make more of a real-world difference.

[Gna]

Originally Posted by JDArt

If anyone is trying to decide between a fast Core 2 Duo-based machine and a Core 2 Quad, my recent testing (subjective, not benchmarks) suggests that a fast (-> 3.1 GHz) Core 2 Quad is just as fast if not faster feeling than a Core 2 Quad (3.0 GHz or lower). When you get into the differences in speed for running most apps, I'd say other components--graphics, memory, hard disk--make more of a real-world difference.

Are you saying you didn't experience a significant improvement in speed between a fast Core 2 Duo-based machine and a Core 2 Quad?

[Kinz]

ditto, Gna, that's confusing.

[Paul Shields]

Would a quad core running at the same speed as a dual core feel that much faster in typical tasks? I must admit I've never experienced that big boost in performance when moving from one to the other. Of course a lot of that may be down to how the application is written - if it can take advantage of the multiple cores for example.

My personal feeling currently is that if you want a "perceived" performance boost then swapping out your meachanical drive with an SSD would give you that experience. More memory also helps a lot as well of course. CPU's are mostly fast enough for day to day tasks, and applications can be better written for when doing the CPU intensive tasks.

[mcbit]

I think if you are multitasking, carrying out CPU intensive tasks such as video conversions in the background, you might find significant improvement in the performance of foreground apps.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Gna

Are you saying you didn't experience a significant improvement in speed between a fast Core 2 Duo-based machine and a Core 2 Quad?

Yes, exactly. Sorry I didn't state that more clearly.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Would a quad core running at the same speed as a dual core feel that much faster in typical tasks?

No. And that's my point precisely.

For the fastest feeling computer, I still think GHz matters as much as, if not more than than, cores.

[zemlin]

It depends on the applications - some applications will harness mutliple cores, in which case a quad core is LEAPS faster than a duo core. If the software isn't multithreading, you won't see any significant difference. Bibble5 (preview), for example, RAWKS on multiple cores.

[ohenry]

I'm currently running a Core2 dual core 3.0 and my motherboard can handle quad core. Moving to Windows 7 and bumping memory up to 8 GB running at 1066mhz. Trying to decide if going to a quad core would be worthwhile or not. CS4 is my major power program running, often with plugins. Guess I'll wait to see how Win 7 with the 8GB performs and then reconsider.

[seab3]

The latest greatest is the I7.

The Pentium has been able to handle 4 threads per processor for years now. When it was a 166 MHz, well all 4 ran slow. Since the memory buss can't handle multiple threads, there is still a bottleneck on hard disk and RAM read/writes.

As the buss speed increased, so did the capabilities of the CPU's (actually the CPU's tend to out increase the motherboards).

In theory a dual core can handle 8 instructions per cycle, a quad core can handle 16 instructions per cycle. This is all dependent on how fast your board can read and write from volatile and permanent memory.

So it's all about the motherboard... how does it perform with the CPU that you put in it?

[ohenry]

I'm running an Asus P5K-E with a Wolfdale Core2 Duo 8500 3.0Ghz. Just went from 4Gb to 8Gb DDR2 1066 memory. With the exception of the processor, my board is at its limit. It's running cool, but I'm not overclocked. It runs smooth with Vista 32 and fairly fast. I'm pleased with Asus as a motherboard and find them reliable. I have overclocked them before and they seem to handle it fairly well. Win 7 will be installed next week. I am thinking that I'll just leave the setup as is (for now, anyway) and if I really feel limited I may just opt to go with a new MB, I7, and DDR3 capabilities. Sigh...I remember my first PC 8086 with its 1GB memory and 32GB harddrive...and it cost more than it cost me to rebuilt a much more powerful machine today Amazing, how far we've come since PC-DOS.

[Gna]

Originally Posted by zemlin

It depends on the applications - some applications will harness mutliple cores, in which case a quad core is LEAPS faster than a duo core. If the software isn't multithreading, you won't see any significant difference. Bibble5 (preview), for example, RAWKS on multiple cores.

Agreed. I.o.w. multicore processors are only faster if and insofar the application it is running was coded to take advantage of multicore processing. And as far as I understand that's still only a pitiful few. Meaning that multicore processors will only benefit you if you run those particular apps a lot. For most apps they don't add a benefit. The other core(s) simply isn't used. You can see that when you have a temperature widget with which to gauge the temp in about a dozen different locations. It will show you the temperature in both, or all four, cores, if you have them. Watch how one of them seems to be nicely at working temperature while the other(s) are considerably lower temperatures. That's because they ain't working. They're not being called on. They're literally not breaking a sweat!

You did pay for those cores and whatever else is required to get 'm running. Only... IRL they ain't running hardly at all!

[Gna]

Originally Posted by ohenry

Sigh...I remember my first PC 8086 with its 1GB memory and 32GB harddrive...and it cost more than it cost me to rebuilt a much more powerful machine today Amazing, how far we've come since PC-DOS.

1GB of RAM and a 32GB HD? Pure luxury! My first Mac had an 8Mhz CPU, 128KB RAM, and no HD! Just 360KB 3,5" floppy disks...

Ahhh! Those were the days! When dimes and nickels were still wooden!

[TheRileyFactor]

Quad Cores are more future-proof simply because many applications are already being written to take advantage of multiple cores, but at the moment a fast dual core is better for most day-to-day applications. I am running an overclocked 3.2 gHz Quad-Core, and in any application that is very intensive but not multi-threaded you can see the difference when you're running multiple applications b/c windows will put different apps on different threads. Any apps that are multi-threaded run ridiculously fast, especially video or audio encoding or real-time encoding of HD Video (with programs like TVersity).

And theres my $0.000002 on the matter

[ohenry]

Originally Posted by Gna

1GB of RAM and a 32GB HD? Pure luxury! My first Mac had an 8Mhz CPU, 128KB RAM, and no HD! Just 360KB 3,5" floppy disks...

Ahhh! Those were the days! When dimes and nickels were still wooden!

Well, I didn't want to bring up my TI-99 4A And on the PC, anything over 640K was used as a RAM disk. And to think, we ran a bulletin board system on our computer using a 2400Kb modem (upgraded from a 300kb modem where you had to put the phone receiver into the cradle) ROFLOL....and we were high tech!

[Dirk]

i decided to go for a fast core 2 duo ( 2 x 3 ghz) in stead of a core 2 quad, since there is very litte software that makes use of the extra cores .. i am still very happy with my E8400 intel Core 2 Duo

[whaas2]

Originally Posted by ohenry

I'm running an Asus P5K-E with a Wolfdale Core2 Duo 8500 3.0Ghz. Just went from 4Gb to 8Gb DDR2 1066 memory. With the exception of the processor, my board is at its limit. It's running cool, but I'm not overclocked. It runs smooth with Vista 32 and fairly fast. I'm pleased with Asus as a motherboard and find them reliable. I have overclocked them before and they seem to handle it fairly well. Win 7 will be installed next week. I am thinking that I'll just leave the setup as is (for now, anyway) and if I really feel limited I may just opt to go with a new MB, I7, and DDR3 capabilities. Sigh...I remember my first PC 8086 with its 1GB memory and 32GB harddrive...and it cost more than it cost me to rebuilt a much more powerful machine today Amazing, how far we've come since PC-DOS.

I did not realize that 8086 could possibly address that much memory. Was the 8086 really that much better than the 8088? What about the 32MB harddrive limit in older versions of DOS? Way back when I payed forn that $400. for an 80MB drive. How much did your 32GB drive cost in those days?

[mcbit]

Originally Posted by ohenry

I'm running an Asus P5K-E with a Wolfdale Core2 Duo 8500 3.0Ghz. Just went from 4Gb to 8Gb DDR2 1066 memory. With the exception of the processor, my board is at its limit. It's running cool, but I'm not overclocked. It runs smooth with Vista 32 and fairly fast. I'm pleased with Asus as a motherboard and find them reliable. I have overclocked them before and they seem to handle it fairly well. Win 7 will be installed next week. I am thinking that I'll just leave the setup as is (for now, anyway) and if I really feel limited I may just opt to go with a new MB, I7, and DDR3 capabilities. Sigh...I remember my first PC 8086 with its 1GB memory and 32GB harddrive...and it cost more than it cost me to rebuilt a much more powerful machine today Amazing, how far we've come since PC-DOS.

You must have been a millionaire back then. Max addressable physical memory for an 8086 was 1MB and typically ran at 256 or 512KB and even that wasn't cheap!

....and that might well have been a 32MB hard drive too.

[Gna]

Originally Posted by ohenry

Well, I didn't want to bring up my TI-99 4A And on the PC, anything over 640K was used as a RAM disk. And to think, we ran a bulletin board system on our computer using a 2400Kb modem (upgraded from a 300kb modem where you had to put the phone receiver into the cradle) ROFLOL....and we were high tech!

OK, if we're going to claim the most primitive: in the mid-seventies I sold, ran and programmed Burroughs L4000, L5000, and L6000 business computers (the size of a big desk) with paper punch tapes, no screen, no harddisk, and an integrated 3 feet wide chain printer for output!

Ha! Beat that!

[ohenry]

I can't beat it, but I can come close ... one of my jobs was sorting the paper punch cards for the big computers. Are we old, or what? LOL

I don't remember the prices of the components back then, but I know that one of my earlier units ran about $3600 and that was for the basics. The 8086/88 was limited to 640kb, if I recall. Anything above that was used for Ram disk. I misspoke the memory...I think that was 1Mb! Amazing how Lotus ran without a problem on so little memory