So What Is The Basement's Opinion On These New Quad Core CPUs?

[westy159]

I swear the Core 2 Duos were released only a small while ago. Im still on a P4 - last generation hardware - and so are many who consider themselves gamers.

Now I see Quad Core CPUs from Intel on my favourite site for PC stuff, scan.co.uk, selling at £614 ($1228), although a £334 version also exists.

Is this the next step up from Core 2 Duo's, rendering them obsolete? Is it worth buying a new computer with a C2D now?


Edit: Did not mean to say 'new' exactly, they have been out since December it seems.

[Spart]

Depends on what you play really. I'm not even considering dual core yet, since I don't play much new games. And the few new games I play (mostly strategy) work fine with my A64 3000+, so.. it's mostly a matter of cash/usefulness ratio.
But whatever floats your boat.

[sdjenkyn]

Duo-cores and Quad cores generate less heat overall and some duo-cores (pentium) can reach ridiculous speeds with the proper cooling. Advantage wise depends on the apps your running and whether they utilize hyperthreading or multithreading(amd). A lot of design/graphics software will take advantage of this and some games now,too. Overall whether its 2-core or 4-core you are doubling your available proccessors on one board......btw Amd is supposed to launch their quad-core this summer which will help drop prices on all duo's and hopefully quads.

[Aristocrat]

They are still learning how to properly utilise 2 cores let alone 4.
Quad Core is more 'future proof' but really isn't necessary right now (which I believe dual core is).

Not to mention dual core cpu's are becoming redicuously cheap thanks to AMD and Intel engaging in a price war.

[Spiff]

So far ive benefited from dual core especially in only one game as far as i know - Supreme Commander - i think it uses one core for the simulation and the other for AI. Otherwise i dunno, games aren't really being written with them strictly in mind at the moment as far as i know, so being completely up to date with quad core hardly seems worth while at the moment.

[dunehunter]

Yeah, there's plenty of multiplayer games with names like "dual only", atleast in supcom...with good reason I think.

[eventhorizen]

Well the processor technology in certain dual cores is a bit more complicated than a second processor and some lower temperatures.

Dealing with Core 2 Duo, as it is the apparent processor of choice right now, you have a completely new architecture design, based on 65nm technology instead of 90nm, combined to other features such as large cache on selected models and other new processor technology, e.g. speedstep, not that that improves performance.

There are alot of new advances brought to the table with Core 2 Duo over its rival and previous processors.

My experiance with the E6600 is that it is a very efficient and very powerful processor for day to day gaming, browsing and multimedia tasks. Many can no doubt say this, and to be fair alot of 'inferior' processors are more than capable of dealing with intense loading and usage in the context of todays games and multi high resource application usage.

It must be said however that they are light years ahead of the P4 processor, even if yours serves you admirably.

Specific examples would be alt-tabbing out of any game except those with inherant alt-tab instability (Oblivion) is a complete doddle. Full deep virus scanning while running a media player and a reasonably resource hungry game is noticable, but only at scan startup, and even then only barely noticable and only noticable to those who know there computer behaviour very well.

I dont have a lot of experiance with other recent processors, such as the AMD dual core processors, so I do not know how this compares to experiance with those processors, but it is apparent to me than when upgrading from a P4 to a Core 2 Duo, you are getting far more than simply a second core and slight increase in overall combined processor speed.

Benchmarks from various sources show that Core 2 Duo outperforms its rivals in almost all areas, by a large margin. 33% over an equivelant AMD processor in one example, but that is not the norm. The difference between Core 2 Duo and a single core processor in benchmark results I have seen is marked.

The simplest summery would be that strong dual core lines such as AMDs high end processors and Core 2 Duo offer a much more powerful processor than two cores implies, but that as ever you should check yourself for what you need, what you want and what solution offers you the best value for money.

Quad Cores appear to offer a level of processing power that many will simply not require for a few years or more. They do offer the kind of performance advantage over dual cores that the initial dual cores offered over single cores. The best description I read was that the first dual cores were simply two processors mounted on a single die, but that later dual cores are complete single processor solutions incorperating two cores and the latest advances in technology. Quad Cores currently are two dual cores mounted on a single die.

[Incinerate_IV]

They are still learning how to properly utilise 2 cores let alone 4.

Agreed. On most applications and games, the performance between a dual core and quad core processor with the same clock speed is exactly the same.

By the time quad core will actually be useful, I bet much cheaper quad core processors would have came out. Buying it now is just a waste of money.

[eventhorizen]

Agreed. On most applications and games, the performance between a dual core and quad core processor with the same clock speed is exactly the same.

By the time quad core will actually be useful, I bet much cheaper quad core processors would have came out. Buying it now is just a waste of money.

That doesnt make any senses. Are you saying that 2 ghz 4 cores operates at the same level of performance as 2ghz 2 cores? Thats just an example of not being able to load the processor high enough to experiance its advantage.

One place you do see a distinct advantage in quad cores over dual cores is when they are combined to the Nvidia 8800 series GPU. The 8800 series is such a powerful GPU that most high end Core 2 Duo processors bottleneck the GPU considerably. In order to actually experiance the 20% - 30% - 40% performance increases over the X1950XTX you require other hardware that does not limit your overall performance.

Thus a quad core is no more a waste of money than an 8800GTX, and you will find plenty of people on here running those with an E6600 or less.

I agree that it is better to wait a couple of years untill quad cores become fully integrated next generation processors, but it is not necessarilly true that have no usage, value, or do not hold top position in performance hardware.

[drak10687]

That doesnt make any senses. Are you saying that 2 ghz 4 cores operates at the same level of performance as 2ghz 2 cores? Thats just an example of not being able to load the processor high enough to experiance its advantage.

I think that is what he is saying, that most games today will only run on only ONE of the multiple 2gzh+ cores. Of course, one of those 2gzh+ cores is still better than a p4 2gzh core, but the point is that if the game is only using one, it doesn't matter how many you have... the only advantage will be that if you are running many background apps., then their the processing power needed for them can be transfered to the other cores...

[OTZ]

Pretty much agree with what's been said...quad cores are just for bragging rights at the moment. That being said, with the way tech advances on almost a daily basis, it might not be that long before they have their uses for mainstream PC users.

[Erik]

Is this the next step up from Core 2 Duo's, rendering them obsolete?

I'm afraid so.

Chip makers seem to have a very hard time pushing the clock speeds higher (the traditional an preferred way of improving computing power).

So the only way they can keep improving (and thus keep selling us new products) is by adding more and more cores or by improving the efficiency of the cores.

This is a sad thing because a 6Ghz Core 2 Duo would be better than a 3Ghz Core 2 Quad in every way.

Is it worth buying a new computer with a C2D now?

Was it worth buying that 1.5Ghz P4, knowing that you can buy 3Ghz P4's today?

I am going to say yes because my 100 euro Core 2 Duo E4300 gives me ample speed for now, even on standard clocks.
And by the time I really need more processing power I'm sure I can buy a four or eight core model for under 150 euro's.

Buying top-of-the-line computer components is usually a very bad investment because they usually cost at least twice as much as the mid range products, while performing only marginally better.

Current Core 2 Quad's are nothing more than two Conroe ("Core 2 Duo") chips packed together, so naturally they are costing twice as much while delivering less than twice as much performance.

[Freddie]

Oh please not another Dual/Quad myth thread.

1) “You don’t need Dual/Quad core since games only use a single core”

Yes it’s true most games only use a single core because 99% of PC games were written before multithreaded gaming was conceived but please don’t start buying into the myth that multiple core processors are a waste of money. The fact is that CPU’s are now more efficient and do more work per clock cycle hence even in non multithread app’s they are faster then the fastest single core processor around. To give you some idea of how much better newer ships are you would have to overclock an older P4 Prescott to around 5Ghz to get anywhere near a Core 2 Duo 6600.

2) “There aren’t any games are written for Dual/Quad Core Processors”

Wrong yet again. Read it and weap

- Quake 4 (via a patch)
- Supreme Commander
- Command & Conquer 3
- Half Life 2: Episode 2
- Falcon 4
- Serious Sam 2
- F.E.A.R
- World of Warcraft
- BioShock
- Assassin’s Creed
- Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
- Stranglehold
- Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
- The Movies (quite why this needs multithreaded support I don’t know so don’t ask)
- Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
- Splinter Cell
- King Kong
- Prey (via a patch)
- Doom 3 (via a patch)
- World in Conflict

I could add a load more if I wanted to but I’ve made my point

3) “Quad is for bragging purposes only”

People that say is people who like myself, can’t afford a genuine quad processor (don’t give me all that AMD 4 x 4 rubbish). Now enough with the bluster and on with the facts, on the list above many for those games are multithreaded enabled which means it will uses all the logical cores on the die (others like Quake 4 are only designed to use 2 cores). In fact having four cores is hugely beneficial since it allows programmes to adding fancy effect like real time physics rendering, dedicated A.I processing, weather mapping, etc. Not only that video encoding which a few years ago would take hours (if your encoding DVD to XVID) is can be done in the fraction of the time. For example it takes me les the an hour to do a two movie on a 3Ghz core 2 Duo, if running a programme like Virtual dub or TEMpeg, you can get the work done even quicker.

If you’re considering a quad core processor I would do some reading first, Intel latest quad runs at 2.93 Ghz and uses the same amour of power as it’s predecessor. Secondly Intel will be launching Peryrn shortly, and early benchmark suggests it will be bee’s knees in terms of performance, plus you never know AMD might throw up a surprise.

Now all I ask is that we please put to bed all the multiple core myths that for some reason still persist in these forums.

[Aristocrat]

The point is quad core as yet doesn't offer a better purchase than dual core.
Sure it does outperform dual core in some apps, and in some games, but the fact is that at the moment dual core cpu's are more than enough.
Also, the current quad core architecture is not really quad core, it is just two dual cores on the one chip.

Short and simple answer on quad cores. Wait till AMD releases it's lineup and the price war we currently see being fought in dual core processors moves to quad cores, not only will you save money, but you will get a better product.

And most games, to my knowledge, as yet do not use more than 2 cores to any great effect. Looking at the benchmarks at Tomshardware demonstrates this. The next generation of games might, but not this one. Anything more than 2 cores is essentially overkill in a gaming computer right now, but if you have the money and must have the absolute best...sure go and spend $1000 on a processor....and while your doing that I will build a rig that can play most games just as good for that price.

[OTZ]

...exactly why I said it's for bragging rights. Sorry Freddie, I didn't say this because I can't afford one, so I don't fit into your stereotype (and I am sure there are quite a few people on this forum who also don't.)

Quad core has it's uses, but it's for a niche market right now - not for the mainstream. It'll be a year or more before the majority of PC users will have a need (or the ability) to get a quad core PC.

[Freddie]

And most games, to my knowledge, as yet do not use more than 2 cores to any great effect. Looking at the benchmarks at Tomshardware demonstrates this. The next generation of games might, but not this one. Anything more than 2 cores is essentially overkill in a gaming computer right now, but if you have the money and must have the absolute best...sure go and spend $1000 on a processor....and while your doing that I will build a rig that can play most games just as good for that price.

Have a look at benchmarks for Quake 4 before and after the dual core patch, you will a noiticable preformance booost when the game is using both cores.




Look at the SNP scores

...exactly why I said it's for bragging rights. Sorry Freddie, I didn't say this because I can't afford one, so I don't fit into your stereotype (and I am sure there are quite a few people on this forum who also don't.)

Quad core has it's uses, but it's for a niche market right now - not for the mainstream. It'll be a year or more before the majority of PC users will have a need (or the ability) to get a quad core PC.

Mainstream market is basic office workstations, but I know what you mean. The fact is people use their PC's for more then one function, myself use my PC to game and to encode my DVD's (a part of my HTPC project), and I need both cores to do the work. I can't be the only one here who encodes videos or works with music files or uses file compression technology ( ZIP, WINrar etc). The fact that Quad core processors aren't used my the mainstream doesn't mean there aren’t mainstream uses for them, hence if you have cash to splash Quad cores shouldn't be overlooked.

[KaerMorhen]

Not to mention dual core cpu's are becoming redicuously cheap thanks to AMD and Intel engaging in a price war.

and this 'war' does really make me happy!!!

[Erik]

Quad core has it's uses, but it's for a niche market right now - not for the mainstream.

I wonder if video/photo editing is really that more of a niche market than high end gaming.

Think about all the people who have digital (video-)camera's.

[Elrond]

I have a dual core Pentium (not to be mistaken for a core duo) they are cheaper and almost as good.

They can clock to about 3.5ghz per core and have a 2mb cache - who needs more than that atm???

Quad cores are a waste of money because by the time they are being fully utililised the type of people who buy them would have already bought a new computer.

[Citizen]

The 8800 series is such a powerful GPU that most high end Core 2 Duo processors bottleneck the GPU considerably. In order to actually experiance the 20% - 30% - 40% performance increases over the X1950XTX you require other hardware that does not limit your overall performance.

And that doesn't make any sense either.

No it would not... the Graphics card wouldn't do anything to the CPU as the Graphics card will be doing Graphic related tasks, thus cutting the ammount of tasks the CPU would otherwise be doing with, say, an intergrated graphics card.

In fact, if anything, just having a graphics card will un-bottleneck a CPU!