X2 vs Quad Core - is it worth?

[saquib]

Okay, on my current setup, all i need to get is a AMD64 X2 4800+ CPU without any other upgrade, but the new AMD's Quad Core is coming up - and I'm tight on budget: For the Quad I'm gonna have to change prettymuch of everything. Gaming is pretty much my main concern and my systems is doing just fine with my current setup.

Do MULTITHREADED games work better for "MORE" cores? Or Do they need to be Optimized for Specific Number of cores? I mean, a game that can take advantage of a Dual Core CPU, would also take advantage of Quad Cores? I'm not interested in playing games and ripping DVDs, and if there is very ittle perf increase, i aint interested in it then yet. Wanna keep this system up with 4800+ now, a G80 next year may be along with my 2GB RAM.

Is it worth spending all the extra money for AMD's Quad Core?

[skool h8r]

Not worth the extra money for a quad. The advantage of a dual core is that games like cell-factor that usually need a physx to be decent, will use the 2nd core instead if one isn't present. Ask Cadaveca (think it wa shim who started that thread about it ages ago). I would just get the 4800 dual core because quad cores will be expensive when they are first released, as is all new technology. It's gonna be a few years before they come down in price.

As for multithreading on more cores, it's not better as the games need to be optimized to thread across cores. If they're not, there's no advantage.

HTH,
Scott.

[saquib]

thanks a lot. i'd stick to the 4800+ then. btw, i want to keep my existing OS without complete reinstallation (along wid apps and everything else) , is dat possible? wud it create probs??

[madcatmk3]

not if you change your mobo. WIndows doesnt like that.

[saquib]

so, if i keep all my other hardware including mobo same... then there's no need to do anything to my existing OS to use the new dual core cpu right? and my games and other apps that are capale of multi-threading would take start taking dual core's advantage as well?

[Samuknow]

You can do a repair option and most things will still work . You will have to register XP again.

I have repaired several OS system changes with good sucess...

[skool h8r]

Yes, the repair options is quite efficient. If you read some reviews though, the reviewer complains that it rarely works. It's not the case and it's probably that they don't have experience with working with it. It's simple to use as well.

[noob]

The repair install is very simple, and essentially replaces all the MS OS files with whats on the disk.

I suggest, removing all drivers in safe mode first, then the repair install, then installing new drivers.

The advantage is its like a new install (except registry) except you don't lose whats on your HDD.

[saquib]

thanks... but for repair, all i need to do,, is unload drivers, nothing else right?

[Samuknow]

Right. Uninstall the drivers, boot to the XP cd. Skip the first repair option. Hit F8 select the next repair option. It will delete all the windows files and then copy the new ones. You will have to input your key ant some point and your off. When it boots back to windows, you will have to reinstall your drivers and updates. Most if not all of your installed programs will still work.
This is the short version but you get the jist.

[aghastpumpkin]

Repair has never worked for me so be prepared!

[Rondog]

If you are just changing the CPU alone, don't do anything. Works fine IMHO.

[dsio]

I for one will be holding off for an AMD quad core, rather than going dual core. Ordered a couple of new toys in preparation for that the other day, a TT Kandalf LCS, (Al) and an Enermax Galaxy. Still a fair way away unfortunately, but I very much doubt that intel's quad core will tempt me. Hopefully there will be some better ATI AMD motherboards by then as well, and if ATI can get its act together and release a video card with working drivers, I might even get one of them to go with it. I'm not holding my breath though...

It would depend heavily on your use, but I think QC will be a massive performance advantage for my uses.

[keithwalton]

I'm still chuckling at the coverage amd's 4x4 / quad core project is getting. Personally i dont see what the fuss is all about!
For starters its going to be opterons only, which is a direct competitor to the intel xeon.
So 4x4 is going to be a twin cpu dual core affair, big deal. You can get a pair of 51** xeon cpu's now into a system which gives you 4 very good cpu cores. Heck apple use this in the mac pro and have done for months already.

This morning came the breaking news that by somthing like Q3 next year you might be able to get a pair of quad core amd cpu's into a system giving you 8 cpus on one board. Which L'inq have called the octo fx, and octopus lol (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36004)
what is so amazing about a twin dual core system becoming a twin quad core system.
HELLO xeon 5300 series cpu's ... Quad core already and can be run in existing xeon boards which includes dual socket boards.
So if you wanted to you could have 8 good cpu cores in one system with a total of 16megs of l2 cache (4x4megs) already.
Someone did it to a mac pro when the new xeons first came out!

[Samuknow]

And as you say what is all the fuss? Does the average user see a benefit? Heck, does a hardcore gamer. It is all a scam. Bigger better faster.

The one true benefit....8 F@H cores running....now that's sweet.

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by dsio

I for one will be holding off for an AMD quad core, rather than going dual core.

It would depend heavily on your use, but I think QC will be a massive performance advantage for my uses.

Would appreciate a little explanation on this. I know that for desktop machines, even dual core is generally overkill since the applications are almost exlusively single threaded and most users are too.

Now, I've built dual core machines and appreciate their multitasking advantages (though I really only benefit here and there), but from what I understand, the quad cores are basically two cores too many for desktop usage. Supposedly, their target is really the server environment. Probably why Opteron is their introduction vehicle.

In your situation, how does the quad core provide a useful advantage?

Thanks!

[dsio]

I use linux almost exclusively, and I nearly always have several very CPU heavy tasks running concurrently. Right now, I have 6 CPU intensive Python programs running at once, along with X, AIGLX and everything else. In terms of general use, I nearly always have upwards of 30 windows or applications running at once, 6 or so SSH terminals, compilers, applications being tested, my OpenGL compositing manager, X itself, monitoring applications and scripts, mail, messengers, and Kaffeine (music).

If I can get a quad core part, with say, 8GiB of DDR2, it would do wonders for me. Mind you, I would only get an AMD quad core part, as this intel "Smithfield strikes back" thing is about as half arsed as it gets.

Linux will put as much power as you can throw at it to work. When I tried a Merom 2Ghz 4MB cache laptop that a mate is using with FC6 x64 + Beryl/AIGLX, I was dumbfounded by how quick and responsive it was compared to my Athlon 64 (thats part of why I'm ordering a Merom 2Ghz in a week and a half).

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by dsio

I use linux almost exclusively, and I nearly always have several very CPU heavy tasks running concurrently. Right now, I have 6 CPU intensive Python programs running at once, along with X, AIGLX and everything else. In terms of general use, I nearly always have upwards of 30 windows or applications running at once, 6 or so SSH terminals, compilers, applications being tested, my OpenGL compositing manager, X itself, monitoring applications and scripts, mail, messengers, and Kaffeine (music).

If I can get a quad core part, with say, 8GiB of DDR2, it would do wonders for me. Mind you, I would only get an AMD quad core part, as this intel "Smithfield strikes back" thing is about as half arsed as it gets.

Linux will put as much power as you can throw at it to work. When I tried a Merom 2Ghz 4MB cache laptop that a mate is using with FC6 x64 + Beryl/AIGLX, I was dumbfounded by how quick and responsive it was compared to my Athlon 64 (thats part of why I'm ordering a Merom 2Ghz in a week and a half).

Suffice it to say, I'm seriously impressed and I'm imagining it's pretty important to keep all that data in memory simultaneously (8GB ). In my own experience with just two cores, it's not at all difficult to end up disc bound and consequently underutilizing even the 2X that I have. Now I've only 1GB DDR, but I also have only a tiny fragment of the workload you described. That makes me wonder if your eventual quad may actually under-deliver for the same reason.

PS. Glad to hear the Intel Quad implimentation is looking the weaker of the two. Although I prefer the current AMD pricing, I did enjoy the brief AMD ascendency .

[keithwalton]

I do wonder how you have come to the conclusion that its the weaker of the two.

The intel solution is avaliable now, works in existing core 2 motherboards, its two conroe cores in a single package. overclocks nicely to the mid 3GHz on nothing fancy cooling. All cores run on a common fsb to the system, which is not really bottlenecking the system. Each pair of core's dynamically share the l2 cache.

The amd solution isnt yet avaliable its been delayed they aimed to launch by the time the intel chips hit the shelves, thats been and gone nearly a month ago. Even though its code name has been 4x4 its really 2x2. Its not actually quad core yet.
It requires a new motherboard with two socket 1207F's the board is very expensive at $300+ and will require 4 banks of ram.
As its twin socket if core 1 wants to talk to core 3 it has to via the external hypertransport bus.

When amd called intels solution not a true quad core, they did shoot themselves in the foot. At least the kentsfield is 4 cores on a single chip and not two cores on two chips.

You may also wish to read, http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36050 seems at best the amd chip can keep up, it does loose at media encoding and draws alot more power.
I'd be impressed if you could buy two Fx70's for $599 though add $300 for the mobo, currently on newegg and fx62 is $695 ... somthing doesnt add up!

If you do look at the benchmarks note its a 2.66GHz intel vs. a 3GHz amd!

The following image i thought was the amd actually winning a benchmark, alas no, its power consumption looks like you'll need a new psu!!!!
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2...29/graph16.htm

and finally the amd system is using 4x1GB of ram, the intel 2x1GB! not exactly fair now...

[dsio]

$1500USD at newegg, $3500AUD locally does not, an available CPU maketh.

Then theres the approximate two month wait to get one in this country, and long waits in the US etc.