Quad Vs. Duo
<div class="IPBDescription">3.0 Ghz Duo Or 2.66 Ghz Quad?</div>I realize this topic maybe out of place here but I have done this on other forums and simply wants to see what the popular opinion is. Feel free to use personal preferences and facts in your posts.
First off, my budget is about $700-850. I was planning on using a Intel as the processor and NVIDIA as the graphics card, mostly because they to work well together, also the computer I plan on building has 4 gigs of ram. That being said here's my main issue is Quad or Duo for modern gaming? And by this I mean is it better to get a faster Duo or a slower Quad? Price/Performance is what I'm looking at.
Another Issue is how many graphic cards I should use? Should I use SLI and use 2 lesser cards or no SLI and get a single higher card?
So to sum it all down
Quad or Duo
1 or 2 cards?
$700-850 budget
Facts and opinions are welcome, I plan on using this computer for at least 2-3 years with upgrades here and there. Thank you for the time and if no one really has any idea well then thanks for your time. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" />
First off, my budget is about $700-850. I was planning on using a Intel as the processor and NVIDIA as the graphics card, mostly because they to work well together, also the computer I plan on building has 4 gigs of ram. That being said here's my main issue is Quad or Duo for modern gaming? And by this I mean is it better to get a faster Duo or a slower Quad? Price/Performance is what I'm looking at.
Another Issue is how many graphic cards I should use? Should I use SLI and use 2 lesser cards or no SLI and get a single higher card?
So to sum it all down
Quad or Duo
1 or 2 cards?
$700-850 budget
Facts and opinions are welcome, I plan on using this computer for at least 2-3 years with upgrades here and there. Thank you for the time and if no one really has any idea well then thanks for your time. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" />
Comments
It depends on what you're doing. If you don't need the cores (most basic apps) then the Quad is a waste. For stuff that uses it (Sup Comm scales to as many cores as it get it's hands on, and I think Crysis can scale to multiple cores) then the Quad would be worth it. Only a few games right now are really getting into even using two cores properly, and the other apps that use them are design applications like video editing and such.
However, since you're projecting for 2-3 years, getting a Quad might be worth it so you don't need to upgrade as more and more programs start to use the multi-core benefits. See Windows and it's insane ideas of the OS using multiple threads. And by insane I mean usually dumb for now, but maybe cool in a year when they get it right.
It also depends on the hit you're taking to get a Quad. If it's half speed, don't bother. The overhead to make multiple threads isn't worth it since you lose efficiency per thread. If it's more like 3GHz versus 2.7GHz, it's much more feasible (I pulled those numbers out from thin air). Also, pay attention to things like on-board memory and such since the more on-chip memory a CPU has, the faster it can run since it doesn't have to access slower stuff off chip.
/disagree.
See this thread for a lengthy discussion on the merits of 2 vs 4 core already:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=105245" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....howtopic=105245</a>
Seems like we get a new "i'm buying a computer" thread every two weeks. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
that is all I'm asking at this point (that other topic did clear some things up for me thanks, I've been gone for about 2 months and didn't see the topic.)
that is all I'm asking at this point (that other topic did clear some things up for me thanks, I've been gone for about 2 months and didn't see the topic.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source uses a lot of threads, but because it still needs to synchronize them (it can't render until the physics is done etc...) it can't make use of multiple cores very well. This is the case with all games, and why I don't think there will be any change in the next 2-4 years.
A dual core with a higher clock is just going to work better.
My point is basically... I would rate clock speed higher in your search than processor count. Source does benefit from more cores, but tests have been done and I believe even Crysis gets a better framerate on the dual core, despite what a previous poster claimed. For video encoding though, quad core was faster.
Here's the article I was referring to. They compared two processors that were at a similar price point and power usage, one dual, one quad.
Here's the link to the game benchmarks page: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-phenom-9350e,2010-6.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-...50e,2010-6.html</a>
Further proof of this being incorrect...
<a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36521/118/" target="_blank">http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36521/118/</a>
Yes, it is being researched but "this research program has a 5-year plan and it may take time until such tools become available. And even then, these tools will need time to make their way to developers out there."
Things aren't going to be changing as fast as you think, spellman.
1 card
4gb (required if you have vista)
600$ budget without operating system.
Voila, get enuff storage, I hate running out constantly.
<a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36521/118/" target="_blank">http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36521/118/</a>
Yes, it is being researched but "this research program has a 5-year plan and it may take time until such tools become available. And even then, these tools will need time to make their way to developers out there."
Things aren't going to be changing as fast as you think, spellman.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can dream!
But yes, I do stand corrected. Good to know there's people who will yell at me to stfu when I'm wrong, otherwise I'd keep propagating my stupidity.
Or get a duo and whine when its clocked at 4.0ghz and gets outpaced by a "lesser quad"
I bought a q6600 last winter and after trying an e8400 for example, do not regret it in the least.
Or get a duo and whine when its clocked at 4.0ghz and gets outpaced by a "lesser quad"
I bought a q6600 last winter and after trying an e8400 for example, do not regret it in the least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought duos were faster than quads still (and cheaper)
Got anything to back quad>duo up?
Got anything to back quad>duo up?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing I saw was that in that tomshardware article it said that they were comparing the more efficient model, but for the same price you could buy a quad core which would probably have outperformed it, but would have used a lot more watts. I haven't been able to find prices that reflect that though...
This <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103228" target="_blank">AMD Athlon 64 X2 3.2Ghz</a> will totally trump this <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244" target="_blank">AMD PHenom X4 2.3Ghz</a> (in handling games), yet the quad is still an extra 20$.
You could go SLI if you want to spend the extra money, but make sure your setup your building will cooperate with it without issues.
Though speaking from the standpoint of a programmer, I can tell you that probably only half of all windows use threading, and of that half, only a fourth use threading for something other than keeping the window 'responsive'. And of that fourth, probably a tenth would ever use anymore than two threads. In other words, your room for improvement is small at best with quad-core. I wouldn't recommend it unless you were a graphics designer requiring photoshop with pov-ray running in the background and eudora open in a typical windows session usage.
Duo-core usually places a larger memory cache than the quad-cores, and for gaming, I can't tell you how incredibly efficient it is. Lets say you need to do collision calculations with two vertex models and you load all the vertices in cpu cache. If you have only enough memory to load one vertex model, you'd overwrite first with the second. If then the first model requires shadow calculations, it's been pushed out of memory and must be reloaded. If it's already there, you save yourself a trip to main memory. We're of course talking about milliseconds of time to access main memory which may not seem much, but consider that these calculations are done at least 60 times every second. It adds up.
It used to be that the clock speed determined the speed of a cpu. Marketers have picked up on this trend and now push for higher clock speed on cpus even if it means worse overall performance. Most people don't know better, so they'll buy the cpus with higher clock speed. It's a load of rubbish nowadays. Look at benchmarks and how they perform producing framerates in high-quality games for a true demonstration of performance, but if you don't have that to go by, general rule of thumb is to get the one with higher chip cache and higher main memory. Even a slower chip with more chip memory can easily outperform a fast chip with low chip memory.
Pentium 4 and it's special way of making super high-speed clock speeds. By making a god awful long and horrendous pipeline. guh.
Ironically, my professor worked on the Pentium 2 architecture, and much of his work has ended up in the Duo Core architecture. =]
Ironically, my professor worked on the Pentium 2 architecture, and much of his work has ended up in the Duo Core architecture. =]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but like everything else in engineering, there are lots of angles and trade offs to consider depending on application. A long, fast pipeline is perfect for things that require it. Take compiling a huge toolkit, for instance. I would give at least 147 hairs from the top of my head for a fast CPU with just enough cache to compile Qt faster than 8 hours. Those 147 hairs are already pulled out by now, so it's no big deal for me to give them up.
All the on-chip cache in the world won't help you if your cpu isn't fast enough to keep it empty.