In message <Tk9sk.7283$lU5.5401@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>
"Jonathan" <Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>I have been offered a CPU(Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E8500 (6M Cache, 3.16
>GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) ) that does not use HT. Is this a chip I should avoid?
>
> Someone has offered to sell me a system with this chip on an Intel DG31PR
>but I need some comments if possible.
In short, no.
HyperThreading was a hack to get around a significant design flaw
(pipeline length) in the P4 line of CPUs that made it difficult for
certain types of loads to effectively utilize the CPU.
The Core 2 line was a redesign that used a reasonable pipeline length
and doesn't suffer from the P4's limitation, and as a result, doesn't
require HyperThreading.
"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:hsa2b4dt38rr6p35l6dgrtba9eqdfop9ff@4ax.com
> In message
> <Tk9sk.7283$lU5.5401@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>
>>I have been offered a CPU(Intel® CoreT2 Duo Processor
>>E8500 (6M Cache, 3.16 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) ) that does not
>>use HT. Is this a chip I should avoid?
>>
>> Someone has offered to sell me a system with this chip
>>on an Intel DG31PR but I need some comments if possible.
>
> In short, no.
>
> HyperThreading was a hack to get around a significant
> design flaw (pipeline length) in the P4 line of CPUs that
> made it difficult for certain types of loads to
> effectively utilize the CPU.
>
> The Core 2 line was a redesign that used a reasonable
> pipeline length and doesn't suffer from the P4's
> limitation, and as a result, doesn't require
> HyperThreading.
Thanks for the clarification. Is there any significant differences between
the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good idea to choose one over
the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather then just 2?
In article <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
Jonathan says...
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any significant differences between
> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good idea to choose one over
> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather then just 2?
>
Not at the moment as most software is still not designed with SMP in
mind.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
"Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
> Jonathan says...
>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any significant differences
>> between
>> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good idea to choose one
>> over
>> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather then just 2?
>>
> Not at the moment as most software is still not designed with SMP in
> mind.
>
> --
> Conor
I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use, but I have noticed a
distict improvement since upgrading to a quad core. I tend to do quite a
lot of graphics (rendering and video editing) so my experience may not be
typical. My Q6600 does give me better games performance than my mates'
E6600 even though his graphics card is better.
More and more software and games is being written for multi-core (ie more
than just two) and I think it would be a false economy to buy a DualCore
just because you won't use a QuadCore fully right now.
The Q6600 is very good value for money right now too!
Rarius
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
"Rarius" <rarius@rarius.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1219588054_251@pro-front01.com
> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In article
>> <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
>> Jonathan says...
>>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any
>>> significant differences between
>>> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good
>>> idea to choose one over
>>> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather
>>> then just 2?
>> Not at the moment as most software is still not designed
>> with SMP in mind.
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>
> I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use,
> but I have noticed a distict improvement since upgrading to a quad core.
> I
> tend to do quite a lot of graphics (rendering and video editing) so my
> experience may not be typical. My Q6600 does give me better games
> performance
> than my mates' E6600 even though his graphics card is better.
>
> More and more software and games is being written for
> multi-core (ie more than just two) and I think it would be a false economy
> to
> buy a DualCore just because you won't use a QuadCore fully right now.
>
> The Q6600 is very good value for money right now too!
>
> Rarius
I think I might as well go for the Quad in that case. I plan on using
MasterCam X and editing large photographic files. No gaming so I would guess
that the Duo would be sufficient but no harm in over kill I guess. Even RAM
seems much cheaper than a few years ago.
In article <1219588054_251@pro-front01.com>, Rarius says...
> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
> > In article <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
> > Jonathan says...
> >> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any significant differences
> >> between
> >> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good idea to choose one
> >> over
> >> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather then just 2?
> >>
> > Not at the moment as most software is still not designed with SMP in
> > mind.
> >
> > --
> > Conor
>
> I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use, but I have noticed a
> distict improvement since upgrading to a quad core. I tend to do quite a
> lot of graphics (rendering and video editing) so my experience may not be
> typical. My Q6600 does give me better games performance than my mates'
> E6600 even though his graphics card is better.
>
Well that's a lot to do with some of the processes being offloaded to
other cores.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:19:57 -0400, "Jonathan"
<Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>
>
>"Rarius" <rarius@rarius.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1219588054_251@pro-front01.com
>> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In article
>>> <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
>>> Jonathan says...
>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any
>>>> significant differences between
>>>> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good
>>>> idea to choose one over
>>>> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather
>>>> then just 2?
>>> Not at the moment as most software is still not designed
>>> with SMP in mind.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Conor
>>
>> I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use,
>> but I have noticed a distict improvement since upgrading to a quad core.
BUT was all else equal? Was the quad core supposed to
otherwise have the same speed per core as the dual core or
higher clockspeed? Quad can definitely improve performance
in some areas but in others a faster dual core (at about the
same price) will have higher performance so it's really a
question of the jobs ran vs. the budget. If it weren't for
these factors, sure 4 cores at the same speed as 2 cores
would obviously be better.
>> I
>> tend to do quite a lot of graphics (rendering and video editing) so my
>> experience may not be typical. My Q6600 does give me better games
>> performance
>> than my mates' E6600 even though his graphics card is better.
Certainly many rendering and video editing tasks will be
faster with more cores, but it is very rare for games to
benefit as much from more than 2 cores as from higher
clockspeed cores, unless you had other apps running in the
background that consumed a significant amount of processor
time while most people's systems aren't consuming but a
couple percent from background apps while gaming.
>>
>> More and more software and games is being written for
>> multi-core (ie more than just two) and I think it would be a false economy
>> to
>> buy a DualCore just because you won't use a QuadCore fully right now.
>>
>> The Q6600 is very good value for money right now too!
>>
>> Rarius
>
> I think I might as well go for the Quad in that case. I plan on using
>MasterCam X and editing large photographic files.
I'm not familiar with MasterCam X, nor do we know what
you're editing the photos with. It is not the type of
application that benefits or doesn't necessarily, it's
whether you are using software specifically optimized for
more than 2 cores. You should research this if you need to
be certain, per title and version.
>No gaming so I would guess
>that the Duo would be sufficient but no harm in over kill I guess. Even RAM
>seems much cheaper than a few years ago.
Yes, on a mid-grade or better system you might as well
install the full 4GB the board supports. Yet, on a
mid-range or better system you might consider a more full
featured motherboard, one with more than 4GB/2 memory slots
on it, and while the intel integrated video is sufficient
for typical 2D tasks, it is not so good for HD movie
playback and from the off-angle picture I saw of the board
it appears to only have analog video output which could be
significant if you're using a higher resolution monitor.
By today's standards that motherboard is pretty low end from
a feature standpoint, a bit outclassed by the CPUs you're
considering. That doesn't make it a bad board if it has all
the features you're wanting but a basic Foxconn (their
manufacturer) board like that usually costs less per similar
or has more features at it's typical price-point.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jen3b4h363tnovjiobdoht2h6ciqnnqffm@4ax.com
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:19:57 -0400, "Jonathan"
> <Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Rarius" <rarius@rarius.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1219588054_251@pro-front01.com
>>> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> In article
>>>> <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
>>>> Jonathan says...
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any
>>>>> significant differences between
>>>>> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good
>>>>> idea to choose one over
>>>>> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather
>>>>> then just 2?
>>>> Not at the moment as most software is still not
>>>> designed with SMP in mind.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Conor
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use,
>>> but I have noticed a distict improvement since
>>> upgrading to a quad core.
>
> BUT was all else equal? Was the quad core supposed to
> otherwise have the same speed per core as the dual core or
> higher clockspeed? Quad can definitely improve
> performance in some areas but in others a faster dual
> core (at about the same price) will have higher
> performance so it's really a question of the jobs ran vs.
> the budget. If it weren't for these factors, sure 4
> cores at the same speed as 2 cores would obviously be
> better.
>
>
>
>>> I
>>> tend to do quite a lot of graphics (rendering and video
>>> editing) so my experience may not be typical. My Q6600
>>> does give me better games performance
>>> than my mates' E6600 even though his graphics card is
>>> better.
>
> Certainly many rendering and video editing tasks will be
> faster with more cores, but it is very rare for games to
> benefit as much from more than 2 cores as from higher
> clockspeed cores, unless you had other apps running in the
> background that consumed a significant amount of processor
> time while most people's systems aren't consuming but a
> couple percent from background apps while gaming.
>
>
>>>
>>> More and more software and games is being written for
>>> multi-core (ie more than just two) and I think it would
>>> be a false economy to
>>> buy a DualCore just because you won't use a QuadCore
>>> fully right now.
>>>
>>> The Q6600 is very good value for money right now too!
>>>
>>> Rarius
>>
>> I think I might as well go for the Quad in that case. I
>>plan on using MasterCam X and editing large photographic
>>files.
>
> I'm not familiar with MasterCam X, nor do we know what
> you're editing the photos with. It is not the type of
> application that benefits or doesn't necessarily, it's
> whether you are using software specifically optimized for
> more than 2 cores. You should research this if you need
> to be certain, per title and version.
>
>
>
>>No gaming so I would guess
>>that the Duo would be sufficient but no harm in over kill
>>I guess. Even RAM seems much cheaper than a few years ago.
>
> Yes, on a mid-grade or better system you might as well
> install the full 4GB the board supports. Yet, on a
> mid-range or better system you might consider a more full
> featured motherboard, one with more than 4GB/2 memory
> slots on it, and while the intel integrated video is
> sufficient for typical 2D tasks, it is not so good for HD
> movie playback and from the off-angle picture I saw of
> the board it appears to only have analog video output
> which could be significant if you're using a higher
> resolution monitor.
>
> By today's standards that motherboard is pretty low end
> from a feature standpoint, a bit outclassed by the CPUs
> you're considering. That doesn't make it a bad board if
> it has all the features you're wanting but a basic
> Foxconn (their manufacturer) board like that usually
> costs less per similar or has more features at it's
> typical price-point.
What would you consider a good board would and what other features might be
available? I asked the supplier for HD and was told I only need an HDMI
cable.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:11:56 -0400, "Jonathan"
<Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:jen3b4h363tnovjiobdoht2h6ciqnnqffm@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:19:57 -0400, "Jonathan"
>> <Jonathan@NoSpam.not> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Rarius" <rarius@rarius.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1219588054_251@pro-front01.com
>>>> "Conor" <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6hd2lkFkodnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <2Mask.7284$lU5.6347@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.veri o.net>,
>>>>> Jonathan says...
>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any
>>>>>> significant differences between
>>>>>> the Duo and Quad Core CPUs that would make it a good
>>>>>> idea to choose one over
>>>>>> the other? How about going with 4 Gigs of ram rather
>>>>>> then just 2?
>>>>> Not at the moment as most software is still not
>>>>> designed with SMP in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Conor
>>>>
>>>> I would disagree. Maybe it is just the software I use,
>>>> but I have noticed a distict improvement since
>>>> upgrading to a quad core.
>>
>> BUT was all else equal? Was the quad core supposed to
>> otherwise have the same speed per core as the dual core or
>> higher clockspeed? Quad can definitely improve
>> performance in some areas but in others a faster dual
>> core (at about the same price) will have higher
>> performance so it's really a question of the jobs ran vs.
>> the budget. If it weren't for these factors, sure 4
>> cores at the same speed as 2 cores would obviously be
>> better.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I
>>>> tend to do quite a lot of graphics (rendering and video
>>>> editing) so my experience may not be typical. My Q6600
>>>> does give me better games performance
>>>> than my mates' E6600 even though his graphics card is
>>>> better.
>>
>> Certainly many rendering and video editing tasks will be
>> faster with more cores, but it is very rare for games to
>> benefit as much from more than 2 cores as from higher
>> clockspeed cores, unless you had other apps running in the
>> background that consumed a significant amount of processor
>> time while most people's systems aren't consuming but a
>> couple percent from background apps while gaming.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> More and more software and games is being written for
>>>> multi-core (ie more than just two) and I think it would
>>>> be a false economy to
>>>> buy a DualCore just because you won't use a QuadCore
>>>> fully right now.
>>>>
>>>> The Q6600 is very good value for money right now too!
>>>>
>>>> Rarius
>>>
>>> I think I might as well go for the Quad in that case. I
>>>plan on using MasterCam X and editing large photographic
>>>files.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with MasterCam X, nor do we know what
>> you're editing the photos with. It is not the type of
>> application that benefits or doesn't necessarily, it's
>> whether you are using software specifically optimized for
>> more than 2 cores. You should research this if you need
>> to be certain, per title and version.
>>
>>
>>
>>>No gaming so I would guess
>>>that the Duo would be sufficient but no harm in over kill
>>>I guess. Even RAM seems much cheaper than a few years ago.
>>
>> Yes, on a mid-grade or better system you might as well
>> install the full 4GB the board supports. Yet, on a
>> mid-range or better system you might consider a more full
>> featured motherboard, one with more than 4GB/2 memory
>> slots on it, and while the intel integrated video is
>> sufficient for typical 2D tasks, it is not so good for HD
>> movie playback and from the off-angle picture I saw of
>> the board it appears to only have analog video output
>> which could be significant if you're using a higher
>> resolution monitor.
>>
>> By today's standards that motherboard is pretty low end
>> from a feature standpoint, a bit outclassed by the CPUs
>> you're considering. That doesn't make it a bad board if
>> it has all the features you're wanting but a basic
>> Foxconn (their manufacturer) board like that usually
>> costs less per similar or has more features at it's
>> typical price-point.
>
> What would you consider a good board would and what other features might be
>available? I asked the supplier for HD and was told I only need an HDMI
>cable.
>
>Jon.
>
It doesn't do any significant HD acceleration. With a quad
core CPU you have some extra margin to do the decoding but
it still seems mismatched to me, that only the cheapest
systems/budget tend to go with the slowest integrated video
instead of a typical (need not be expensive since you're not
gaming) video card. Then again, that's just me - you might
prefer buying a faster processor with the money saved by not
getting a video card, especially if you're looking to
minimize power consumption as much as possible as a separate
card woth having tends to increase power consumption by
roughly 20W or more, maybe a little less for a basic card
without any 3D gaming.
You have to decide for yourself what is worth more money. I
had the impression you might be buying a barebones bundle so
if that's the case you may have to settle for what options
are available. Some basic features I'd want are more memory
slots, more PCIe slots and/or PCI depending on what cards
you have. A more robust CPU VRM power supply circuit on the
board (though on this I'm thinking more from the perspective
of an overclocker, at stock speed it may not matter so much
for a number of years vs longevity). One good option is to
go to a website like http://www.newegg.com where you can use
a "Power Search" feature to select the feature combinations
you're wanting vs price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/PowerS...280&GASearch=3
I tend to prefer boards made by Asus, Abit (though these
days their future as the same company they were in the past
is subject to speculation), Gigabyte and MSI. Other brands
seem more hit-or-miss, you'd really need to read a review of
anything you're considering if it's a less popular brand...
though this also comes back to issues more important to
overclockers as some boards do fine as intended, just have
better quality components as it would effect the ceiling
clockspeeds only an overclocker or someone wanting it to
have longest lifespan possible (at an extra cost) would care
about.
Another nice thing about Newegg is on the more popular
boards there's a lot of owner reviews where you can focus on
those who had any problems to determine if their problems
would impact your intended use and/or combination of parts
desired. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ue=727%3A10689
Is Hyper-Threading really that important? 
Linear Mode
