However impressive, Intel seems to be having trouble making the
E8000 series (that's one possibility, based on the fact they have
been frequently out of stock).
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote...
>
> I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> question would apply to single versus dual.
>
> What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual core
> CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of things
> does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> processing allow? An explanation or references would be appreciated.
First, a dual-core CPU will almost always allow your foreground app to run
better than a single-core in current systems with "normal" setups. After that,
it depends on how many apps/processes you have running, how heavily they burden
the CPU, and whether each of those apps can take advantage of multiple CPUs.
If you are running a single, single-threaded (i.e., cannot take advantage of
multiple CPUs) foreground app like MSIE or Word, and all your background
processes (OS, antivirus, firewall, etc) do not overburden a CPU, then you will
see better performance on that foreground app with a faster dual-core CPU than a
slower quad-core CPU on the same system.
However, if you are running a multi-threaded, SMP-aware foreground app like
Photoshop, it will likely run faster on a slightly slower quad-core CPU than the
faster dual-core.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
>>> practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
>>> speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
>>> must be overclock by 50%.
>> Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
>> considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz as
>> the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see the
>> Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
>> overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850?
>
> Only in a vacuum.
>
> The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their stock coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If you're interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler point is reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.
You clearly don't have a clue.... do the math (please, so you stop
looking like a fool) then get back to me with an answer to how a Q6600
that is 33% overclocked can possibly be slower than an E6850. Both
running 3GHz, both have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as many cores.
_How_ can that possibly be slower?
>> And before you answer, remember, both are Conroe cores and both
>> have 9x multipliers! This is not difficult math!
>
> Are you spitting on your monitor or drooling while typing that stuff?
I suspect what you're looking at is yourself in the reflection of your
monitor.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:17:00 GMT, "Fishface" <invalid@ddress.ok?>
wrote:
>John Doe wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
>> overclocking.
>
>This really has nothing about being grown-up. It's a choice we have
>each made based upon different perceptions of the same reality.
>While I have made a significant investment of time to insure stability, I
>would do the with a stock system.
>
<snip>
>I think you are putting too much significance on three gigahertz, perhaps
>comparing clock speed to what you have now. My wife's XP system has an
>E4500 at stock 2.2 GHz speed with 2 GB DDR2 and integrated graphics.
>In "normal use," which I define as not 3D gaming and not video editing, I
>can't tell the difference in speed. Even her most demanding Flash based
>Webkinz games play smoothly.
>
My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
games. If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about
adults.
> My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
> is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
> games.
There's one called "Home After Dark." Try that one on his computer, and on
yours. Then tell me it plays OK. It even lags on the P4P800-SE with Pentium-M
at 2.4 GHz with 6800 video and 2 GB RAM
> If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about adults.
What?! My wife does it and my six year old does it. I play "Home After
Dark" sometimes to help him build-up his Kinzcash. I am still a teenager,
you know-- I'm umpteen.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:59:52 GMT, "Fishface" <invalid@ddress.ok?>
wrote:
>overload@spam.ftc.gov wrote:
>
>> My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
>> is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
>> games.
>
>There's one called "Home After Dark." Try that one on his computer, and on
>yours. Then tell me it plays OK. It even lags on the P4P800-SE with Pentium-M
>at 2.4 GHz with 6800 video and 2 GB RAM
Tried it. Works fine on the eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII
with 800 FSB. I believe there's 512Mb RAM and an Asus V7700 series
GeForce2GTS. Don't remember exactly which disks are in the system, but
they are 7200 rpm and 20, 40, and 80 GB arranged as DASD. It's running
either Win2K SP4 or WinXP SP2 at the moment. (I use the classic
interface on all of my machines, so they look alike.)
Ain't that a ****er -- you have a machine that's three times faster,
with four times more RAM, and it's slower than an eight year old box.
>> If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about adults.
>
>What?! My wife does it and my six year old does it. I play "Home After
>Dark" sometimes to help him build-up his Kinzcash. I am still a teenager,
>you know-- I'm umpteen.
And my 10-year old daughter has far too many webkinz. At the moment,
she's swatting Wacky Zingos over a thousand feet on Webkinz World.
(You have to buy the Wacky Zingo and register it to get to that level
of the game.)
She's learning how to animate a mermaid in Poser 7 which doesn't run
on her machine. (you want the kid to learn something, get them
something that interests them. She gets a new machine soon so she can
do animation without using mine.)
Speaking of still being a teenager (umpteen), remember that children
shouldn't have children.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> GUEST wrote:
> I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> question would apply to single versus dual.
>
> What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual
core
> CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of
things
> does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> processing allow? An explanation or references would be
appreciated.
> I might do a little research in the meantime.
>
> This is just a guess.
> Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
> enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
> would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
> some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
> interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
> you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
> coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
> the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
> those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> yeah, I'm giddy
IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things can
easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz PC's...but not
so much these days. Of the two processors you mentioned here, go with
the less expensive one and spend that extra $$ on more RAM.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:TKCdnX4Uvv6JVr3VnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > GUEST wrote:
> > I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> > question would apply to single versus dual.
> >
> > What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual
> core
> > CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of
> things
> > does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> > processing allow? An explanation or references would be
> appreciated.
> > I might do a little research in the meantime.
> >
> > This is just a guess.
> > Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
> > enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
> > would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
> > some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
> > interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
> > you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
> > coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
> > the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
> > those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > yeah, I'm giddy
>
> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things can
> easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>
> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz PC's...but not
> so much these days. Of the two processors you mentioned here, go with
> the less expensive one and spend that extra $$ on more RAM.
>
Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high (running it
too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the time and research what
you are doing. Intel core 2 duos are extremely overclockable. I've got a
E6420 2.13 Ghz running at 3.0 Ghz stable and running cool. Thats a marked
improvment in performance.
> Tried it. Works fine on the eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII
> with 800 FSB. I believe there's 512Mb RAM and an Asus V7700 series
> GeForce2GTS. Don't remember exactly which disks are in the system, but
> they are 7200 rpm and 20, 40, and 80 GB arranged as DASD. It's running
> either Win2K SP4 or WinXP SP2 at the moment. (I use the classic
> interface on all of my machines, so they look alike.)
>
> Ain't that a ****er -- you have a machine that's three times faster,
> with four times more RAM, and it's slower than an eight year old box.
No, you just don't know how it's supposed to run. Didn't run good on
Tualatin Celerons at 1.466 GHz either. You can watch in task manager
how it maxes out the CPU. It starts fairly OK but just keeps getting
slower. You really need those tiles to rotate instantly when clicked
to get only one rat and toy in the Party room at a time for maximum
score before you hit the virtually unplayable levels.
> And my 10-year old daughter has far too many webkinz. At the moment,
> she's swatting Wacky Zingos over a thousand feet on Webkinz World.
> (You have to buy the Wacky Zingo and register it to get to that level
> of the game.)
>
> She's learning how to animate a mermaid in Poser 7 which doesn't run
> on her machine. (you want the kid to learn something, get them
> something that interests them. She gets a new machine soon so she can
> do animation without using mine.)
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core? 
Linear Mode
