Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
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.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
Some applications, such as Photoshop, are coded so that they can use
multiple cores simultaneously to speed up large computing tasks. Also, as
you mentioned, if you multitask by running several applications
simultaneously then each core of a quad-core could handle one of each of the
tasks.
--
--DaveW
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:9apSj.12796$GE1.3718@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> 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
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait and
hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on the
"extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to take
advantage of more cores.
--
If you'd like to see a little technical discussion on the subject,
check out the thread in (sci.electronics.design).
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
> faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
> core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
> IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait and
> hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on the
> "extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to take
> advantage of more cores.
???? I think the Q6600 is _very_ well priced. I just installed a G0
stepping Q6600 on an Abit IP35Pro and it went straight to 3GHz with no
issues.... I didn't even have to increase the core voltage. I've been
running BOINC on it for a week which is loading all four cores to 100%
and it is rock solid stable. So, four cores at 3GHz for a little over
$220? You just can't go wrong! A dual core E6850 for $30 less would be
left in it's dust as an overclocked Q6600 at 3GHz is running the same 9x
multiplier and clock speed but has twice the cores. To me, the extra
money for the Q6600 is $30 very well spent!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
>> faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
>> core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
>> IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait
>> and hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on
>> the "extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to
>> take advantage of more cores.
>
> ????
I will attempt to clear up your misunderstanding.
> I think the Q6600 is _very_ well priced.
What part of "3GH+" don't you understand?
> I just installed a G0 stepping Q6600 on an Abit IP35Pro and it
> went straight to 3GHz with no issues.... I didn't even have to
> increase the core voltage.
But of course I'm talking about stock speeds. If you want to get all
excited about overclocking, there are better groups IMO.
> I've been running BOINC on it for a week which is loading all four
> cores to 100%
That's nice.
> So, four cores at 3GHz for a little over $220?
But in fact, the Q6600 is 2.4 GHz (and $220 US at Newegg, or $650 on
eBay).
> You just can't go wrong!
I agree. But lots of other overly excited users say exactly the
same about the E6850.
> A dual core E6850 for $30 less would be left in it's dust as an
> overclocked Q6600 at 3GHz is running the same 9x multiplier and
> clock speed but has twice the cores.
There are a thousand other silly overclockers who disagree with you.
> To me, the extra money for the Q6600 is $30 very well spent!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
>>> faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
>>> core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
>>> IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait
>>> and hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on
>>> the "extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to
>>> take advantage of more cores.
>> ????
>
> I will attempt to clear up your misunderstanding.
>
>> I think the Q6600 is _very_ well priced.
>
> What part of "3GH+" don't you understand?
I understood it perfectly well. My Q6600 will go to 3GHz+ with ease.
>> I just installed a G0 stepping Q6600 on an Abit IP35Pro and it
>> went straight to 3GHz with no issues.... I didn't even have to
>> increase the core voltage.
>
> But of course I'm talking about stock speeds. If you want to get all
> excited about overclocking, there are better groups IMO.
An E6850 is just an E6600 overclocked to 3GHz and a different label on
it. They are both Conroe cores and both have a 9x multiplier. The only
difference is that Intel guarantee the E6850 to run at 3GHz. So, my
comparison with a Q6600 is very valid as it too has a 9x multiplier and
can run at 3GHz, it just doesn't have the Intel guarantee that it will
do so (but read around and you'll be hard pressed to find a G0 stepping
that won't).
>> I've been running BOINC on it for a week which is loading all four
>> cores to 100%
>
> That's nice.
Just doing my bit for medical research when the computer is idle.
>> So, four cores at 3GHz for a little over $220?
>
> But in fact, the Q6600 is 2.4 GHz (and $220 US at Newegg, or $650 on
> eBay).
I think you'll find I said it was $220 and yes, it is only guaranteed by
Intel to do 2.4GHz but anyone who has been following the Core2
architecture understands that a very, very high percentage will run 3GHz
without missing a beat, particularly if it is the G0 stepping.
>> You just can't go wrong!
>
> I agree. But lots of other overly excited users say exactly the
> same about the E6850.
Which is just an E6600 that has been overclocked by Intel and rebadged....
>> A dual core E6850 for $30 less would be left in it's dust as an
>> overclocked Q6600 at 3GHz is running the same 9x multiplier and
>> clock speed but has twice the cores.
>
> There are a thousand other silly overclockers who disagree with you.
Which part would they disagree with? Explain how two cores running at
3GHz would be faster than four cores running at 3GHz?
>> To me, the extra money for the Q6600 is $30 very well spent!
>
> You aren't "the majority of users".
I like a bargain, if others don't, well, that's their problem
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
....
> Which is just an E6600 that has been overclocked by Intel and rebadged....
That's just nonsense.
The rest of your argument is tedious and immature IMO. Post your
opinions to one of the overclocking groups, refer to it here, and I
will take a look at what you come up with.
>
>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c om!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com! news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:00 -0500
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:45 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <IJISj.2004$J16.1469 newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> <RL-dnWpMd7_I74bVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d comcast.com> <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> In-Reply-To: <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 76
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-0W1A1mmQxjW6LEeGbtgx59JOd06mqcFynyCxyPgp/S1gDB8tlwkqQgPCay81qI53d/lFPKmpJosomUp!hCTomeUFGPTc59LCGZNjQ5fkifY0LsTdTpJu y7sjkD4dl1QNsPFyu6vK4KZDy9pXjCc+Wfhxd74q!D5FLHzgq0 skmuC+h92CQQ8/pmSFt
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 4324
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505798
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:04 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Which is just an E6600 that has been overclocked by Intel and rebadged....
>
> That's just nonsense.
How so? Both are Conroe cores, both have 9x multipliers, they just run
a different clock speed when running stock. What evidence have you to
refute that.
> The rest of your argument is tedious and immature IMO.
The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with.... IMO, of
course
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:nPMSj.8227$iK6.1041@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....
>
> You are just a troll.
Differences between quad core and faster dual core? 
Linear Mode
