CPU
-
Hi everyone Which one of these cpus are better? (1) Core2Duo (2)Core2Quad Of course I know quad core is better and powerful than core2duo but I want to know if I buy quadcore what programs can uses of it,Vista needs to core2duo but if can it uses of QuadCore or it uses of it like a Core2Duo and other question is about X38 chipset(Giga-x38-DS5) it can supports 45nm processor but does it work with 65nm processor or its socket is different? Thanks
-
Hi everyone Which one of these cpus are better? (1) Core2Duo (2)Core2Quad Of course I know quad core is better and powerful than core2duo but I want to know if I buy quadcore what programs can uses of it,Vista needs to core2duo but if can it uses of QuadCore or it uses of it like a Core2Duo and other question is about X38 chipset(Giga-x38-DS5) it can supports 45nm processor but does it work with 65nm processor or its socket is different? Thanks
Assuming you are building your own, you are probably best off getting a dual-slot/processor motherboard(s) first capable of taking on two true quads (and ideally dualcores), thus you can upgrade to another processor when you have a need or according to your (preset) budget. Thus you have options of 1xCore2Duo, 2xCore2Duo, 1xCore2Quad, 2xCore2Quoad and get to re-use the processors for another machine (one you will need :-). I also wouldn't go for the first Intel quad that was released, it shared the cache between two sets of cores. The problem is with the Intel architecture and sooner or later they will have to aim for something similar to AMD (and they will release monsters next year and I hope regain the 'age of paving the big guy for over 3 years' again). btw, Vista runs fine on old P4 2.8Ghz if you can live with its ultra annoying and basic usability problems (they are still there on 8 core machines, and will stay there on 32 core boxes :-) Naturally, all depends on what you want to do with the box..
-
Hi everyone Which one of these cpus are better? (1) Core2Duo (2)Core2Quad Of course I know quad core is better and powerful than core2duo but I want to know if I buy quadcore what programs can uses of it,Vista needs to core2duo but if can it uses of QuadCore or it uses of it like a Core2Duo and other question is about X38 chipset(Giga-x38-DS5) it can supports 45nm processor but does it work with 65nm processor or its socket is different? Thanks
Quad-cores are only going to give a performance boost over dual-cores if you're running programs that will actually use more than 2 threads. Most programs really only run on one thread, but multi-core awareness has increased over the past several years. Also, you need to check if your motherboard can support the CPU you are planning to buy. A motherboard designed for an AMD Geode Processor will definitely not work with a motherboard designed for an Intel Conroe (Core 2) processor. The difference between 65 nm and 90 nm doesn't matter. The difference is only a design difference and doesn't affect what it does (but it does affect how fast it does its job).
ROFLOLMFAO
-
Hi everyone Which one of these cpus are better? (1) Core2Duo (2)Core2Quad Of course I know quad core is better and powerful than core2duo but I want to know if I buy quadcore what programs can uses of it,Vista needs to core2duo but if can it uses of QuadCore or it uses of it like a Core2Duo and other question is about X38 chipset(Giga-x38-DS5) it can supports 45nm processor but does it work with 65nm processor or its socket is different? Thanks
I'm currently looking at the same issue. Speed for speed the Quad will win but the Duallies are available at higher clock speeds for the same cash so if you're not running lots of apps or highly threaded apps the dual is going to be better for you for the money you spend. I'm starting to be tempted to get a mobo that supports quads and stick a fastish dual core in it until the price of faster quads drops
-
Hi everyone Which one of these cpus are better? (1) Core2Duo (2)Core2Quad Of course I know quad core is better and powerful than core2duo but I want to know if I buy quadcore what programs can uses of it,Vista needs to core2duo but if can it uses of QuadCore or it uses of it like a Core2Duo and other question is about X38 chipset(Giga-x38-DS5) it can supports 45nm processor but does it work with 65nm processor or its socket is different? Thanks
In turn: The Core 2 Quad processor is basically just two Core 2 Duo chips in a single package. However, to come in under the Thermal Design Power rating for a single package on a desktop motherboard, the fastest Core 2 Quad processors are clocked slower than the fastest Core 2 Duos. The Q6700 (Core 2 Quad) has a core clock of 2.66GHz on a 1066MHz front-side bus, while the E6850 (Core 2 Duo) is clocked at 3GHz with a 1333MHz FSB. Intel also have processors named Core 2 Extreme; the QX6850 has the same speeds as the E6850. Here's a comparison chart[^]. It comes at a cost though: the QX6850 is about four times the price of the E6850 (£612.98 versus £163.07 on the site I'm looking at). As to whether the extra cores are worthwhile, that depends on your workload. Faster core speeds are nice headline-grabbing numbers but most PCs run completely idle all the time. Watch Task Manager to see what your current workload is. If it's below 80% busy you already have enough CPU power. Adding any more cores or changing to a faster processor will make no difference to your computer's overall performance. Some programs do scale to more cores but these are few and far between. Most of the time your system is waiting for data to come from disk or network, or just waiting for you to type something or move the mouse. Windows uses as many cores as it is licensed for. Windows XP Home is licensed for one processor socket while XP Professional is licensed for two. I think this carries over to Windows Vista - Home Basic and Home Premium are licensed for one socket while Business, Enterprise and Ultimate are licensed for two. Windows will use all the cores of whatever processor package is installed in each socket. No 45nm processors are yet on the market. Intel's 'Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield' has been finalized for production but it's not there yet. All the processors I mentioned above are 65nm. As far as I know Intel are planning to continue using the LGA775 socket for 45nm desktop processors. Since X38 motherboards are currently being sold I'm sure they work with current processors.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991 -
Assuming you are building your own, you are probably best off getting a dual-slot/processor motherboard(s) first capable of taking on two true quads (and ideally dualcores), thus you can upgrade to another processor when you have a need or according to your (preset) budget. Thus you have options of 1xCore2Duo, 2xCore2Duo, 1xCore2Quad, 2xCore2Quoad and get to re-use the processors for another machine (one you will need :-). I also wouldn't go for the first Intel quad that was released, it shared the cache between two sets of cores. The problem is with the Intel architecture and sooner or later they will have to aim for something similar to AMD (and they will release monsters next year and I hope regain the 'age of paving the big guy for over 3 years' again). btw, Vista runs fine on old P4 2.8Ghz if you can live with its ultra annoying and basic usability problems (they are still there on 8 core machines, and will stay there on 32 core boxes :-) Naturally, all depends on what you want to do with the box..
User of Users Group wrote:
Assuming you are building your own, you are probably best off getting a dual-slot/processor motherboard(s) first capable of taking on two true quads (and ideally dualcores), thus you can upgrade to another processor when you have a need or according to your (preset) budget. Thus you have options of 1xCore2Duo, 2xCore2Duo, 1xCore2Quad, 2xCore2Quoad and get to re-use the processors for another machine (one you will need . I also wouldn't go for the first Intel quad that was released, it shared the cache between two sets of cores.
I have to disagree here unless you're putting 2 chips in almost at once. Dual socket boards are significantly more expensive than single socket ones. They also generally require more expensive ram, and PSUs with extra connectors. All of that results in significantly higher purchase costs, and at the point of waiting a year or two to fill the second socket you'd be able to get better performance for less money by going from one single socket system to a second, keeping only peripherals.
User of Users Group wrote:
The problem is with the Intel architecture and sooner or later they will have to aim for something similar to AMD (and they will release monsters next year and I hope regain the 'age of paving the big guy for over 3 years' again).
If you're referring to Barcelona (AMDs native quad offering) it's not. On realistic benchmarks it's no faster per clock than a c2 chip, and doesn't clock as high. The only benchmarks which make it look mosterous are ones heavily driven by memory bandwidth like specfp (the source of the 40% marketing claim), but no real world apps have a need for that much bandwidth.
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
-
Quad-cores are only going to give a performance boost over dual-cores if you're running programs that will actually use more than 2 threads. Most programs really only run on one thread, but multi-core awareness has increased over the past several years. Also, you need to check if your motherboard can support the CPU you are planning to buy. A motherboard designed for an AMD Geode Processor will definitely not work with a motherboard designed for an Intel Conroe (Core 2) processor. The difference between 65 nm and 90 nm doesn't matter. The difference is only a design difference and doesn't affect what it does (but it does affect how fast it does its job).
ROFLOLMFAO
Well it also helps with running multiple programs, so it'll always give a difference (running anti-virus on one core, running winamp on another etc) And the biggest difference between 65 and 90nm is the power usage IIRC.
-
Well it also helps with running multiple programs, so it'll always give a difference (running anti-virus on one core, running winamp on another etc) And the biggest difference between 65 and 90nm is the power usage IIRC.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I didn't mean speed-wise (or temperature-wise). I mean functionally. It gives the same results, but faster. Currently, Intel quad-cores are limited in performance by the fact that it still uses the bus to transport data. Although performance increases over dual-core processors, Intel could improve it more in the near future when it comes out with its own version of HyperTransport. For a fact, quad-core won't give a 100% speed boost (double) over dual-cores—ever.
ROFLOLMFAO