CPU/Mobo I ♥ Dual Cores
- Thread starter Arun1
- Start date
- Status
Who knows maybe it'll go strong for another year.
Well the only quad worth buying right now is the i5 750 and the other ones are in the 1366 so you have to get a 1366 board and upgrade accordingly by paying a premium.
So I don't see how anybody going for quads now might escape my predicament whatever that might be.
Well the only quad worth buying right now is the i5 750 and the other ones are in the 1366 so you have to get a 1366 board and upgrade accordingly by paying a premium.
So I don't see how anybody going for quads now might escape my predicament whatever that might be.
@Arun1
hmm, I'm still confused as to the point of this thread.
are u looking for people's opinion regarding your upgrade? I dont think this is the case, as you have already decided on i5 670.
are u trying to convince people to buy dual core instead of quad core? dont think this is also the case as you yourself have mentioned in a previous post that this is not your goal.
You say that it is pointless to pay more for a quad when most applications will not even use all the cores. Correct. Totally agree with you. But, how is it then a good thing to pay more for a dual core which doesnt even perform as good as the cheaper quad core? From what I've read i5 750 performs better than any of the i5 dual cores. The higher price, in my opinion, is due to the gpu, which you dont plan on using. So why exactly would say 670 is better than 750? is it the OC ability? if yes then that makes sense, but still doesnt explain this thread.
If you want to buy i5 670, then by all means go ahead. Its your money and no one can stop you.
hmm, I'm still confused as to the point of this thread.
are u looking for people's opinion regarding your upgrade? I dont think this is the case, as you have already decided on i5 670.
are u trying to convince people to buy dual core instead of quad core? dont think this is also the case as you yourself have mentioned in a previous post that this is not your goal.
You say that it is pointless to pay more for a quad when most applications will not even use all the cores. Correct. Totally agree with you. But, how is it then a good thing to pay more for a dual core which doesnt even perform as good as the cheaper quad core? From what I've read i5 750 performs better than any of the i5 dual cores. The higher price, in my opinion, is due to the gpu, which you dont plan on using. So why exactly would say 670 is better than 750? is it the OC ability? if yes then that makes sense, but still doesnt explain this thread.
If you want to buy i5 670, then by all means go ahead. Its your money and no one can stop you.
nRiTeCh
Oracle
quads can be run on dual cores mobo too. What if you are getting a descent quad just say some 2k bucks more? You can go for it IMO it does make sense. As you dont even have to look out for another mobo then. Then inspite of stressing(OC) the dual core you can have that quad giving much better performance at stock. In this case(for quad) i will say you either need it or you dont, but atleast your then own it.
After some years you will change to quad but then why not invest in it now itself if it is coming for a descent price. Then further you can OC it to quench your thirst.
After some years you will change to quad but then why not invest in it now itself if it is coming for a descent price. Then further you can OC it to quench your thirst.
pretttt said:
Hmm lets see if I can do this without repeating what I already said on this thread.
You're on the same proccy I'm on what a coincidence!
Lets look at it from you're point of view.If you're not doing quad optimized stuff,before the i3/5 duals came in,the E8400 and E8600 were you're best bet if you were to upgrade now right?
But then the i3 comes along and absolutely crucifies all but the top two of the C2Duos.Even if you were to beat E8600(OCed) by clocking higher the E8600 would still beat the i3 owing to it huge cache.But consider this,the i3 is for $99=~6-7k via kmd and the E8600 is at least twice that and it seems if you're on Win7 the i3 beat 8600 even in gaming.All this by an effortless OC to 4-4.2Ghz
Given how the i3 is kicking as wouldn't it make sense to get an i5 650 for $149 if you knew for sure it'll OC easily to 5Ghz?
And then there is the i5 670 at $300.Given the way things are going,I can only assume that $150 premium is because the 670 will give at least 6-6.2Ghz stable.Will it actually give,I can't say for certain yet as there aren't 670 benches available yet,but I sure as hell am not buying it just to burn money,if it gives anything less than 6,its not worth it for me,the 650 would be the best option but something tells me the $150 is not because of some IGP.
The IGP is a joke,intel had to put it in to explain its pricing,the proccys would have cost pretty much the same without the IGPs.That and how they sneakily put the mem controller outside because if it were on the 32nm one these things would have killed the $500+ quads too on the benches and whats the point of being you're own enemy?
ronit said:
Even if we agree that a technically better spec'd quad is available for less than a dual core why would you go for a quad knowing full well its not going to be completely utilized for a couple of years at least?
4x3Gz is only sometimes better than 2x6 or even 2x5Ghz.
Multicore programming is not trivial.Don't remember the exact link but John Carmack said making a game on the ps3 took about twice as time as for the 360.People always look in awe at the raw power the ps3 has and talk about how there is so much untapped potential in it.Well guess what,its untapped not because the programmer doesn't want to use it,its because its not that simple a thing to do.
blr_p said:
I don't think I'll be able to give a direct answer.It depends on what you're upgrading to and what you'll use it for.
blr_p
Quasar
It isn't and only certain types of apps will benefit. But there's a catch here.
Its more like dual core programming is not easy, today
What are the chances this state of affairs will remain for long. I think once they figure out how to divide the work between 2 cores, then it will become easier to do so for many cores. So the only real hurdle is mastering two cores.
^^
I could probably be wrong here and actually wishing I am but that's basically the problem with multicore programming.One thinks once we have optimized for dual core we could extend it to n cores but that isn't the truth.With the exception of few cases,everytime you add cores,the program has to be optimized to use those additional cores properly.I'd rather you read these articles written by veteran coders rather than me trying to explain what they said.
Choosing Dual or Quad Core
Quad Core Desktops and Diminishing Returns
I could probably be wrong here and actually wishing I am but that's basically the problem with multicore programming.One thinks once we have optimized for dual core we could extend it to n cores but that isn't the truth.With the exception of few cases,everytime you add cores,the program has to be optimized to use those additional cores properly.I'd rather you read these articles written by veteran coders rather than me trying to explain what they said.
Choosing Dual or Quad Core
Quad Core Desktops and Diminishing Returns
blr_p
Quasar
Very good, certainly cleared things up for me. Both articles make the case that there's diminishing returns with a quad-core vs a faster dual core. The most recent of the two is from 2007, has he posted any updates since ?
From the programming perspective, the only way is to go for agressive multi-threading. and that necessarily requires a re-write of the app. How many shops are going to do this ? ..unless adding to the bottom line, unlikely.
The only apps that benefit from quad cores are rendering, encoding & scientific apps. I can see games making use of the rendering but the others are more professional use. I'm warming to your pov, unless the many others who disagreed with you can post counters.
From the programming perspective, the only way is to go for agressive multi-threading. and that necessarily requires a re-write of the app. How many shops are going to do this ? ..unless adding to the bottom line, unlikely.
The only apps that benefit from quad cores are rendering, encoding & scientific apps. I can see games making use of the rendering but the others are more professional use. I'm warming to your pov, unless the many others who disagreed with you can post counters.
Arun1 said:
Fab. :clap::clap:
But tota , aaj tarikh konsi hai ? 2 saal mein bahut kuch badal gaya hai boss
Sometimes i think why did Intel create Core i5 670 ?
Then i realised that Intel created Core i5 670 for guys like you who are still stuck in the past and blabbering facts related to 2006-2007 when its 2010 now
Guys please do look at the dates of those articles he posted
One is September 1, 2007 and other is August 8, 2006
I mean seriously , as i said before , time has moved forward but OP is stuck in 2006-2007
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-8.html
Performance Analysis
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-12.html
CPU Benchmarks: Number of Cores
Prototype
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/prototype-performance-benchmark,2350-9.html
Resident Evil 5
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/resident-evil-5,2409-11.html
Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/burnout-paradise-performance,2289-8.html
Batman: Arkham Asylum
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylum,2465-9.html
Don't blabber 2006-2007 facts , be realistic and practical
OOOOOO AAAAAAA Statistics.Anubis said:Fab. :clap::clap:
But tota , aaj tarikh konsi hai ? 2 saal mein bahut kuch badal gaya hai boss
Sometimes i think why did Intel create Core i5 670 ?
Then i realised that Intel created Core i5 670 for guys like you who are still stuck in the past and blabbering facts related to 2006-2007 when its 2010 now
Guys please do look at the dates of those articles he posted
One is September 1, 2007 and other is August 8, 2006
I mean seriously , as i said before , time has moved forward but OP is stuck in 2006-2007
Application Benchmarks: General Usage - Review Tom's Hardware : Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis - Review Tom's Hardware : Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
CPU Benchmarks: Number of Cores
Prototype
CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Cores - Review Tom's Hardware : Prototype Performance Analyzed
Resident Evil 5
CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Multiple Cores - Review Tom's Hardware : Resident Evil 5: Demo Performance Analyzed
Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box
CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Threading - Review Tom's Hardware : Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box, Performance Analysis
Batman: Arkham Asylum
CPU Benchmarks: PhysX Off - Review Tom's Hardware : Batman: Arkham Asylum: GPUs, CPUs, And PhysX Performance
Cool Story ma homie but it seems you didn't bother reading the article beyond the date of publishing.
I strongly suggest you do and if you did read the article then scroll down a bit and read the equally important comments as well.There have been a lot of comments for that article over the years and the latest one is of August 2009.Its important because you'll realize what you've been saying has been said for the last three years but what the article says still holds.After every few comments or so somebody would come up and say something along the lines of Oh but they'll figure out how to optimize 4/8/16 cores for mainstream users to in the future but guess what,this Utopian future is still nowhere in sight.
Coming back to why I think you haven't read the article is because the stats you provide say the exact opposite of what you're saying and actually confirm what I've been saying all along in this thread :rofl:
After a certain number of cores you reach a point of diminishing returns mostly due to inefficient utilization of the cores by the program.
Except for the RE5 Bench everything else does exactly what the article says.
If Proper utilization of dual cores leads to a 80-90% gain compared to single core after that the performance gains peters out.Theoretically you should see twice of dual or 150-180% gains compared to single core when you go from single to quad core but you end up only getting 90-100% gains or put in another way 5-10% gains going from dual to quad core.
Even if you were to argue that at least they're better than dual and so future proof I have two things to say:
1.Going from dual to quad will not give equal to or greater than performance of duals,infact it can actually lead to less performance than duals in some cases which you seem to have conveniently avoided posting but can be seen in the articles I've linked above.
2.Secondly and most importantly and something that should change you're views about the i3 and i5 duals,all these benches above have same core clock speeds.
How much do you think you could oc a quad at stable levels,3.5Ghz?,3.7Ghz? or even 4Ghz?
The i3 530 gives between 4-4.5Ghz stable on air,the i5 650 does 5Ghz easily,the 670,I'm assuming,much higher than both of them.
On the contrary mate you're the one living in theoretical world.The only place you achieve gains proportional to the number of cores are mainly encoding,rendering stuff.The only real world app that gives decent performance boosts with increasing cores is winrar.Buying a raptor would be a better option than more cores IMO to increase antivirus performance,that and keeping your OS drive minimal and dumping everything else to a secondary hdd.Anubis said:
Okay we get it. You're getting a dual core. Congrats and enjoy. There's no need to justify your purchase. Diminishing returns, proportional benefits, blah blah blah. What finally matters is, do dual cores+ give a better desktop experience? Will your system be snappier with dual cores+ given the level of multitasking that goes on? Are they more or less equal to dual cores on apps which are not dual cores+ optimized? Are they significantly better for the optimized apps? Do we expect most games/ apps being released by this year end to be optimized for the same? Is video/ audio encoding common in this day of multimedia phones/ pmps etc? Are most of the encoding apps optimized for more cores?
Ask the same questions for a dual core. Take out the budget and I guess the answer will make this thread redundant.
Ask the same questions for a dual core. Take out the budget and I guess the answer will make this thread redundant.
Arun1 said:
^OP , this is a very cheap publicity stunt . Just to gain fame , you're repeatedly bumping the thread with irrelevant questions and answers
We get it , you're getting core i5 670 . Congrats and be at peace . You don't have to justify your purchase
Dual cores are good but Quad core are better especially when it comes cheap
Oh yeah , please clear your maths. If you're keeping single core as reference (intial result) then all performance gains should be done with respect to initial results
Agar Rokra hai to quad core nahin toh dual core
And please for God's sake and for everyone's sanity please don't bump this thread by posting irrelevant and stubborn questions
You are basically incorrigible. You can't accept someone else point of view . Whatever you'll say must be unanimous with others or else you'll force them to agree with you by your childish comments
I think you don't have the money to buy a quad core . Fine be happy with your dual core that your budget permits
Fine , why don't you set a poll and let people choose ( Dual core or Quad Core) and express their views
I assure you it won't be surprising
This thread is meaningless . The OP is just justifying his dual core purchase is better than a quad core purchase
Naga said:
morgoth said:
Anubis said:
Wow.Really sad to see how people behave when they're at the receiving end of something.If you don't agree with something either give a reasonable reply or walk away.Why would it bother you how much I justify something if you're not interested in this thread?
There are some people here who genuinely believed more cores=better.I did too until I came to know of all the other factors involved and realized this was not always true and so simple.Maybe this thread probably made some people think about that.
Most of my posts in this thread have only been replies to others.Everything that needs to be said has been said,I'll only be repeating myself in my replies.It doesn't take a genius to figure out who are the real trolls in this thread.
That's it from me.
blr_p
Quasar
If there's tons of apps executing at the same time, the quad would win. This happens all the time on a server which is a natural use for multi-cores.Naga said:
On a desktop it would depend on usage. I'm 50-50 on this, maybe you've adapted to getting more work done so it would perhaps be common for all cores to be relatively busy.
Chez Naga rarely has any free slots then
Yes, point here is progress will take more time.Naga said:
YesNaga said:
Yes, emphasis on games more than apps here.Naga said:
If you're encoding from lossless then yes. Otherwise maybe no, transfer mp3s as is.Naga said:
Video stuff for pmps, yeah it would help. No choice there. 4 would be better than 2 assuming things are always busy.
YesNaga said:
@OP:
It is great to see that you love something, and it has spawned four pages of posts and debate...! As per me, choosing how many cores will really benefit is purely relative. It depends person to person and 'what exactly' they will do with their system.
Why should I get a Quad Core:
Well there are four logical cores in there. And multiple streams can be processed at the same time. (Not speaking HT here). I like to have multiple tasks open on my system and more cores will help me process all tasks simultaneously and complete them too. I do a lot of encoding, and graphics heavy work. It is newer technology, and I have faith that applications will progress to a architecture, where they will utilize >2 cores. I want to be ready for the future.
Why should I get a Dual Core:
I am quite satisfied with 2 cores for processing. I know what is running on my system. And will not multi-task at all. When ever applications become more Quad Core centric, I will upgrade then and there. I will embrace the future when it comes.
It boils down to perspective and awareness of the user. Though for the average user, a decent Quad is the way to go. Users do multi-task. In this day and age, is it not the holy grail to have systems running as many as possible resource intensive applications at the same time. For this of course the Quad core will be gold. And since now there is not that much of a price difference between the Quads on new up coming Duals (LGA 775 Q9550 is at 14K now), why not go for a Quad. Though on the flip side, if the user is absolute sure of himself, and has awareness about how processors work and render multi image, they are free to choose a dual core -- as the OP here is. Today if the average user would ask me what processor to get, I would recommend a Quad core -- cause it is the mainstream technology. If someone asked what OS I would recommend M$. Simple. (sorry Linux users). Getting a quad core today is no big deal. Yes probably 4-5 years it was. Then probably this article would have made more sense.
It is great to see that you love something, and it has spawned four pages of posts and debate...! As per me, choosing how many cores will really benefit is purely relative. It depends person to person and 'what exactly' they will do with their system.
Why should I get a Quad Core:
Well there are four logical cores in there. And multiple streams can be processed at the same time. (Not speaking HT here). I like to have multiple tasks open on my system and more cores will help me process all tasks simultaneously and complete them too. I do a lot of encoding, and graphics heavy work. It is newer technology, and I have faith that applications will progress to a architecture, where they will utilize >2 cores. I want to be ready for the future.
Why should I get a Dual Core:
I am quite satisfied with 2 cores for processing. I know what is running on my system. And will not multi-task at all. When ever applications become more Quad Core centric, I will upgrade then and there. I will embrace the future when it comes.
It boils down to perspective and awareness of the user. Though for the average user, a decent Quad is the way to go. Users do multi-task. In this day and age, is it not the holy grail to have systems running as many as possible resource intensive applications at the same time. For this of course the Quad core will be gold. And since now there is not that much of a price difference between the Quads on new up coming Duals (LGA 775 Q9550 is at 14K now), why not go for a Quad. Though on the flip side, if the user is absolute sure of himself, and has awareness about how processors work and render multi image, they are free to choose a dual core -- as the OP here is. Today if the average user would ask me what processor to get, I would recommend a Quad core -- cause it is the mainstream technology. If someone asked what OS I would recommend M$. Simple. (sorry Linux users).
Getting a quad core today is no big deal. Yes probably 4-5 years it was. Then probably this article would have made more sense.- Status