Duo vs Quad Core + comp specs

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by happyrobots, Aug 4, 2008.

  1. happyrobots

    happyrobots Ü

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phx
    So I was talking to this guy at a computer company, and he basically said I'd be better off with an awesome Duo core computer than an decent quad core system. Among the reasons he gave, the main one was that most programs don't make use of the quad core. So basically, it's a waste to get a quad core until apps are developed to use them all. Is this true? What would you say to do?

    (I use the comp for surfing the web, adobe CS3, web development apps, moderate gaming - not concerned about the best gfx for games)

    Here's the specs I gave him of a comp I was looking at. It's from Dell.
    PROCESSOR: Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Processor Q9450 (12MB Cache,2.66GHz,1333FSB)MEMORY: 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
    HARD DRIVE: 750GB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
    OPTICAL DRIVE:
    Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
    MONITORS
    : 24 inch E248WFP Entry Widescreen Digital Flat Panel Monitor
    VIDEO CARD
    : nVidia GeForce 9800 GT 512MB
    SOUND CARD: Integrated Sound Blaster®Audigy™ HD Software Edition
    BLUETOOTH AND MEDIA READER: Dell 19 in 1 Media Reader with Bluetooth
    Price: $1989 (w/monitor)

    This one is from the guy, this is what the invoice says:
    Motherboard: X4803B 1600 FSB DDR3 MB 2x PCIe 2.0 2xGLAN
    Processor: Intel Core2 Duo E8500 3.16Ghz 6MB CPU 1333FSB
    Memory: DDR3 1333MHz 4G (2x 2GB) kit Unbuffered Memory
    PowerSupply: 700W Quiet PFC SLI, 85% High Efficiency
    HD1: WD 300GB 10K RPM SATA-2 V-Raptor HDD 16M Cache
    HD2: Seagate 750GB SATA-2 7200RPM 32MB Cache
    All in one card reader
    Sound: on-board 7.1 3D audio sound
    Dvd/CD: Lite-on High Speed 20x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer
    Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 3870 512MB PCIe 2.0 16x Graphics
    Price: $1970 (w/ no monitor)

    Which is better? I know the Duo has faster components, but overall?
    Also, which one will be more upgradeable in the future? I know the Dell will have no more space for ram unless I get 2GB sticks to replace it.

    Thanks in advances mates.
     
  2. Danno

    Danno Bronx Poodle OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64,913
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Indiana
    No need for DDR3, you'll save a bunch of money on the second build by dropping to a good DDR2. No need for the Raptor drive in the second build either. The money you save between those items you can get a better GPU...and money towards a monitor.

    Also, doesn't sound like you're doing anything too intensive...drop to an E8400 or even and E7200 to save even more money.
     
  3. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    Quad > Dual. Regardless of speed. In fact, since the Pentium III came out, you can pretty much ignore CPU speed as a deciding factor.
     
  4. happyrobots

    happyrobots Ü

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phx
    Thanks Danno for the reply.
    Using Adobe CS3 gets pretty intensive at times, which is why I was told to get the DDR3 and Raptor drive. I want to stay with the E8500 too so I can be as fast as I can since some apps only use a single core.

    What is the advantage with the DDR3?
    I was told to go with the Raptor and put the OS and apps on that drive. By doing this the computer will be able to access those things faster, seeming like the computer is faster as well. Not true?
     
  5. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
  6. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    i'd go with the 2nd specs, but,....

    DDR3 is the future but a useless expense right now imo.
    Get DDR2 mobo and DDR2 ram, use the money you save for the monitor.
    replace the ATI 3870 with a 4850
    note that's a WD Velociraptor, which is better than a WD Raptor. Velociraptors are fast, but expensive.

    it seems you don't need a quad. only few parts of Adobe CS3 are multi-threaded and is probably the only thing that will take advantage of it.
     
  7. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
    in other words, see my build :o
     
  8. happyrobots

    happyrobots Ü

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phx
    Nice, thanks Doomsday & Chris. I may do that, not sure.

    Ok, you're saying DDR3 is the future....well thing is, I want this system to last 4 years or so and be able to handle those apps. My current comp is on its 5 year right now. And it runs CS3 good enough, but needs to be quicker.

    Quad is the future too I'm guessing, but not worth it now?
     
  9. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
    Yes DDR3 and Quad are the future, but DDR2 will still be good for a long time, DDR is just now dying. And with the socket nature of CPUs, if you decide 2 years from now you want a quad or 8 core or whatever you can just drop one in. And with that said, they make mobo's today that have DDR2 and DDR3 memory slots (I have one, the Gigabyte P35C-DS3R) so I can seamlessly upgrade to DDR3 when I want to.
     
  10. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I bought 4 of those AAKS hdds and that same OCZ reaper ram last friday. :coold:
     
  11. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    this is mostly true. it depends on your purposes. if you want a single, non-multiproc aware app to run as fast as possible, you can't beat a high clockspeed dual core chip. if you instead use some multi-threaded apps and want your overall system to perform better, then quad-core is better.

    on a desktop, i'd go quad vs dual if prices were equal unless you had a single threaded app that needed to go as fast as possible. so, if you had a single-threaded game, it would run better on as fast a clockspeed as you can throw at it. if you wanted to run a word processor, web browser, mp3 player, do a little pshop and solitaire all at once, then quad core will be better.
     
  12. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    The point is that CPU speed has little to do with real world performance. Even when you're running one app, there are a bunch of other services running in the background. Not to mention the fact that we are currently at CPU speeds where it's no longer the bottleneck - it hasn't been for years. Sure it makes a great marketing ploy, but as I've said before, unless you are running calculating PI to the 1 billionth position, it really doesn't matter. Any program that involves human interaction or require access to the HD is waiting around doing nothing.
     
  13. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    A faster dual-core machine will only benefit you if you do a few heavy tasks, like playing Counterstrike or rendering video. Otherwise, you're better off with more cores that run at a slower speed, because even at peak performance your CPU is going to spend most of its time waiting for slower components to do their jobs, so you might as well have more cores that can be doing more things at once.
     
  14. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, i should just delete my reply to you because i agree with you. i think i was just being retarded because of stuff i see at work. on a server that is dedicated to 1 task, sometimes faster is better than more. but, a desktop is almost always multitasking to a decent degree.
     
  15. skinjob

    skinjob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aztlán
    Rendering video is one of the few tasks that actually benefit from more cores. Also, a process that has to wait for I/O is not going to prevent the CPU from being utilized by another process that needs the CPU at the moment.
     
  16. skinjob

    skinjob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aztlán
    It doesn't matter how many process are running in the background. Whether or not you see a benefit from more cores depends on how often those processes are in contention for CPU time. If you open up task manager on a typical windows desktop, you'll probably see those services spending more than 99% of the time at zero CPU utilization. It's better to measure your need for multiple cores with the actual user apps you intend to run.

    Also, the greater marketing ploy is making people think they need multicore cpus on the desktop.
     
  17. emorphien

    emorphien New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    There's a significant difference in the user experience for me in transitioning from single to dual to quad core. I had a dual core for a little over a year but upgraded to quad a couple months ago. The quad definitely allows me to have more power hungry applications open and working simultaneously than before with just a dual.

    Still, with quad core processors on the horizon for laptops, I think I'd rather go with a dual core to save some cash. That will be enough to do what I usually need however with dual cores becoming so affordable these days they're a fine choice for most people because there generally is in my experience a benefit in multitasking and certainly in some common applications.
     
  18. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    It's not just the fact that there are more cores - that helps - but it's all the architecture around it that has to change to support the speed/size/features/cores of the chip (ie the chipset) which arguably makes more of a different than the CPU itself.
     
  19. happyrobots

    happyrobots Ü

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phx
    I read something that applications that don't support multiple cores will just pick the default core, meaning all the background processes would be running on that one core. (iono)
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Applications don't have that kind of power. The OS chooses what core they run on, and Windows 32-bit can handle 32 cores. (64-bit can handle 64 cores, fancy that.)
     
  21. Cthalupa

    Cthalupa New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    46,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    The difference in performance between a 7200.11 and a Raptor is nonexistant. Between 7200.10 and a Raptor, very little.
     
  22. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    srsly, wtf???

    some of you people need to learn the differences between,...
    CPU-bound vs I/O-bound
    Multitasking vs Multithreading
    Access times vs Throughput

    :ugh:
     
  23. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    not sure who in particular you are referring to, but multitasking benefits from multi-cores just as multithreading does. a single multithreaded app will benefit from multicores by being able to have multiple tasks running concurrently. but, even if you run single threaded apps, you can benefit from a quad core if you are pushing the system. so, even if you have 2 apps that are putting some strain on the processor, you'll probably still find the OS to be responsive because those two processes won't need to be forced off the CPU just to allow OS interrupts and such.
     

Share This Page