Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Big dissapointment about QUAD CORE.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 18, 2007 10:32:24 PM

I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.
October 18, 2007 10:36:32 PM

its windows vista, i'm sure.

try installing XP.
October 18, 2007 10:50:10 PM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.


The mere fact that you don't even know where a quad core would benefit you and where it would not, proves to me you did not need one in the first place. Which also means that for what you are using your PC you would have been better off with just a dual. Do more research before trashing something you don't understand.

I went from a dual core (E4300) OCed to 3.4GHz to a Quad core OCed to 3.8GHz and the quad core slaps the dual core around like a redheaded bastard step child in MULTITHREADED scientific computation which I use for my thesis and video encoding. Not to mention that I can be running computational codes in the background and continue to use the computer like nothing it going on. Hell I can even run my computational codes which take about 8 hour to complete, and play games at the same time, which means my computer is not completely down when running these codes for this extended period of time.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2007 11:09:04 PM

If you bought a pre-built system then that would explain the slowness. They install so much crap for advertising purposes it should be illegal.

If you had someone to build you a true custom system I think you would see it differently...
October 18, 2007 11:20:44 PM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.


Have you ever heard of video editing? 3D rendering? Math/Scientific calculations? I just don't know what to tell you. What do you want that pc for if you don't know what to do with it? Web surfing? Knock yourself off!! Or go work in some networks instead...
October 19, 2007 12:21:46 AM

Dual core?

Quad core?

x8800?

What do you use your PC for?

Be more specific give us a list of specs and the nature of your problems rather then just saying quad core sucks and maybe we can help you.
October 19, 2007 12:53:03 AM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.



Haven't you heard of BSD Unix or GNU/Linux ? Both of these OS's make extensive use of Dual & Quad-Core CPUs. As a Network engineer you should already know that.

In any case, if you do a lot of multitasking and run processor intensive applications (like VMWare) then you should see real performance gains with a Dual or Quad-Core CPU.
October 19, 2007 12:59:16 AM

Just stop posting, we all know this guy doesnt know what he's talking about
October 19, 2007 1:13:16 AM

Woah, I went from a single core Athlon 3000+ to an OC'd Opteron Dual Core 165, and using XP it is SO MUCH BETTER I CAN'T BELIEVE IT.

I can do everything I want AT THE SAME TIME. I can burn movies WHILE PLAYING GAMES.

One thing I have to say, RESEARCH an OS before you purchase it. 1st rule of being a Network Engineer I am guessing. Sounds really rude but most people read reviews, and ask advice BEFORE purchasing quite possibly the WORST OS since ME.

The only people on Tom's that get it are people who are looking for new challenges/technologies, and KNOW that it is going to suck before they lay down the cash or get a copy to test/review.

IF you don't agree, send your computer to one of us on Tom's, we'll relive you of your burden and find your wayward PC a good home :) 
October 19, 2007 1:28:21 AM

should have done your homework
October 19, 2007 1:42:37 AM

Would you mind telling us what you do on your pc? Most people here will drool over those specs. I'm guessing that, like what others has said, Vista is causing the problems or maybe your pc is cluttered with crap. Or maybe even your pc is unstable. You didn't list your specs, so if you only have like 512mb of ram, of course your pc will suck As for my quad, I'm extremely satisfied with it, a huge improvement over my AMD Athlon XP 3000+.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 1:57:00 AM

I run Vista 64 and it kicks arse on a dual core Intel e600 with 4 gig ram. It screams! It's NOT vista. It's the OP. I'm sick of this mindless Vista bashing. Same system I dual boot xp, BTW. Hardly any difference except the precaching seems to make Vista faster and occasionally I run into some software not yet Vista ready. BFD. Same with XP at the outset. The frame rate gap has just about closed. Early Vista problems were 99% driver related.

I keep a massive number of programs open at all times and it basically NEVER slows. That's the dual core and extra horespower of the core 2 chip. The OP had faulty expectations or is doing something wrong. Maybe he has a PC problem.
October 19, 2007 2:08:43 AM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.



I do not where you work at,man. but i can not believe you said that. Or, your system might be seriously screwed.
October 19, 2007 2:09:14 AM

notherdude said:
I'm sick of this midless Vista bashing.
Vista bites. :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 2:12:40 AM

Zorg said:
Vista bites. :kaola: 


So you agree the OP's problem is Vista Zorg? Or you just pulling my chain?
October 19, 2007 2:35:09 AM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.


i could sum up all i have to say in a few words: DELETED

i have built a couple quad core machines for friends however i do not own one myself... I have though, spent considerable amounts of time on a machine with the following specs:

evga 8800 ultra
Q6600 (tuniq tower + as5)
evga 680i mobo
2 gig corsair ram
720 (or 620 i cant remember) watt ocz psu

anyways this machine blows any single or dual core away... im running vista 32 bit ultimate, and its absolutely amazing. No slow downs at all, gobbles up every game. Virus scans take no time at all, converting video files takes a 3-8 minutes where as my p4 takes roughly 40 minutes. The overall stability of the machine is fantastic. I nor the owner of the pc has encountered a single lock up.. the cpu has never been near %100 capacity and so it is simple to multi task, watch a movie on one screen, type or surf the internet on the other.. Clearly you either have major problems with your pc or you dont own a quad core and are just bashing them because of ur noobishness...
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 2:36:06 AM

Not to pick on the OP but I know a network 'engineer' who somehow rates the title but is in no way a true engineer. He sets up routers and switches and has no formal enginerring education. Not even a networking/routing cert. until years after he started there as an 'engineer'. How they call themselves engineers is beyond me. Marketing I guess. By their definition I'd be a computer scientist I guess. How else they gonna justify their rates? LOL

I had to fix all his PC problems for years because he was pretty clueless there.
October 19, 2007 2:38:32 AM

how is this guy a network engineer? who actually believes him when he spews stupid sh1te like this? he doesn't know what to use his computer for, and he certainly doesn't seem to know how to run a quad core effectively. send that box to me and i'll make it scream like a little kid running away from michael jackson. i could seriously use that power for all the multi-tasking cpu-intensive stuff i do. you know, the usual: keeping 20 firefox tabs open, winamp, ventrilo, video games, using two to four copies of dvd-shrink at a time to compress dvd's from dual layer to single layer, ... average stuff.
October 19, 2007 2:38:49 AM

notherdude said:
I run Vista 64 and it kicks arse on a dual core Intel e600 with 4 gig ram. It screams! It's NOT vista. It's the OP. I'm sick of this mindless Vista bashing. Same system I dual boot xp, BTW. Hardly any difference except the precaching seems to make Vista faster and occasionally I run into some software not yet Vista ready. BFD. Same with XP at the outset. The frame rate gap has just about closed. Early Vista problems were 99% driver related.

I keep a massive number of programs open at all times and it basically NEVER slows. That's the dual core and extra horespower of the core 2 chip. The OP had faulty expectations or is doing something wrong. Maybe he has a PC problem.


Actually, I used Vista for a while, before switching back to XP. Under Vista, my machine is not stable, it ran hotter, and the performance is lower. I couldn't run a game as well as F@H @ 80% utilization, and still maintain a good frame rate. After I switched back to XP, seems like OS is taking SMP more readily than Vista. This is just my personal experience.

Now, I'm not sure if the situation is the same with Vista 64. I guess I'll give it a try after downloading the necessary drivers.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 2:48:04 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Actually, I used Vista for a while, before switching back to XP. Under Vista, my machine is not stable, it ran hotter, and the performance is lower. I couldn't run a game as well as F@H @ 80% utilization, and still maintain a good frame rate. After I switched back to XP, seems like OS is taking SMP more readily than Vista. This is just my personal experience.

Now, I'm not sure if the situation is the same with Vista 64. I guess I'll give it a try after downloading the necessary drivers.


Hard to say. The drivers keep improving and the fixes keep coming. It gets better by the month so if you were using it a number of months ago the situation has no doubt changed. It's not as mature as an OS that's been out there, what, like 7,8 years now? but it's got it's advantages too. New comparisons show the frame rate gap in games is just about closed. Look up the recent firing squad comparison.

It clearly depends a bit on what you do but for my uses it's 'there'. But hey, I like to live on the edge. Just don't be like my engineer friend who continued using 3.1 until he upgraded to XP.
October 19, 2007 2:48:29 AM

On a separate note, ahhhhh, that DVD Shrink, eh cpburns??? Man O' Man that is some amazing software!!!! Thinking of getting me some of them new Samsung burners in SATA, sometimes I want to get some sick pleasure of stressing the crap out of my Opty just to feel like I got my 119$ value out of it (copperpiped HSF included, and in CDN$).

Man, computing is FINALLY shaping up, never mind the last 15 years of "Can it Play Doom"? "Can it Play Doom 3"?

Now it sure as DELETED can. Thinking of encoding all my 600 movies to Ipod Nano Video to take with me on my MASSIVE train ride (2 hours to downtown). Closest thing to cryo sleep is watching a good movie while travelling. I used to read a book a week with 4 hours of travel time each day!

But, um, could use a Quad to play Crysis I'm guessing...
October 19, 2007 3:04:12 AM

i'm not entirely sure if you're not being sarcastic, falken699 :-P i'm gullible. but yeah, i used to be a big wow junkie >.< so i'd have that up on one 21" screen while doing all sorts of other stuff on the other 21". dvd's done ripping, pop em out, start a new one. run a virtual machine server / downloader (so my main system will never be affected by its activities.

i've been very happy with my dual core, and given that i'm now moving into 3ds max and other game production software for my degree program, i'm guessing i'll be seeing the value in the pleasures of quad or octo-core very soon myself.
October 19, 2007 3:14:05 AM

No way, I was an old DVD Xcopy Express user, then I found Shrink. The control over the movie through options gives me amazing movies. MOST of the time, when I strip out all the crap, it seems I get ALMOST 1:1 copies with NO compression. And the movies don't skip at all, and I have the video files on my hard drive that I keep until I finally watch the movie burn to be sure it isn't messed up, then I delete the files.

I want to move to SATA DVD burners so I can burn 2 movies at the same time and have no IDE bandwidth IO problems that cause the burn to mess up. Also for decoding 2 movies at the same time, sometimes I have 10 movies that I back up to get rid of region encoding. Also, no more ads and annoying "forced to watch" sequences, all authored out with Shrink with a few clicks!

Me too, I was a big WOW junkie. Now I feel like the guy in A Clockwork Orange after his "treatments". If I even think of playing that game I get ill. So many hours of holding my piss to "just kill this one last monster". The amount of meals I missed too... That game is like crack.

My girlfriend was hooked on it too. We'd have fights over who gets to play and when because we were sharing an account. We were like 8 year olds.

Then I got massively hooked on playing the Auction House in that game. I was living in Calgary at the time and had alot of fun with it, but now the game just makes me shudder. Everyone I spoke to has a defining date they "just stop" playing WOW, it is really weird. You go from a hardcore player to not being able to play ever again. Strange.
October 19, 2007 3:23:31 AM

notherdude said:
Hard to say. The drivers keep improving and the fixes keep coming. It gets better by the month so if you were using it a number of months ago the situation has no doubt changed. It's not as mature as an OS that's been out there, what, like 7,8 years now? but it's got it's advantages too. New comparisons show the frame rate gap in games is just about closed. Look up the recent firing squad comparison.

It clearly depends a bit on what you do but for my uses it's 'there'. But hey, I like to live on the edge. Just don't be like my engineer friend who continued using 3.1 until he upgraded to XP.


I guess. I just have horrible Vista experience so far, and I'm likely not going to go Vista if Vista 64 fail me again. Might as well wait for the next iteration of Windows, which is due to come out in 2009.
October 19, 2007 3:25:37 AM

reflexus said:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years and I have not seen such dissapointment for years in perfomance of promising quad core. I bought great system with quad core, x8800 video card, scsi and etc and system suck. To be honest with you, quad core or dual core it is all bull **** and the same perfomance, slow downs, i see no difference between one cpu or quad in windows vista, same bottlenecks, freezing, multitasking is not working as it was promised to work in vista and in other enviroment. QUAD CORE is a big waste of money and SUCKSSSS.


Let me guess, you are a Government Employee?
That is about the only way I could see you lasting 15 years in the IT Field.

But perhaps you role is as a Cisco Engineer and have no understanding of Windows or Desktop Computers.
If you did, you would have likely made a lucid post trying to resolve specifc bottlenecks, specific freezes, specific multi-tasking issues with your analysis of the causes and attempted remedies for each and the results thereof.

But you may want to start here...........
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-...
October 19, 2007 3:32:47 AM

@ zen LOL, love the link.

Didjya notice it is written by a guy named Rathbone??? LOL!!!

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 3:43:16 AM

Tell you're employer I'm ready for employment in 2 weeks.
October 19, 2007 4:00:33 AM

I hate Vista. Graphics are nice and polished, but other than that, I hate it. Bash bash bash.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 4:10:07 AM

You guys are brutal, lol.

To comment about DVD Shrink, I love that program too. I have actually had 3 movies decoding at the same time with successful burns. I have 3 DVD drives, call me a junkie. =P

Another great program that I love to use to burn those certain movies that shrink can't (Disney movies, etc...) is 1 Click DVD Copy Pro. It's not free but it's worth every penny. You have to be careful though because it will burn movies that are not even playable so you have to go back and test those in question.
October 19, 2007 4:19:59 AM

as to limiting myself currently to 2 dvd's at once, that's only because i only have two dvd burners :-P but i did everything possible to rearrange my hard drives so as to leave the two onboard ide channels to the dvd burners.

so yeah, one burner to each port, but sadly, the bandwidth is still limiting me to perhaps 12x on one drive, and then 6-8x on the other, even though they no longer share a channel. i wonder if this is because of nvidia's implementation of an ide controller in the original nforce4 sli, or if it instead has to do with the nero burning api which dvd-shrink employs. i've had nero 6, 6.6, 7, and 8 installed at one point or another, and the problem crops up with each and any version, it seems. happens inside nero's own interface as well.

i don't know if my problem extends to alcohol 120%'s api or not, because i generally only use it to rip discs, rather than burn them.
October 19, 2007 4:20:39 AM

by the way, as to being brutal, does this mean it's time to whip out the hellen keller jokes?
October 19, 2007 4:21:06 AM

notherdude said:
So you agree the OP's problem is Vista Zorg? Or you just pulling my chain?
I never said that Vista was his problem, I just said Vista bites. Partially in response to your comment, and partially because Vista bites. [:zorg]
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 4:44:41 AM

cpburns said:
by the way, as to being brutal, does this mean it's time to whip out the hellen keller jokes?



Unfortunately I can't answer your questions about nero or alcohol. I use them both and like you I use Nero for burning from shrink compilations.

And, just when I thought the nut punch was as low as you could go you go for the knee caps... :pt1cable: 
October 19, 2007 5:36:10 AM

ROFL... Just reading the post and the replies are hilarious!... I basically have to agree with everyone else.

In terms of Vista I think I'm one of the few people who actually like it. I think it really does take advantage of better performing systems especially in using multiple applications at once. I'll be the first to admit though that there are some major software issues especially for us who have HTPCs... but still wouldnt go back to XP and Vista is continuing to get better.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 5:53:33 AM

pchoi04 said:
ROFL... Just reading the post and the replies are hilarious!... I basically have to agree with everyone else.

In terms of Vista I think I'm one of the few people who actually like it. I think it really does take advantage of better performing systems especially in using multiple applications at once. I'll be the first to admit though that there are some major software issues especially for us who have HTPCs... but still wouldnt go back to XP and Vista is continuing to get better.

Vista is good, except for UAC and the driver signing isues of vista x64
October 19, 2007 5:57:21 AM

yomamafor1 said:
its windows vista, i'm sure.

try installing XP.

Amen! Let me just add that vista is getting better though. Just give it some time plus give microsoft time to generate about 96 more patches for it and it will run smooth as silk
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 6:12:53 AM

Must be Vista causing the problems.

Your not really IT qualified are you ?

Did you go to one of those US Universities where the pass marks are really low?

October 19, 2007 6:34:28 AM

You just need to wait for the software to catchup. However the rate of diminishing returns increasing the number of cores is faster than increasing clock speed.

Functional multi-threading in games will probably top out somewhere between 16 to 32 cores. Memory bandwidth should become a limitation about that time too. I don't see consumer apps ever being able to use 256 cores.

A quad core machine is very future proof and that's not a good thing(I really hope I'm wrong).

Though I will say pure number crunching that's not particularly memory intensive has a lot more headroom.

October 19, 2007 6:46:54 AM

My Pentium m 1.6GHz screams with 768 MB RAM, thats all you need for "network engineering" and why is it considered engineering? There really isn't any engineering someone else generally did the hard part for you. Engineer is a title you earn working your ass off for four or more years in school. So if you didn't do that don't call yourself an engineer. I'm a Chemical Engineer here.
October 19, 2007 7:01:10 AM

This is quite entertaining. Please continue.
October 19, 2007 7:16:35 AM

:lol: 

My qawd... If your not happy with your quad core system, can ya give it to me?

I'll trade ya my old P4 3ghz system. It it it.. has HT technology. And is running FC5 linux atm. It's actually blazing fast. :D 
October 19, 2007 7:59:17 AM

Quote:
I work as Network Engineer for 15 years


Where's the end of the yellow cable ?
October 19, 2007 8:03:10 AM

Wow i cant belive that guy said that about the quad-core. maybe you need to go back to computer school. and learn somemore because. the quad-core is very fast. and here are my spec's

Q6600 3.0/1333
Asus P5K-V
cosair XMS2 ddr2 800
74gb 10k raptor
160gb 7.2k
1950pro

vista rules i have had no problems with it at all i am using the 64-bit and its run fast and awesome
and i tell you what this computer is a beast to me. going from a athlon 3000+ 512mb 9600xt

and maybe you should what power your computer really has and stop saying **** before you speak. because you are wrong and alot of ppl here will tell you that

and yes my computer is awesome am waiting on the 8800GT thats why i got the 1950pro so no hatin on my vide card
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2007 8:32:35 AM

networks and computers in general have changed over the past 15 years.

If you hate it so much, then ill swap you your Quad Core for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz ;) 
October 19, 2007 9:46:34 AM

That poor soul will never come to site again for help..... just imagine that little techno weenie reaching out his poorly writhering hand asking for help.... YOU BASTAGES :p  GOOD JOB EVERYONE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!...
October 19, 2007 10:36:01 AM

Are all network engineers like this?
For the sake of the world, I hope not.
October 19, 2007 11:01:59 AM

I used to be a LAN Admin. And from that experience, I did have a network engineer department to help when they had PC problems. Seems as though, not all network engineers that I knew, didn't know how to turn a PC/Laptop on. Other then that, they all have a vast amount of understanding network protocols. :lol: 
October 19, 2007 11:41:08 AM



Ok, so our man seems to be lacking a clue, but some of these replies are dripping with venom! It's seems from his post that English isn't his first language, so he may not have been able to express himself as he would have liked. Cut the guy some slack - there's no need for the flaming!
October 19, 2007 12:13:37 PM

OK, heres some slack, Ill up the offer, Ill trade my old AMD 3700 for his Quad. After all, my 3700 IS a single cpu, MUCH bettern those mean ole duo and quads. Doin him a favor. And itll best those old P4s (roh roh)
!