Hope you don't mind me asking a question not related to gaming per se!
I need to get a new development-oriented PC, meaning I'd ideally like to have a couple of IDEs (Eclipse and or Visual Studio), an app server, a database (Oracle/SQL server) preferably all running at the same time (not entirely sure whether I'd put the database on a different box ...)
Since I'd need this for practise at home, I can't use my office's servers.
My question is, would it make sense to get a quad core over a dual core? My home PC now still crawls with even ONE of the above running. (It's a single-core machine, No - I don't live in a cave...)
Quad. You can test your multi-threaded projects. Run multiple tasks while compiling and gaming and viruscanning and virtualizing on multiple simultaneous virtual environments. A Quad, its all good.
Now go...and develop us some good multi-threaded applications.
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
Go with a quad core.
The Q6600 is an exelent choice right now.
---------------
If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.
PSA
I dont have any experience with the web server but I just wanted to double nail the Quad recommendation.
I am running folding@home, all 4 cores 100% all day long and if I want to run a game- its no problem! Partly due to the folding@home program ramping up and down based on useage needs when you start other programs.
I have 3 other dual core systems that have been running nearly 3 days on this same program also teamed up with 3 other pcs in other locations and my quad core runs for 17 hours and scores more than all of the other systems combined.
The other 6 systems had a score of 1405 combined
My Quad core scored 2200 on its 1st project submission
Totalling 3605 as a team
7 hours later its half way thru its second work unit for another 2000 or so points!
Im considering getting a second quad core to go in my media center setup just for this! Certain applications is where the quad core shines and you likely will see more and more of a benefit as time progresses.
Quite impressive if you ask me!
Message edited by englandr753 on 05-16-2008 at 06:17:21 PM
Just wanted to add my two cents worth. I recently upgraded from a dual core to quad and I have found the experience very rewarding. I used to have the computer so loaded that it would stall out, that is I would type something and then wait for the letter to appear on the screen. Yes, I use some heavy business apps. With the quad, everything has run smoothly so far..
Message edited by Sailer on 05-16-2008 at 05:59:55 PM
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
Ref: 6600 vs 9300 /9400
Not sure of your buget or if you plan on overclocking.
I can not verify this, only quoting Mag artical
Ref artical in MaximumPC, June 2008 ed,
Price - 6600 winner (9300 about $50 higher - Newegg)
Specs - 9300 winner
Compatibiliy - 6600 winner (only if you have an older MB)
Performance (OCing) - winner 9300, This is on air and 9300 requires higher Bus frew ( 9300 uses a 7.5 multiplier while 6600 has a 9x multipier
Performance (Stock) - 9300 beat 6600 in all test (EXCEPT FEAR) by 3 to 14%
I'm waiting for the 9400 prices to drop (I think the 9400 has a multiplier of 8X which would make 3.2 easy with a easier cooling requirement).
I'm a developer working from home.. and running a quadcore Q6600 I set up my projects to compile 4 at a time. speeds up compiling significantly. in 32bit mode make sure you have 4 gigs of ram.. DDDR2 is so cheep anyways. nothing for 1 Devenv.exe to use up 100 megs of ram with a project loaded and 200Megs+ for debugging. not to mention your app that you are debugging.. nothing for me to have 4 projects open at a time.
If you plan to do any SSE4 code or support it i would suggest the Q9450 as it also has 12 meg cache.
my 2¢
Message edited by MadHacker on 05-16-2008 at 06:08:43 PM
xtkxhom3r - You are correct about the multipler; However, (1) Quote - 3 -> 3.2 upper end for 6600, 3.5 for 9300. ... Both are good overclockers, but the q9300 is better - End quote. (Test on nForce 790i ultra and with stock HSF. NOTE! I know many have done better with 6600 by raising Vcore and using high end HSF.
(2) If OP is not going to OC, then 9300 is better choise baring the $50 higher cost.
I also agree Q9450 even beeter choice, Cost is why I'm waiting for a 9400.
*x, 3.2 easy with DDR2 800 at 1:1.
OP hasn't stated whether he overclocks or not...
considering majority of people don't...
but majority of people on this board do.
it may not be an issue...
also if company is paying for hardware cost may not be to great an issue.
I recommend a Q6600 for a dev machine at work and they got the Q6700 just because it was faster... they don't O/C either...
I have a quad-core at work (or maybe it's a dual-CPU dual-core, I'm not entirely sure where the four cores physically are); the only time I've seen it get much above 25% CPU usage is starting up big, multi-threaded Java apps. Even when compiling, the CPUs mostly sit around 20-30%.
I have a quad-core at work (or maybe it's a dual-CPU dual-core, I'm not entirely sure where the four cores physically are); the only time I've seen it get much above 25% CPU usage is starting up big, multi-threaded Java apps. Even when compiling, the CPUs mostly sit around 20-30%.
Isn't it nice? Today, while doing your most intensive CPU task you only see it hit 20-30% usage. Sounds like you've got plenty of headroom for future growth.
Unfortunately I'm regularly seeing 80%+ usage on my Q9450, but I'm still happy.
Message edited by halcyon on 05-17-2008 at 09:56:28 PM
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
I work in video compression...
My machine still isn't fast enough to encode 1080p real time...
maybe one day hopefully with 6 or 8 cores running at 5Ghz
