Question Regarding Core 2 Quad

hi guys,
my friend just got a new computer with a Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU.
He claimed that his CPU has 4 cores, clocked at 2.4ghz each.
Is this true?

Please advise.
38 answers Last reply
More about question core quad
  1. No, the Q6600 has 13.5 cores, clocked at 24.875 Ghz each.

    Just kidding. Yes, your friend told the truth. I'm just surprised that you are good enough to find the forum and register and start a thread, but not good enough to just Google the Q6600. Look, www.google.com, very useful... Also, why the heck would you trust unknown people on a forum more than your friend?
  2. Yes thats true.

    A core 2 Duo is two processors (cores).

    The Core 2 Quad (which means 4) is really just 2 Core 2 Duo (each have 2 cores) so you get 4 cores total.
    The Q6600 is clocked at 2.4ghz each.

    Now days the more cores you have the better of you are. (Not really because no many programs use all cores). But thats the direction we are going.
  3. Right. =)
  4. well it just scared me off 2.4ghz x 4 cores = 9.6ghz built into a cpu :ouch:
  5. I have 3 x 4 = 12 GHz, but most of it gets unused because most apps aren't properly multithreaded...
  6. Ok, oj, you're kidding, so we'll play along.
    Actually you don't have 9.6Ghz built into a cpu. What you have is 4 cpus running @ 2.4Ghz.
    Multicore computers is the strategy the industry has decided to follow since they discovered that pushing the frequencies much beyond 3Ghz is very difficult to do.
  7. It's not 2.4 x 4 I believe...would be nice though:)

    I've run this test before for games and noticed that my Q6600 is speed rated at like 4.68 ghz (dont remember exactly)

    http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest
  8. oj1480 said:
    well it just scared me off 2.4ghz x 4 cores = 9.6ghz built into a cpu :ouch:


    That Math does not work.

    The truth is that most applications do not scale linearly with the number of cores since a given process likely still needs to do A then B then C then D. Only Very few programs can do A and B and C and D at the same time.

    Ever Try to Put a sock on your left foot while also putting your shoe on the left foot while trying to tie the shoe? I wager it will not work well. And that is the issue you get with computer programs. Some things just need to be done in order and no matter how many cores you have standing by, they cant do anything until the previous stuff is done.

    Now, there are some programs that can make use of it and they do well.
    However, you must also realize that nearly every modern CPU has at least two cores. So 4 is only twice as many and not 4 times as many.
  9. ^you don't add the four cores together to get total speed, the cores work in parellel not series. Meaning each core can process a thread at 2.4GHz, having more cores allows you to run more threads, hence the better multitasking abilities of a quad core over a dual core over a single core processor. Since each core runs at 2.4GHZ in parallel, the entire processor runs at a speed of 2.4GHz.
  10. forget about reverse hyperthreading? LMFAO!!!
  11. aevm said:
    No, the Q6600 has 13.5 cores, clocked at 24.875 Ghz each.

    Just kidding. Yes, your friend told the truth. I'm just surprised that you are good enough to find the forum and register and start a thread, but not good enough to just Google the Q6600. Look, www.google.com, very useful... Also, why the heck would you trust unknown people on a forum more than your friend?



    I Love it!!! So does this mean if I take 4 Q6600 CPU's and super-glue them together I would have 16 cores :kaola:
  12. galta said:
    Ok, oj, you're kidding, so we'll play along.
    Actually you don't have 9.6Ghz built into a cpu. What you have is 4 cpus running @ 2.4Ghz.
    Multicore computers is the strategy the industry has decided to follow since they discovered that pushing the frequencies much beyond 3Ghz is very difficult to do.


    so if 4 cores run full at 100%, isn't it equivalent to 1 cpu at 9.6ghz?
    :o
  13. @mongo1961
    Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah, I think we're moving in that direction. I've read something recently about two quads glued together, but I can't remember right now if it was Intel or AMD who is working on that.

    @oj1480
    Yes, but 4 cores on a Q6600 will run at 100% only in extreme cases. The only time I could do that, apart from benchmarking or testing tools, was by running two instances of DVD Shrink compressing two videos at the same time, and with 4 fast hard disks involved (that is, the videos already ripped, and the source files and target files all on different disks). That's kind of a test tool too I guess, because nobody does that in real life. I was only doing it to test the new hard disks.
    Normally you'd have one core at anywhere between 1% and 100%, plus another at 20% or less doing Windows background tasks, plus cores #3 and #4 doing nothing.
  14. oj1480 said:
    so if 4 cores run full at 100%, isn't it equivalent to 1 cpu at 9.6ghz?
    :o


    no...just no.
  15. Quad core 2.4 means you can run 4 appication at the same time at 2.4 ghz, its that simple

    the only problem is i can't see why someone whould run 4 application at the same time that takes 2.4 ghz processing power.

    as an example let say you listen to a movie, burn a data dvd, and ripping a movie at the same time.

    The movie player would take a fraction of 2.4 ghz
    the burning software too
    but the ripping would prolly use the 2.4
    and you would still have a core that's not in use.

    that the way i see it.
  16. On my Q6600, the movie takes 2% of a core. Winamp shows as 0% in Task Manager. Ripping is under 5% if it's done without compression. With compression, with a fast HDD and a very fast DVD drive without rip-lock, I've seen 40% on all 4 cores. I guess it depends on which program you use.

    Anyway, these Q6600 CPUs are really fast. I think Intel just shot itself in the foot. 99% of users will not need to buy another Intel product for 10 years after they buy a Q6600.
  17. 10 years?! 2-3 more likely. The only reason I plan on upgrading from my kick a$$ E6750 @ 3.6 (that's not 7.2 Ghz Oj...) to nehalem is for the DDR3 support!
  18. aevm said:
    No, the Q6600 has 13.5 cores, clocked at 24.875 Ghz each.

    Just kidding. Yes, your friend told the truth. I'm just surprised that you are good enough to find the forum and register and start a thread, but not good enough to just Google the Q6600. Look, www.google.com, very useful... Also, why the heck would you trust unknown people on a forum more than your friend?


    LOL, there you go again Aevm. That's almost as good as "...teenagers and disco fans...."
  19. The_Blood_Raven said:
    10 years?! 2-3 more likely. The only reason I plan on upgrading from my kick a$$ E6750 @ 3.6 (that's not 7.2 Ghz Oj...) to nehalem is for the DDR3 support!


    Why not just get an X48 or 790i mobo for your E6750 that supports DDR3 now?
  20. I think as operating systems get more powerful offering more features and tools the multi-cores will be kept less idle. Case in point, IME, a dual-core is typically pretty busy in XP or Vista (especially in Vista). For some things a dual-core is even choppy (spelled virtualizing multiple OS' simultaneously). I think there will be plenty to keep quads quite busy over the next 3-4 years and we'll be having similiar discussions about hexa- and octocores.

    Many times when I use someone's older single-core processored rig I think, "Damn, how do you tolerate this?"
  21. drumr1829 said:
    It's not 2.4 x 4 I believe...would be nice though:)

    I've run this test before for games and noticed that my Q6600 is speed rated at like 4.68 ghz (dont remember exactly)

    http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest


    way wrong, you lose, but you get this nice "f" as a consolation prize.
  22. dextermat said:
    Quad core 2.4 means you can run 4 appication at the same time at 2.4 ghz, its that simple

    the only problem is i can't see why someone whould run 4 application at the same time that takes 2.4 ghz processing power.

    as an example let say you listen to a movie, burn a data dvd, and ripping a movie at the same time.

    The movie player would take a fraction of 2.4 ghz
    the burning software too
    but the ripping would prolly use the 2.4
    and you would still have a core that's not in use.

    that the way i see it.


    that is not correct either...it just means that the clock speed is 2.4 ghz for each core.
  23. For all you guys too young to remember, all this 2 cores / cpus at 2 ghz=4 ghz...

    ..back in the early 90's when P2's became available to the consumer, there started to be multi cpu boards easily available as well, and a lot of OEM's and builders used to add the clocks speeds together and treat is as 1 cpu at that clock speed. They figured "joe computer illiterate" would go for it, and they were right for a while.
  24. Think of it as a Ford Focus (car)going 65mph vs. a Ford Expedition (suv)going 65mph. Both are going the same speed, but you can fit twice as many people (data) in the Expedition.
  25. oj1480 said:
    well it just scared me off 2.4ghz x 4 cores = 9.6ghz built into a cpu :ouch:



    wow I have 4 tires on my car spinning at 100km/h
    so I must be going like 400km/h
  26. LOL, nice one!
  27. It is obvious that none of you people do much video encoding. Most encoders are optimized for multi-threading and just love quad-cores. A movie that used to take 5 hours to encode on my 2.6 GHz P4 now takes about 45min. to encode on my Q6600. I would say that it is behaving as though the effective single-core speed was 9.6 GHz.
  28. chunkymonster said:
    Why not just get an X48 or 790i mobo for your E6750 that supports DDR3 now?


    Those motherboards and my sweet little E6750 are not as optimized for DDR3 as Nehalem will be. The memory controller is about twice as fast on nehalem compared to the current high end. Then add in the cache optimization for DDR3 and the triple channel support, and DDR3 will be screaming on a Nehalem system!
  29. skip010 said:
    It is obvious that none of you people do much video encoding. Most encoders are optimized for multi-threading and just love quad-cores. A movie that used to take 5 hours to encode on my 2.6 GHz P4 now takes about 45min. to encode on my Q6600. I would say that it is behaving as though the effective single-core speed was 9.6 GHz.


    First of all that's not exactly representative of 9.6. Secondly that could be true if we forget about memory improvements, motherboard improvements, sata hard drives, and 64-bit support which helps in multithreaded applications... it is obvious that you totally missed the boat on this one...
  30. tubaloth said:
    Yes thats true.

    A core 2 Duo is two processors (cores).

    The Core 2 Quad (which means 4) is really just 2 Core 2 Duo (each have 2 cores) so you get 4 cores total.
    The Q6600 is clocked at 2.4ghz each.

    Now days the more cores you have the better of you are. (Not really because no many programs use all cores). But thats the direction we are going.


    So the short and easy answer is yes the Q6600 has 4 processor cores each running at 2.4GHz that kick major ass. Or if you are me 4 running at 3GHz each kicking even more ass.

    galta said:
    Ok, oj, you're kidding, so we'll play along.
    Actually you don't have 9.6Ghz built into a cpu. What you have is 4 cpus running @ 2.4Ghz.
    Multicore computers is the strategy the industry has decided to follow since they discovered that pushing the frequencies much beyond 3Ghz is very difficult to do.


    Tell that to the E8400 that gets to 4GHz on air. I agree with you (to some extent) about it being hard but then again Intel has that 80 core chip that is 2.5GHz but can be clocked to 5GHz so maybe they are just trying to make us think its hard.
  31. The_Blood_Raven said:
    Those motherboards and my sweet little E6750 are not as optimized for DDR3 as Nehalem will be. The memory controller is about twice as fast on nehalem compared to the current high end. Then add in the cache optimization for DDR3 and the triple channel support, and DDR3 will be screaming on a Nehalem system!


    ^Hopefully its true. Heck I wish they would release a quad channel version like the servers are getting.

    The_Blood_Raven said:
    First of all that's not exactly representative of 9.6. Secondly that could be true if we forget about memory improvements, motherboard improvements, sata hard drives, and 64-bit support which helps in multithreaded applications... it is obvious that you totally missed the boat on this one...


    Not to mention SATA III that should be coming out. Imagine 600MB/s per harddrive or 6GB/s thouroghput (basiccal a RAID 0 of 2 SATA II HDDs). Dear god the hard drive might stop being such a bottleneck punk some day.
  32. Yeah then imagine 2 SATA III Raptors in RAID 0!!!! That would be amazing!!!
  33. i doubt sata III will be utilized to its full extent, sata II isnt even utilized to its limit
  34. The_Blood_Raven said:
    Yeah then imagine 2 SATA III Raptors in RAID 0!!!! That would be amazing!!!


    I think SSDs will take over for speed, and eventualy in size...
    they are already pretty darn fast... just so expensive..
  35. eklipz330 said:
    i doubt sata III will be utilized to its full extent, sata II isnt even utilized to its limit



    well I think this will fill the SATA II bandwidth quite nicley
    http://7r09d0r.blogspot.com/2008/06/ram-based-ssd-on-computex-2008.html
  36. ^Yea it seems that only servers and high I/O stuff will use 2x the bandwidth.

    But still the performance increase with SATA II was almost 2x the faster you can get your data from your HDD to the CPU/GPU the better right?
  37. The faster the better, yes, but the hard drive can't physically read data as fast as the interface can transfer it, so the limiting factor isn't the interface at all.

    Look at it as if you had the most amazing FSB or HT ever, but only had DDR-200 RAM. It doesn't matter if the CPU can get data at 20GB/s through the link if the RAM can only deliver 1.6GB/s. The link isn't what is limiting the speed.
  38. aevm said:
    @mongo1961
    Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah, I think we're moving in that direction. I've read something recently about two quads glued together, but I can't remember right now if it was Intel or AMD who is working on that.

    @oj1480
    Yes, but 4 cores on a Q6600 will run at 100% only in extreme cases. The only time I could do that, apart from benchmarking or testing tools, was by running two instances of DVD Shrink compressing two videos at the same time, and with 4 fast hard disks involved (that is, the videos already ripped, and the source files and target files all on different disks). That's kind of a test tool too I guess, because nobody does that in real life. I was only doing it to test the new hard disks.
    Normally you'd have one core at anywhere between 1% and 100%, plus another at 20% or less doing Windows background tasks, plus cores #3 and #4 doing nothing.

    Sounds like you need some BOINC my friend :ange: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core Quad