Are multiple cores really faster?

[johnyeah]

Recently a fellow engineer of mine asked me this question:

Why are people buying quad core CPU's when barely any programs (or ones to come within the next 2 years) are optimized for it?

I thought through his questions and his points:
1. Most applications out there don't support multi-threading. Ones that do support, usually are better optimized with dual core than quad cores.
2. Quad cores are more expensive and generally consume more power at the same clockspeeds.
3. Even gaming, dual cores offer neck to neck performance or even better in some cases at the same clockspeeds.
4. The cost (same clock speed quad cores are generally twice the price) does not justify the minute gains in quad core optimized programs over a dual core.
5. Chances are your CPU will be dated by 2 years, so there's no such things as "future proofing."

As an EE myself, I know that there's still a long way to go for optimizing multi-threaded applications.
I find his points rather valid and just thought I'd bring this up for a discussion since I'm interested in what people think.

 

[badge]

I built an older gaming system for a friend of my son's yesterday. The system was built from spare parts I had in my garage. I felt guilty giving her a system with a single core AMD 3800, xp and 1 GB RAM. So they loaded up their games and they were happy, all was well. Sure enough next day, "hey can I put Vista on there...and....!" :lol: I said sure show me the money. She sits down at my son's quad Vista 64 machine and wonders why her's doesn't quite work like that. In one day!

 

[johnyeah]

Well, 3800+ and your quad core aren't exactly in the same league! Heh.

 

[johnyeah]

Let's say you gave her a similar system but you had a Q9550 and she had a E8400. You think she'll say the same thing?

 

[badge]

Yeah, I won't be building many single core gaming rigs in the future. But they're not bad for the money. :lol:

 

[badge]

Let's say you gave her a similar system but you had a Q9550 and she had a E8400. You think she'll say the same thing?

I built an AMD 64 3800, x1800xt, 1 GB PC3200, 320 GB SATA wit Windows XP32. She used it one day and asked if I could make it run like my sons's Vista 64 quad machine. I'm saying in one day usage, she could tell the difference in performance. She's 16.

 

[randomizer]

A single core system for free is better than a quad core system for $1.5k It beats the Athlon Thunderbird rig running XP my brother has.

 

[johnyeah]

MM, I know. That's why I said those things aren't in the same league to begin with. My OP is more about comparing similar architecture CPU's (different number of cores) at about the same clockspeeds.

 

[johnyeah]

A single core system for free is better than a quad core system for $1.5k It beats the Athlon Thunderbird rig running XP my brother has.

True. I can't deny that a working free system is infinitely better in C/P than something you'd have to pay for.

 

[badge]

A single core system for free is better than a quad core system for $1.5k It beats the Athlon Thunderbird rig running XP my brother has.

:lol: She was using an Intel 810 chipset with Celeron processor. The system had 256MB of PC100 RAM using onboard graphics. The system BUS was 100Mhz. :lol: Her brother had installed XP. When the system made it to desktop, Task manager showed an entire 88MB of system RAM available. I cleaned it up, the HD was 10% fragmented, which took like more than 2 hours to defrag. It was fun. She's making payments for the rig I gave her :lol: I feel like I'm stealing the kid's lunch money. She could afford it anyway.

 

[Belinda]

I bet that quad core has at least two Gig of memory with it too more likely 4.
Just built a new media centre with an AMD X2 5400+ and a 780G board. If i had gone with a quad core i would have been spending twice the price and for what % increase in performance, not twice as much i'd be betting. Can't justify paying twice the price for the processor for the low % increase in performance.
Will a quad be faster in all cases, again i don't think so and even if it is, for most people 10 seconds to unzip a file compared to 12 isn't a big deal for if they spent half as much.

 

[badge]

C2Q to C2D depends on what you use the machine for. The C2Q is my weapon of choice for what I do. I want the e8600 though. It will likely be one of the last, if not THE last and THE greatest dual cores of all time. I wasn't satisfied with the e8400 when I replaced my Q6600 with it.

 

[Belinda]

C2Q to C2D depends on what you use the machine for. The C2Q is my weapon of choice for what I do. I want the e8600 though. It will likely be one of the last, if not THE last and THE greatest dual cores of all time. I wasn't satisfied with the e8400 when I replaced my Q6600 with it.

Good for purpose i think is the thing.
Duals are fast enough for a lot of cases for a bit yet

 

[badge]

I still use my AMD FX55, the second best performing single core chip ever produced or to ever be produced god willing. I still enjoy using that system and I use it often. Suprising how well that chip performs overall. Probally can't say that in a few years. Some kid will get it for their gaming rig.

EDIT: I still use my AMD 4800X2 dual core. Socket 939. The first dual core processor ever released. Slow by today's standards, nonetheless is at the heart of a useful machine I use everyday.

 

[johnyeah]

I still use my AMD FX55, the second best performing single core chip ever produced or to ever be produced god willing. I still enjoy using that system and I use it often. Suprising how well that chip performs overall. Probally can't say that in a few years. Some kid will get it for their gaming rig.

EDIT: I still use my AMD 4800X2 dual core. Socket 939. The first dual core processor ever released. Slow by today's standards, nonetheless is at the heart of a useful machine I use everyday.

It's not that slow to be honest, it's a bit dated that's all. I still use my P-M 1.6 GHZ laptop from a bit more than 4 years ago and it's still handling everything I do on a laptop like a champ (but battery life is pretty much crap now).

 

[metalweenis]

I use my Q6600 at 3.6ghz, it's kinda slow but it does the job...