Quad Core - Uses?

[edunham]

What type of current applications actually utilize the full potential of a quad core CPU?

I've gone back and forth between a faster dual core (3Ghz) and a slightly slower quad core (2.6Ghz). Then I read on some of the forums that a lot of the current applications do not utilize the potential of 4 cores. I do not game, but watch/edit videos which is about the most intensive app I do. I want something that will serve me for some time, but don't want to go crazy with an i7 CPU.

 

[mpain55]

What type of current applications actually utilize the full potential of a quad core CPU?

I've gone back and forth between a faster dual core (3Ghz) and a slightly slower quad core (2.6Ghz). Then I read on some of the forums that a lot of the current applications do not utilize the potential of 4 cores. I do not game, but watch/edit videos which is about the most intensive app I do. I want something that will serve me for some time, but don't want to go crazy with an i7 CPU.

Current applications are not very demanding of quad cores yet, however Most newly released games are supporting quad core. And as we progress developers are not going to be looking at dual cores or past technology. 5 years from now a developer isn't going to be designing for old hardware so if you are looking at buying a new machine, you must consider a quad core cpu.

The only people who will give you influence or recommend dual cores are people who already own them, because everyone has a subconscious saying i don't want you to have something better than me.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

There was another thread last month about software programs that were capable of making use of quad core cpu's and multi-threading. The thread included lists of software programs. Unfortunately I am growing old disgracefully and I forget things.

I do remember that using quad core cpu's will improve rendering digital images and encoding videos. It also depends on which version of a software program is being used. For example, older versions of Adobe products do not make use of quad core cpu's while brand new versions do.

 

[4745454b]

I chuckled a bit when I read this. Looking at possibly quads, but not sure if your video work will task them enough? As long as we are talking about newer versions of these programs, you want the quad. Even games are starting to need more then 2 cores. GTA4 runs best on quads, others will follow.

 

[mi1ez]

Quad cores are most utilised in media encoding/decoding/rendering/manipulating, whether it be audio, video, or still images, but as mentioned it depends on specific software.

If you have a lot of rubbish running in the background (ie 90% of Windows machines!) a quad core can also outrun a dual on dual threaded software as Windows will offload background processes to other cores out of the way.

 

[leo2kp]

+1

 

[maxtoons]

I have 4 PC in my office, both dual and quad.
over all, quad works much better with multi media programs like TEMPEG.
It really kicks when incoding, espacilly when using filters.

 

[Siggy19]

As others have said, Dual may be better NOW for some games especially since they benefit from the faster clock speed and only use a single core (the other one gets used by other background processes in Windows so is a benefit).

However, everything new is going to be multi-threaded and will benefit from multiple cores... 4 cores at 2.66 GHz is way better than 2 cores at 4 GHz and the i7 can potentially behave like it has 8 cores using hyperthreading for some applications.

If you want a CPU to last 3-5 years, get a quad core.

 

[werxen]

Quad cores are most utilised in media encoding/decoding/rendering/manipulating, whether it be audio, video, or still images, but as mentioned it depends on specific software.

If you have a lot of rubbish running in the background (ie 90% of Windows machines!) a quad core can also outrun a dual on dual threaded software as Windows will offload background processes to other cores out of the way.

i agree with the first part but not too sure about the second.

my friend had an overclocked Q6600 and he would multitask really slowly because cores 1+2 were overloaded and nothing else was offset. i think it was bios settings... not sure. anyone else run into this?

 

[doormatderek]

As others have said, Dual may be better NOW for some games especially since they benefit from the faster clock speed and only use a single core (the other one gets used by other background processes in Windows so is a benefit).

However, everything new is going to be multi-threaded and will benefit from multiple cores... 4 cores at 2.66 GHz is way better than 2 cores at 4 GHz and the i7 can potentially behave like it has 8 cores using hyperthreading for some applications.

If you want a CPU to last 3-5 years, get a quad core.

i wouldn't give quads more than 2 years before we see more, 6-8 cores. Plus i think a dual 4ghz cpu would wipe the floor with a 2.66 quad.

 

[werxen]

^ depends on the application but in gaming, 99% of the time yes.

 

[doormatderek]

doesn't really matter if you ask me, and we are talkin seconds.. Who can't wait another minute or possibly 2? seriously. what else is there besides gaming? ~

 

[Siggy19]

i wouldn't give quads more than 2 years before we see more, 6-8 cores. Plus i think a dual 4ghz cpu would wipe the floor with a 2.66 quad.

Yes, we'll see CPUs with more cores, but remember that the i7 has hyperthreading which can potentially behave like 8 cores already.

However, the basic principle is that new applications will benefit from having more cores... even games. Therefore, 4 cores running at 2.66GHz equates to potential performance of over 10GHz, while 2 cores at 4GHz only has the potential of 8GHz.

Yes, I know that this only applies if all the cores are rocking full out, but the i7-920 sounds like it can be comfortably overclocked to 3.4GHz with the stock cooler, let alone anything better; water cooling should get to upwards of 4GHz.

To me, it seems like the i7 is the CPU to get if you want a machine that will perform well for 3 or more years. Some people upgrade every year. For them, a fast Dual Core may be the better option, especially with a kicka$$ video card. But for me, I'm going to get the i7 with 6GB of RAM and (probably) a 1GB 4870. In a year or three, if I have a crushing need for more speed, I'll overclock to 3.4, add another 6GB of RAM and crossfire a second 4870. That should give me a sweet performance boost for $250 or less. If I went the Dual Core route, I'd pretty much have to replace the Motherboard, CPU and RAM, which is likely to be more expensive, even though prices will presumably have dropped by then.

 

[doormatderek]

What is the top speed of a i7 right now?

 

[UNICOMPLEX]

186.000 MPH

 

[cjl]

The current top is the i7 965, 3.2GHz (turbo to 3.33 or even 3.46). The i7 975@3.33 (turbo to 3.46) will come out in not too long.

The highest overclock that I know of is in the high 5GHz range for an i7, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[cadder]

You can read the tom's system builder marathons for the past few years- they have used c2duo's, c2quads, and i7's. Depending on the specific benchmark, the dual or the quad might win. It is hard to clearly define where the quad has an advantage, except for some of the video encoding apps. Likely the quad will have a greater advantage in the future. So how long do you intend to keep your cpu? If the answer is 4-5 years then you might go one way, 2-3 years you might go the other way.

Also, what do you do besides the video encoding (or whatever) app? Do you intend to burn DVD's while you do something else? Run virus scans? The way I see it is that if you are running apps that don't benefit that much from more than one core, then you can have one core run your main app, and the other core can deal with the other things the OS has going on. Two cores might be plenty. but OTOH if you want to keep one or two things going, and you want to do a virus scan, burn dvd's, etc. in the background, then you can have one core for your foreground process, another core or two to deal with the OS, and still another core for the hungry background task.

I run autocad at work, and it mostly uses only one core. We bought some c2quads recently, and I ordered a c2duo for myself. My c2duo will very clearly wipe the floor with the c2quads. Absolutely no comparison.

OTOH for my new computer at home I bought a Q9400 and overclocked it. I can run a virus scan, and other minor stuff, and not slow down the computer at all. It might do the same thing with a c2duo, or it might not, but I got the Q9400 for a good price at microcenter so I thought I would go for it. Since I tend to do things like run virus scans, download stuff, copy folders, and still want the computer to be responsive, I decided not to take the chance on the c2duo.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

cadder - Newer versions of Autocad make use of multiple cores. The design engineers at the technology center where I work upgraded to Intel quad cores and Autocad 8. They are very happy campers.

 

[jsc]

I have pretty much "standardized" on OD'd quad cores. I can OC a quad core enough (generally around 3.3 GHz. to 3.4 GHz.) that the GPU performance becomes the limiting factor. And the rest of the times, the quad core systems just seem more responsive.

 

[B-Unit]

^+1

"However, the basic principle is that new applications will benefit from having more cores... even games. Therefore, 4 cores running at 2.66GHz equates to potential performance of over 10GHz, while 2 cores at 4GHz only has the potential of 8GHz.

Yes, I know that this only applies if all the cores are rocking full out, but the i7-920 sounds like it can be comfortably overclocked to 3.4GHz with the stock cooler, let alone anything better; water cooling should get to upwards of 4GHz. " - Sigy19

Not, thats not the principal, at all. The only way that is true would be with the implementation of 'reverse HyperThreading' I.E. all 2/4/8 cores can simultaneously work on the same thread. As the tech currently stands, its still apples to apples when comparing clock speeds on dual and quad processors (of the same model series)

 

[gamerk316]

This is my argument:

2 years ago, people were saying a highly clocked P4 would be fine for two or three years.

Anyone using a highly clocked P4? Didn't think so.

 

[Siggy19]

^+1

"However, the basic principle is that new applications will benefit from having more cores... even games. Therefore, 4 cores running at 2.66GHz equates to potential performance of over 10GHz, while 2 cores at 4GHz only has the potential of 8GHz." - Siggy19

Not, thats not the principal, at all. The only way that is true would be with the implementation of 'reverse HyperThreading' I.E. all 2/4/8 cores can simultaneously work on the same thread. As the tech currently stands, its still apples to apples when comparing clock speeds on dual and quad processors (of the same model series)

What ???

As applications, including games, are written to use multiple threads, there is no reason why a single thread would need to be run on multiple cores... what will typically happen is that may 5, 10 or 20 threads will be launched that all run simultaneously (move this tank over there, display that explosion, check if I died, produce scream from monster, etc). On a multi-core CPU, as each core finishes its current thread, it picks up another one. Thus, all cores may be continuously running full out. Hyperthreading means that, within each of those threads, the i7 can start processing the next instruction of the current thread before it finishes the previous one. Sometimes, the instruction it thinks is next will turn out not to be due to the flow of the code, so it is not as fast as having 8 cores, but it's better than 2.

 

[4745454b]

Siggy, this was discussed to death when HT/dual cores first came out. I'd tell B-Unit to explain it, but I'm not sure you'd understand. 4x2.66=10GHz+ is only true if "reverse HT" exists. Normal HT works by allowing one core to work on more then one thread. Reverse HT works by allowing more then one core to work on one thread. People are rumored to be working on this, but (with my limited programing knowledge) I don't see how this is really possible. You can't work with C to add that to D until A and B have been added.

 

[Siggy19]

My understanding is that multi-threading works by having a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i all cued up to be processed. I am assuming that these are individual threads rather than individual instructions for the very reason you give.

Then, if j requires the output from a,c and h, it has to wait until those are done, but k can start immediately if it only relies on a and c, for example. Thus, a slow chunk of code does not necessarily affect anything else.

This explains why programs need to be specifically written for multi-core systems... you want to have many small, distinct threads running at once. That way, the system can use all of the cores more efficiently. One core may be hung up with a big thread, while the others are churning through dozens of small ones.

Of course, if the multiple 'threads' are really just single instructions, you are correct and the bottleneck involved in managing these will be onerous. But I cannot believe that this is the case... there are too many benefits available of being able to keep threads seperate and being able to allocate specific threads to specific processors even.

 

[werxen]

This is my argument:

2 years ago, people were saying a highly clocked P4 would be fine for two or three years.

Anyone using a highly clocked P4? Didn't think so.

sorry people were saying a highly overclocked p4 would be fine 2 years ago? :lol: :lol: :lol: yeah right.