Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How many CPU cores does your primary computer have?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

For you prmary computer, how many CPU cores does it have?

Total: 62 votes (3 blank votes)

  • Single core
  • 7 %
  • Single core w/hyperthreading (P4, Atom)
  • 2 %
  • Dual Core
  • 33 %
  • Tri-Core
  • 2 %
  • Quad Core
  • 45 %
  • Quad Core + SMT (i7)
  • 14 %
April 4, 2009 2:38:42 AM

It seems the single core CPU has gone the way of the dodo. Dual cores are incredibly cheap, and three core CPUs and quads are becoming mainstream. I would like to see how the forum stands. I'm still a single core hold out. Used dual cores in the past, but now I've settled down with my computing needs and have been content with the classic single core CPU. I myself rock a Celeron 420 at stock clocks (1.6 measly GHz), but undervolted to 1.0 volt for max power efficiency. It will do office apps, Hulu video, and old games without issue, which is where my primary usage for my main rig lies.

For those of you who have upgraded from single to dual to tri or quad, did you notice a significant performance increase each time? Was one upgrade level more prominent then another? Finally, ever regret the upgrade because it didn't deliver the performance boost you were expecting?
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 3:14:40 AM

I run an i7 highly overclocked, and I love it. I multitask all the time, with fairly CPU intensive applications such as Matlab, Solidworks, and quite a bit of gaming. I also run both the CPU and GPU clients of Folding@home. I definitely noticed an improvement over my old dual. I will be the first to admit though that my workload is far from typical.
April 4, 2009 6:07:03 AM

i run a q6600@3,6ghz for over a year now.
my previous cpu was an e6600@3ghz and i didn't notice a huge difference at that point. the step up to a dualcore was much greater. recently i get more and more out of my quad thanks to programmers finally optimizing games etc.

for video converting and rar etc. the quad has always been king however since it's WAY faster at this than a dualcore.

if you have a fast dual, you can keep a while longer i guess, but if you're in for a new cpu: a quad is the way to go from now on (a triple is not bad either!)

just my 2 cents....
Related resources
April 4, 2009 7:44:21 AM

I just recently traded my E8400 for my brothers Q6600 running @3Ghz (gonna push for 3.4) and with my GTX 260 I'm perfectly happy. Yes I know most games don't take advantage of quads but for the few that do I think its worth it. As for Joefriday's question (For those of you who have upgraded from single to dual to tri or quad, did you notice a significant performance increase each time? Was one upgrade level more prominent then another? Finally, ever regret the upgrade because it didn't deliver the performance boost you were expecting?) I personally feel my computer is much snappier. My start up and shutdown times have improved, and running mutiple programs at the same time doesn't bog down my system in the slightest. For the average person a dual maybe more than enough for now but I can see quads (and higher) becoming more common place in the average home with the cost of them going down.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 8:11:51 AM

I went from a single core Athlon 3000+ @ 2.3GHz to an Athlon X2 5000. Yeah it was a huge difference. I didn't go for quad right away since I knew that just like it took programmers a while to get some optimization for dual core, it was gonna take some time to be optimized for quad core. Now with the Phenom IIs though I'm looking forward to a 955 BE soon.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 8:44:58 AM

joefriday said:
It seems the single core CPU has gone the way of the dodo.


Oooh, not while, I'm around! My main computer is an Athlon XP with VIA Unichrome graphics ;) 

meljor said:

if you have a fast dual, you can keep a while longer i guess, but if you're in for a new cpu: a quad is the way to go from now on (a triple is not bad either!)


All my money is going to bank interest.
April 4, 2009 8:47:26 AM

Went from a Athlon 3500+ (2.2ghz) to a dual core (2.2ghz) and replaced my Radeon 9600 for a HD3800 and got 2gb more ram. My computer is now slower then before. Unless I play a higher end game :S
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 12:41:45 PM

joostlobe said:
Went from a Athlon 3500+ (2.2ghz) to a dual core (2.2ghz) and replaced my Radeon 9600 for a HD3800 and got 2gb more ram. My computer is now slower then before. Unless I play a higher end game :S


Huh?
April 4, 2009 3:03:46 PM

amdfangirl said:
Oooh, not while, I'm around! My main computer is an Athlon XP with VIA Unichrome graphics ;) 

I thought you had an underclocked X2?

Anyway, I had a little fantasy about using all AMD CPUs for my computers a few days ago. I have the Sempron LE-1100 running the HTPC, and I have a K6-2+ 500 on Super Socket 7 for a nice DVD playing, email, and word processing machine at my vacation home. I recently was given an Athlon XP 2800+ Barton CPU and VIA KT600 board, and although it would be just a bit slower than my current Celeron 420 (about 10-15% worse), I thought it would make for a decent daily computer. WRONG. power consumption was hovering around 100 watts in BIOS (double that of my Celeron 420 rig), and of course the factory Athlon XP CPU fan howls at 3500 rpm. I'm kinda surprised a low-power girl like yourself is pimping the Athlon XP. Never a very power efficient platform, but boy, they were great CPUs.
a c 83 à CPUs
April 4, 2009 6:04:14 PM

I'm not sure what to classify as my main rig as I use them all pretty equally. I've got my laptop I use daily with a 2.0Ghz CoreDuo, Gaming rig has a 2.8Ghz Athlon X2 7750, and my HTPC/Backup gaming rig has a 3.0Ghz Athlon X2 5000BE in it. I did also just order a Phenom which I will be using for a cheap workstation primarily for 3ds max rendering, if I feel quad is a step up from dual core for more than just a few programs I use I'll be getting a Phenom II BE for my gaming rig and possibly an Athlon II X4 as a more energy efficient quad for my HTPC.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 6:36:50 PM

Joe,

Main personal systems = Q9450/3GHz. and AMD PII 940/3.6GHz.

Also currently using Quad/duals:

Q6600 2.8Ghz.
E8400 3.4Ghz.
E6600 2.6Ghz.
AMD 64 4800 X2 939 2.6GHz. (The very first dual core processor released)
Pentium D 925 3.2Ghz
Pentium D 805

Single cores I have runnig and use everyday and some for many years. The DDR speeds of 3.2 GB/sec. are a bit slow after using the much faster C2Q/C2D systems with 6.4-8.5+ data transfer rates. I hate working on slow computers.

AMD 64 FX55 939 2.8GHz. (The second fastest single core desktop processor released, FX57 being the fastest. Still runs very well, easy to use with the office apps, photoshop, etc. I use it for.)

AMD 64 4000 939 stock (Used as main 'Windows XP' all purpose machine.

AMD 64 3700 2.5GHz. 754 (The very top socket 754 unit released.)
AMD 64 3400 2.5GHz. 754 (have two runnng everyday)
AMD 64 3200 754
AMD XP 3200 2.2GHz 462

I have a perfect running PIII 450MHz. running. Also an AMD Celeron 388MHz. (I think). Retired from ofice use long time ago.

The AMD FX55 at 2.8GHz still offers great performance for what I do, office, photoshop, digital photographs.

Is this being recorded? I refuse to answer any further questions without legal representation...what was the question?





April 4, 2009 7:10:50 PM

I use a Q6600@3.6 and I'm very happy w/ my decision, it's one of the parts of my computer that I really don't regret, I can play HD videos while surfing the internet and keeping all the other apps in the background open and it doesn't get stuck (w/ the exception of firefox which at the last couple of version is really heavy).
I switched to it from a P4@3GHZ (stock) w/ 512MB ram which was kinda state of the art back then and the difference is incredible. I can't testify to games because I switched from a radeon 9600 to a 4870.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 7:11:00 PM

between my current computers, i run in powers of 2

file server: A64 4000+ (old computer, nothing special, just 4x640 in raid0, maxes out a gigabit connection)
laptop: Intel T7200 (well, its a laptop)
desktop: Phenom II 810 (yaysss, getting 4/7/09 from newegg...well the parts at least, then i have to put it together)
April 4, 2009 9:13:19 PM

Wow Badge, that's quite a nice collection of unique processors.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 9:19:54 PM

Yeah, you should see me perform a Windows Vista/XP major update. Three main locations. I use speedstep on the C2D/C2Q's. I don't like AMD Cool and Quiet. Seems to slow down my PII 940 a bit too noticablly. Not so with Speedstep. Hey, I'm energy/cost conscious too. I like economically minded builds.
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 11:04:50 PM

joefriday said:
I thought you had an underclocked X2?

Anyway, I had a little fantasy about using all AMD CPUs for my computers a few days ago. I have the Sempron LE-1100 running the HTPC, and I have a K6-2+ 500 on Super Socket 7 for a nice DVD playing, email, and word processing machine at my vacation home. I recently was given an Athlon XP 2800+ Barton CPU and VIA KT600 board, and although it would be just a bit slower than my current Celeron 420 (about 10-15% worse), I thought it would make for a decent daily computer. WRONG. power consumption was hovering around 100 watts in BIOS (double that of my Celeron 420 rig), and of course the factory Athlon XP CPU fan howls at 3500 rpm. I'm kinda surprised a low-power girl like yourself is pimping the Athlon XP. Never a very power efficient platform, but boy, they were great CPUs.


Nope, it kinda died. I'm getting an E7200 soon *gasp*...
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2009 11:28:19 PM

badge said:
Yeah, you should see me perform a Windows Vista/XP major update. Three main locations. I use speedstep on the C2D/C2Q's. I don't like AMD Cool and Quiet. Seems to slow down my PII 940 a bit too noticablly. Not so with Speedstep. Hey, I'm energy/cost conscious too. I like economically minded builds.



I noticed that too, it seems Cool and Quiet keeps the CPU a little too cool and quiet, does not do a good job of bringing the CPU "up to task", so to speak.
Got a pretty good improvement all around when I disabled it on my 920 too.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread, just sharing a thought.
April 5, 2009 12:19:53 AM

I got a x4 940...does me pretty well..i have actually bought more than I need...i cant seem to find a way to use all of the power i have (besides gaming)....i have been encoding some video with premiere lately...they are pretty core intensive.
!