Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why do YOU own a quad core?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:50:08 AM

Uses more electricity, produces more heat, rarely gets utilized to its potential. Just curious, why? If there were better dual core options would you be inclined to get those instead? Lets say a dual core that was 125 TDP like quads these days and came stock 4.5 gig would you still rather get a quad? Its just weird to me seeing as how 99% of are not professionals in our computer field and do not need the raw power of more than 2 cores.

More about : quad core

March 1, 2010 5:05:54 AM

I use it for x264 (--preset veryslow keeps it occupied alot ;)  ). if YOU dont need the power, get something ARM based :lol: 
Most of the people here own them because we are "enthusiasts", ie not the average consumer.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 5:08:52 AM

skittle said:
I use it for x264 (--preset veryslow keeps it occupied alot ;)  ). if YOU dont need the power, get something ARM based :lol: 
Most of the people here own them because we are "enthusiasts", ie not the average consumer.


I suppose but its like having a ferrari that you cant drive to its full potential unless you are doing something arbitrary like going across the street for milk.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 5:18:12 AM

Why do I have a quad?

Solidworks flow simulations, CFD, and finite element analysis, Matlab, and FSX.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 5:23:45 AM

Because dual cores are too expensive.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 5:26:04 AM

Because I can.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 5:31:50 AM

werxen said:
Uses more electricity, produces more heat, rarely gets utilized to its potential. Just curious, why? If there were better dual core options would you be inclined to get those instead? Lets say a dual core that was 125 TDP like quads these days and came stock 4.5 gig would you still rather get a quad? Its just weird to me seeing as how 99% of are not professionals in our computer field and do not need the raw power of more than 2 cores.



This is only a valid argument if you stick to one task at a time. Me, I'm an incurable multitasker, which means I always try and do more at any given time than my poor PC is able to cope with. There was an interesting article a while back on Tom's where they tried to quantify the benefit of 2+ cores. They showed that you can quite happily game on a quad-core CPU while running a virus scan or some other CPU intensive app in the background. Even a high-clock dual core simply dies when you try and repeat this procedure.

I prefer to be forward-thinking in this regard. Quads are not being used optimally at the moment, but there are already benefits to having one, and this will become more prevalent as software changes to be more multi-core aware.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 6:01:25 AM

Because I have three Virtual Machines running at all times (supporting 3 different companies from home), I do X264 encoding, have several spreadsheets, word docs and Outlook open at all times, have anywhere from 3-10 tabs open in Explorer, have Media Player playing my latest tunes, and will occasionally game when I have downtime. Shoot...I can't wait for the Hex Cores in a month or two - bring 'em on. I can't wait until I can encode a BR into x264 in under an hour!
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 6:06:59 AM

Because I like to future proof my systems. Right now games are starting to need more than 2 cores or do better (L4D/L4D2 like quads and GTA IV needs a 3 or better core CPU to run decently).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 9:26:20 AM

Because my video and graphics software is either multi-core aware or I have multiple applications open at once.

And also games are starting to become multi-core aware now too.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 9:29:48 AM

Because I want something to brag about! :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 10:18:02 AM

Currently running spotify, 1xvirtual machine, firefox, IE, windows movie maker, Scite, word, and the company database. This machine drags with a quad, I would never consider a dual core.
Score
0
March 1, 2010 11:19:27 AM

Exactly, better for running many programs. Also if you want the best build ever, you wouldn't say 'Mehh, quad core is crap, I will get a slower dual core for the same price', would you?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 12:09:08 PM

Encoding video and gaming ... a quad handles both well.

Though a speedy dual (my spare is good at the second when clocked over 3.4) is fine for most stuff, it takes a lot longer to render frames ... plus you can't do anything else at the same time.

If you like to do many things a quad is good.

Yes the power bill is an issue ... I agree.

Most users wouldn't benefit from a quad ... in fact many only really need a single core for general purpose work like office and browsing.



Score
0
March 1, 2010 12:15:12 PM

Reynod said:
Most users wouldn't benefit from a quad ... in fact many only really need a single core for general purpose work like office and browsing.
Most users wouldn't be building a pc anyway, so there choices are limited ...
Score
0
March 1, 2010 12:18:06 PM

thats easy, photo editing, video editing, code compiling + rendering, all kind of intensive, but tbh i think i'd be better off with a better graphics set up + more ram.
Score
0
March 1, 2010 12:41:27 PM

So I can say I have a quad core. What of it?
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 12:59:17 PM

@werxen

Quad core handles multitasking, but that's old news you should already know that, unless this is an intentional flame thread.

Tell you what; Try burning a dual layer DVD, with your AV full security protection scanning, while listening to your software MP3 player playing music in the background, while surfing the web with multiple websites open and answering questions like this.

One of my friends was joking around saying you needed a Quad core just to safely run Nortons Internet Security 2010 and be able to do anything else, and he's close to being right about that, but I'm not running Nortons anymore, it brought my moms single core machine to its knees.

Is the next question why multiple graphics cards?

Are you really 97 yrs old?
Score
0
March 1, 2010 1:15:54 PM

You'll find that Oc to 4.5 ghz Dual-core, still is not an overall good performer compared to a quad system.
Score
0
March 1, 2010 1:47:47 PM

Easy answer: cause my phenom 2 X2 550 BE has 2 unlockable cores :D 
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 1:58:09 PM

werxen said:
I suppose but its like having a ferrari that you cant drive to its full potential unless you are doing something arbitrary like going across the street for milk.


After looking over your posting track record you seem to have some kind of vendetta against quad cores, but you also seem to be educated enough to know what the true benefits of a quad core cpu is, so what are you actually trying to do with this thread?
Score
0
March 1, 2010 2:17:15 PM

How about a better question; what is the cheapest good quad core? :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:21:36 PM

Is this thread trying to revive the arguments about how a Quad is needed for future gaming as they will all be MT? I never subscribed to that myself and I still don't as there are only a couple of games that make use of more than one core let alone all four, that said I do have a Quad but I also have a Dual so I can honestly say I'm on the fence with a foot in both camps. :lol: 
Score
0
March 1, 2010 2:28:40 PM

A friend told me a while a go to measure how good a processer is by x the amount of cores by the GHz so:
2.6 quad core is 2.6x4 = 10.4GHz.
Is this correct?
Score
0
a c 133 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:31:23 PM

Hmm why quad core ridiculous question IMO. Yes rite now a higher clocked dual core will excel at games but you cant beat a quad core it alot of other tasks i have a cheap Q8200 system which sux in gaming but rips threw encoding videos twice as fast as my dual core. Plus allot of games and program in the next year will be utilizing quad cores and beyond.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:32:44 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Is this thread trying to revive the arguments about how a Quad is needed for future gaming as they will all be MT? I never subscribed to that myself and I still don't as there are only a couple of games that make use of more than one core let alone all four, that said I do have a Quad but I also have a Dual so I can honestly say I'm on the fence with a foot in both camps. :lol: 


Hi Al, All of the last games I've purchased are multi core enhanced, but even if a game is only capable of addressing dual cores, the additional cores are handling all running background tasks so the duals could be fully addressed, doesn't Flight Simulator X released Oct of 2006, have the ability of using even more cores than 4, or am I wrong about that?

So really the gaming use of multi core CPU depends on the games you own.
Score
0
a c 133 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:32:56 PM

joshc123 said:
A friend told me a while a go to measure how good a processer is by x the amount of cores by the GHz so:
2.6 quad core is 2.6x4 = 10.4GHz.
Is this correct?

LOL your friend was bsing you that means nothing each core is a separate processor basically so multiplying your cores by there speed means nothing.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:43:00 PM

I went quad for mental ray rendering first, than continued the trend because quad systems are more responsive than dual with the amount of work I do. Outside of old software and games, a slower quad will usually out perform a faster dual core now too, even with games.
Score
0
March 1, 2010 2:44:06 PM

saaiello said:
LOL your friend was bsing you that means nothing each core is a separate processor basically so multiplying your cores by there speed means nothing.

Haha I thought so, is there anyway of acturatly measuring the speed then ;) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 2:44:10 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Hi Al, All of the last games I've purchased are multi core enhanced, but even if a game is only capable of addressing dual cores, the additional cores are handling all running background tasks so the duals could be fully addressed, doesn't Flight Simulator X have the ability of using even more cores than 4, or am I wrong about that?

Hi Ry, I don't know for sure as I don't do flight sims but I have read that it likes cores but I'm still gaming on a dual and have not noticed any adverse affects because of a lack of cores that said the Quad sits in the 'workhorse' rig and the amount it can do at the same time without slowing down is astonishing, no doubt about it and would I swap it for a dual? No not a chance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 3:23:28 PM

Not really. When I download a movie they are usually pre 'rendered' for me. I only ever render for my Zune HD and guess what? I use my video card and that kicks the crap out of a quad any day of the week.

Multitasking is about the only thing going for quads and those systems are severely limited to RAM, not cores. A dual core system with 4 gigs will multitask better than a quad core with 2 gigs.

Gaming is still dual core advantage because like I have stressed many times before the average consumer does not have a quad core therefore the market is not designed for them.
Score
0
March 1, 2010 3:36:41 PM

Because Win7+i7 means Windows can park excess cores and my quad core uses less power than a previous gen dual core when idle. When it's not idle, it doesn't matter because watt for watt, it gets more work done. So even when it's using more power, it's getting work done faster which means it still uses less power.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:05:41 PM

werxen said:
Gaming is still dual core advantage because like I have stressed many times before the average consumer does not have a quad core therefore the market is not designed for them.


That statement is totally in error, where are you getting your information 2yr old articles?, check out where your dual core even enters this chart.

And don't cry the overclocking card, because if you overclock your CPU, its only fair to overclock the contenders too.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Far-Cry-2-1.0.1,1401.html

Look at the other games tested too, there is a big difference between opinion and facts.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:11:53 PM

Yeah i'm one of the happy owners of quad core (an Q8200)
The reason why i pushared a quad cpu is it's the future ( especially of gaming )

if you own a 45nm quad you won't see a big temp or wattage increase (exept if you own a 140W AMD cpu:)  )
and combine that quad cpu with Win7 and some solid components and you will get a FAAAAAST system because Win7 is especially optimized for multi cpu's.

C'mon people, Quads are better than duals especially if you are lucky owner of an Core i7!
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:17:52 PM

werxen said:
Uses more electricity, produces more heat, rarely gets utilized to its potential. Just curious, why? If there were better dual core options would you be inclined to get those instead? Lets say a dual core that was 125 TDP like quads these days and came stock 4.5 gig would you still rather get a quad? Its just weird to me seeing as how 99% of are not professionals in our computer field and do not need the raw power of more than 2 cores.

3 cores shows a noticeable difference in a lot of things. I would have gotten the athlon IIx3 but for some reason here in Canada, the x3 costs more than the x4 which is at $100... if you can find it at all
Score
0
March 1, 2010 4:20:42 PM

werxen said:
Not really. When I download a movie they are usually pre 'rendered' for me. I only ever render for my Zune HD and guess what? I use my video card and that kicks the crap out of a quad any day of the week.

Multitasking is about the only thing going for quads and those systems are severely limited to RAM, not cores. A dual core system with 4 gigs will multitask better than a quad core with 2 gigs.

Gaming is still dual core advantage because like I have stressed many times before the average consumer does not have a quad core therefore the market is not designed for them.


#1. i7 quad core out performs video cards for converting movies
#2. who gets 2GB of ram? it's like $50 for 2GB, pay the $100 and get 4GB. It's not a choice between 4GB and a quad core
#3. Have you read BC2 forums? Dual core comps get gett'n pwnt something fierce. A heavy fight in BC2 can get my i7 upwards for 50% load which would mean 200% load for a dual core. Boy, wouldn't that be fun. FPS all backed up because you didn't want to pay an extra $25 for a quad.

The only people who get dual cores anymore are for netbooks, low power computers, cheap computers where $50 makes a diff.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:24:06 PM

joshc123 said:
A friend told me a while a go to measure how good a processer is by x the amount of cores by the GHz so:
2.6 quad core is 2.6x4 = 10.4GHz.
Is this correct?

It doesn't work like that. Even if it did, difference processor generations do a different amount of work per cycle so GHz can vary in meaning too. For example, a dual core 3GHz pentium 4 will be outperformed by a 2GHz core 2 duo easily. The core 2 architecture does more work per cycle.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
March 1, 2010 4:25:46 PM

This has gone far enough!
Score
0
!