Multi Core Processors & Power Requirements

[curt31]

Hello I'm considering upgrading an aging computer system and was looking at dual and quad core processors. The AMD dual core is rated at 65 watts is that for both cores or for just one, I guess the question I'm asking is is the wattage that listed for the entire processor or just one individual core.
May sound like a silly question but I really wasen't sure. Thanks

Tom j.

 

[andy5174]

Power ratings are always for the entire unit no matter what it is....

 

[curt31]

Say thanks so for the quad that's rated at I think 95 that's for the entire CPU? Just wondering why I've been reading so much about people complaining about the power required for these processors that's really why I asked even 95 watts really isn't all that bad just like a light bulb.

Tom j.

 

[p1n3apqlexpr3ss]

Yes, that means the TDP rating for the WHOLE CPU is just 95 watts

 

[skora]

What you need to do is go to your motherboard manufactures website, lookup your mobo, and check the Supported CPU list. Just because the socket and TDP match, doesn't mean the bios will work for a new chip on an old board. If you can't find the list, post your board and we'll see if we can find it.

 

[curt31]

What you need to do is go to your motherboard manufactures website, lookup your mobo, and check the Supported CPU list. Just because the socket and TDP match, doesn't mean the bios will work for a new chip on an old board. If you can't find the list, post your board and we'll see if we can find it.

Hi thanks good advise the board I currently have in mind is the ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO AM3 I was thinking about coupling that one with possibly a AMD Athlon II X2 250 Regor 3.0GHz.

Tom j.

 

[p1n3apqlexpr3ss]

Yes, that mobo and processor will work together completely fine

 

[skora]

Yep, that mobo will handle all of the Phenom II x2-4 and Athlon IIx2-4 line. Lots of choices and very good performers for the price.

 

[curt31]

Yes, that mobo and processor will work together completely fine

Thanks guys for all the help! I was considering a quad processor but I read that in order to really take full advantage of these multi core processors the software has to be written specifically for multi thread applications, and that single thread programs are unable to utilize the processing power of the second core, and therefore will see no appreciable increase in performance. I do plan on eventually doing some video editing and I understand these programs are specifically written to take advantage of the second core so I will eventually gain some benefit.

Tom j.

 

[p1n3apqlexpr3ss]

ANY video editing will take advantage of extra cores, perhaps look at the athlon tri or quad cores

 

[skora]

A dual will gain benefit for the basic user anyway because there's always more than just 1 app running. Virus scanners, operating system services. If you plan to keep this system for a long time also, I'd spend the extra few bucks to get at least a tri core or a quad if you can swing it. In the long run, it will really pay off and you'll get more benefit from it than you think.

 

[curt31]

ANY video editing will take advantage of extra cores, perhaps look at the athlon tri or quad cores

What would you recommend this board gives me a pretty good upgrade path, didn't want to spend more then say 150 on the processor less if possible.

Tom

 

[skora]

Athlon II x4 630 is only $100
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704

I think its worth the $4 for the extra 200mhz speed over the 620.

If you're not overclocking and not doing professional grade editing, no need to spend the full $150 on a 945 or $160 for the 955.

 

[moody89]

+1 to what skora said.

I use that processor on my rig and it's very fast for the price. Can't go wrong really Also as single core CPUs are fading out rapidly, more and more applications will be written to take advantage of multiple CPU cores. The Althon II X4 should mean you don't have to upgrade for a good few years!

 

[curt31]

Athlon II x4 630 is only $100
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704

I think its worth the $4 for the extra 200mhz speed over the 620.

If you're not overclocking and not doing professional grade editing, no need to spend the full $150 on a 945 or $160 for the 955.

Hi what increase in speed would you think I might see going from a dual to a quad processor running multi-thread applications there's twice the number of cores but I wouldn't imagine it would be as simple as twice the processing power, and do you think 95 watts is reasonable for a quad processor. This is one of the best sites I've come across everyone is so friendly and helpful, loads of help here I highly recommend it!

Tom j.

 

[skora]

We are all glad to help.

Here's a fun way to illustrate the difference. The blue line is the Athlon II 630 x4 2.8ghz. The orange line is the Athlon II 240e x2 2.8ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=105&p2=114&c=1

On the multi threaded apps, the x4 is vastly SUPERIOR. The single threaded, they are generally pretty close trading wins, but nothing that buries the other. The other advantage for the quad is the benchmark system is going to be running a very clean OS to isolate how the CPU effects the program performance. So a virus scanner isn't running, all the programs looking for auto updates, downloads, web browsers open, all that isn't running for the test. In the real world, all these resource thieves will be running so the quad core will do better than the benchmarks show compared to the dual that has 2 less cores to share for those other tasks.

My take on this is, you have upto $150 for a CPU. Minimum, you need $58 for a CPU. You could justify a CPU upgrade within 2 years and have to shell out more then if you want or just let the system do its best and live with it. Or, spend $100, far less than the cap, for a quad core, and have a CPU that will run for much longer than dual before showing its age. The cost ratio to expected life easily justifies the extra $42 now and as more and more apps go multi threaded, you'll be prepared for them.

As for the TDP or wattage of the CPU, that's a stat that represents the most amount of current the CPU is designed to handle. The current generates heat, so the lower the better. 95w is very reasonable, but really, that number shouldn't be anything you're using to make a decision unless you're looking for extreme power savings. Performance wise, doesn't matter.

 

[curt31]

We are all glad to help.

Here's a fun way to illustrate the difference. The blue line is the Athlon II 630 x4 2.8ghz. The orange line is the Athlon II 240e x2 2.8ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=105&p2=114&c=1

On the multi threaded apps, the x4 is vastly SUPERIOR. The single threaded, they are generally pretty close trading wins, but nothing that buries the other. The other advantage for the quad is the benchmark system is going to be running a very clean OS to isolate how the CPU effects the program performance. So a virus scanner isn't running, all the programs looking for auto updates, downloads, web browsers open, all that isn't running for the test. In the real world, all these resource thieves will be running so the quad core will do better than the benchmarks show compared to the dual that has 2 less cores to share for those other tasks.

My take on this is, you have upto $150 for a CPU. Minimum, you need $58 for a CPU. You could justify a CPU upgrade within 2 years and have to shell out more then if you want or just let the system do its best and live with it. Or, spend $100, far less than the cap, for a quad core, and have a CPU that will run for much longer than dual before showing its age. The cost ratio to expected life easily justifies the extra $42 now and as more and more apps go multi threaded, you'll be prepared for them.

As for the TDP or wattage of the CPU, that's a stat that represents the most amount of current the CPU is designed to handle. The current generates heat, so the lower the better. 95w is very reasonable, but really, that number shouldn't be anything you're using to make a decision unless you're looking for extreme power savings. Performance wise, doesn't matter.

Thanks! I agree think I'll go with the quad, now and with this board I still have a decent upgrade path. I actually started this project a few months ago and at that time I got a good deal with rebate on a 500 watt Thermaltake power supply hoping that will be sufficient, plan on two hard drives a DVD and CD drive sound card, and that quad core processor. You think that's sufficient hope so seeing that I already bought it.

Tom j.

 

[skora]

Yeah, 500w will be more than enough for that setup. Here's a calc if you want to see how little you'll actually use. For that PSU, you'll want to load it no more than 60% of capacity, but I'd be surprised if you top 200w. Do you do any gaming?

 

[curt31]

Yeah, 500w will be more than enough for that setup. Here's a calc if you want to see how little you'll actually use. For that PSU, you'll want to load it no more than 60% of capacity, but I'd be surprised if you top 200w. Do you do any gaming?

Just getting into gaming this board comes with HD video but what card would you recommend I'm not a hardcore gamer and don't want to once again pend a lot of $$$, but I do like to play occasionally. Thanks!!

Tom j.

 

[skora]

What resolution monitor do you have? That is the biggest factor in how inexpensive of a card you can get away with. The onboard graphics on the mobo probably won't be able to do much in the way of first person shooters, might be able to do some rts on minimum settings if the resolution is low enough.

When you do play, are you okay with less than max settings for the visuals?

 

[p1n3apqlexpr3ss]

Im just gonna go ahead and recommend a 5670, good overall card, but also whats your budget and resolution?

 

[curt31]

Hi got my eye on an 22 inch well 21.5 I think AOC looks pretty nice with a resolution of 1920x 1080 guess my limit would be well 150 actually 100 or a little less would be great I'm not a heavy gamer. Thanks Guys!

Tom j.

 

[p1n3apqlexpr3ss]

for 100$ go with a 5670, if you can squeeze a little more go with 5750 or 5770. The 5670 will be good for playing medium-high settings at 1080p

 

[skora]

My $95 suggestion would be this 4850 1gb:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131163&cm_re=4850-_-14-131-163-_-Product

My $130 suggestion would be this 5770 1gb:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10012284&ps=homain2

The 4850 will be superior to the 5670 but will require a 6 pin PCIe power connector. Not sure if you're upgrading your PSU in the upgrade or not or what you currently have. The 5670 doesn't require one though.

 

[curt31]

Thanks again guys I checked and my new power supply does have a 6 pin connector kind of did my homework on the power supply extensively before I made the purchase and was trying to be as forward thinking as I could be, so that it wouldn't be obsolete the day after I made the purchase only thing I'm missing is that new PCI express 2 connector I just have 1 PCI express x1 connector. Going to look at these cards and get back.

Tom j.