Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

THIS is why you need a quad core!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 4:43:21 AM

More about : quad core

a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 4:55:16 AM

lawl sauce... well, it did say "at the same time"... :p 
a c 125 à CPUs
March 16, 2010 4:57:50 AM

Thats funny.

I need a wuad so I can have 4 instances of MS Paint open........
Related resources
a c 158 à CPUs
March 16, 2010 5:07:57 AM

jajaja, Yeah sure, and you need a six-core to check an e-mail, edit a digital photo, run a virus protection and write your homework in Word.

You can do it that with a i3 or Athlon II X2....or maybe less.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 10:36:50 AM

The ad is clearly talking about both chips (and possibly others in between). Although even a single core could do those things, since "virus protection" doesn't sound like "virus scan" to me.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 11:32:20 AM



Yes and you need an Quad-core just to boot up your PC and load windows. That's a very hard task!!! :pt1cable:  :lol: 


ROFL
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 2:12:10 PM

i got a quad core to BSOD faster
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 3:44:59 PM

The worst part is there is someone out there believing this. I love these adds. :pt1cable: 
March 16, 2010 3:54:38 PM

Wow. Can I play Dave with Quad and Onboard Graphics ? Or do I need a 5970 for that ?

Honestly, though...how can someone be fooled by that ? I'm running an Athlon 2400+ and I do more than that with a single core.
a c 83 à CPUs
March 16, 2010 6:19:13 PM

I run all quads now, but I downclock/undervolt them for the majority of tasks I do. I don't need to have a quad in every computer, but they're just so cheap these days. lol
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2010 6:31:08 PM

Pro Llama said:
The worst part is there is someone out there believing this. I love these adds. :pt1cable: 



+1.

I read all of them in the newspaper!!
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2010 1:59:20 PM

Quote:
The ad does NOT say you need a quad core to do those things.


Correct, it implies it.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2010 4:48:42 PM

Well if you look at the ad you will see that it says "The Ideal Desktop for Great Performance On a Budget." Now look a little closer: Is that a picture of a desktop? 'Cause it looks a lot like my laptop. I think I would be very careful in trying to buy from this vendor!
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2010 9:41:31 PM

Pro Llama said:
Correct, it implies it.

No, it implies that you need an X2 through to an X4.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2010 9:48:13 PM

Lol- thats pretty funny. (Also- +1 to the BSOD faster :-D)
March 17, 2010 9:52:40 PM

Not to mention that thats a weird looking desktop
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 5:38:14 AM

randomizer said:
No, it implies that you need an X2 through to an X4.


lol... Actually to the average computer illiterate person it means that more cores = always better. It's ok to make fun of quad cores Randomizer... you know that, right? They wont magically die one day if you do :lol:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 6:34:49 AM

werxen said:
lol... Actually to the average computer illiterate person it means that more cores = always better.

Which is different to saying "you need a quad to check your email." And being an ad that is trying to get you to pay more, making it sound like more = better, or anything = better (when in fact it isn't), isn't exactly surprising. Perhaps you've never done marketing. Twisting the facts is what they do.
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 6:44:15 AM

randomizer said:
Which is different to saying "you need a quad to check your email." And being an ad that is trying to get you to pay more, making it sound like more = better, or anything = better (when in fact it isn't), isn't exactly surprising. Perhaps you've never done marketing. Twisting the facts is what they do.



yeah and some people buy into it huh? I mean... you love more and more cores yet here we have an amazing thread on toms on the front page talking about how 4 cores > 4 cores with 4 logical threads. Oh silly me could it be that you were wrong for once in assuming more cores > * like the average consumer does because of faulty marketing? No... never.... :lol: 
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 7:19:29 AM

I don't assume anything. You assume I assume. I also never said that more cores > all in every situation. But you enjoy gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts so I've come to expect that from you. The only thing in your post that I can see that is correct in relation to what I say is that I love more cores, which I do. But that's because I can use them. If you can't well that's your problem, stick with your dual core.

I also can't find the article you're referring to.
March 18, 2010 8:54:53 AM

Dang I better get 8-core since Im listening music and watching movies at the same time too. :) 
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 8:05:30 PM

randomizer said:
I don't assume anything. You assume I assume. I also never said that more cores > all in every situation. But you enjoy gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts so I've come to expect that from you. The only thing in your post that I can see that is correct in relation to what I say is that I love more cores, which I do. But that's because I can use them. If you can't well that's your problem, stick with your dual core.

I also can't find the article you're referring to.


Its called a thread not an article as I said above.

And the only reason you love more cores is just to USE more cores. It is circular reasoning. You have no real need for more cores - you just want them so you can use them. You are not a professional in the field of rendering or photo editing so the time you shave off having a 6 core 12 thread processor is meaningless. I don't know about you but I do not notice a .00001 time difference when adding 7 filters on a photoshop design. Whatever suits YOU though. You can keep your circular reasoning but it might not be applicable for 99.9999% of people.
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 8:46:09 PM

I think the only evidence I need of the benefit of a 4th core is to read the $750 SBM article from today- I was shocked by the performance boost of unlocking the 4th core on the Athlon II x3! (to actually throw a little bit of serious into this thread :-D)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/value-gaming-pc,257...
March 18, 2010 9:18:40 PM

werxen said:
Its called a thread not an article as I said above.

And the only reason you love more cores is just to USE more cores. It is circular reasoning. You have no real need for more cores - you just want them so you can use them. You are not a professional in the field of rendering or photo editing so the time you shave off having a 6 core 12 thread processor is meaningless. I don't know about you but I do not notice a .00001 time difference when adding 7 filters on a photoshop design. Whatever suits YOU though. You can keep your circular reasoning but it might not be applicable for 99.9999% of people.


Are you trying to say not needing more cores invalidates wanting more cores? Just because he doesn't NEED them, doesn't mean he can't LOVE them. If he finds software that helps him take advantage of four cores isn't that reason enough? Why do people insist on telling others they shouldn't have something unless they absolutely need it? If he wants a gazillion-core processor who really gives a ***? Let him have it. The need is irrelevent. Buy what you want and let others do the same. You don't NEED to stand on a soap box.
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2010 10:15:31 PM

werxen said:
Its called a thread not an article as I said above.

You also said it was on the front page so I assumed you just used the wrong word. My bad, which thread is it then? I don't have time to search through every thread on this forum for it, especially since I don't even know the title...

werxen said:
And the only reason you love more cores is just to USE more cores. It is circular reasoning. You have no real need for more cores - you just want them so you can use them.

Incorrect assumption again, you're arguing a straw man. I am a very impatient person when I have to wait for the computer to complete a task. If I can shave 5% off rendering times then that's a good thing. Fortunately, having more cores does alot better than that. Scaling is almost linear. My i7 without HT would render the same image in half the time of an equally clocked dual core of the same architecture. Enabling HT drops render times by another 15%, which is significant for a longer render. Perhaps if you tried doing something other than playing games you'd understand more about the world outside your little box.

I could also argue that you don't need anything more than a P4. All your software runs on it, why would you ever want 2 cores?!

werxen said:
You are not a professional in the field of rendering or photo editing so the time you shave off having a 6 core 12 thread processor is meaningless. I don't know about you but I do not notice a .00001 time difference when adding 7 filters on a photoshop design.


I don't care what you don't notice when you've clearly never done what I do. No I am not a professional, I'm an amateur and I do it because I enjoy it. I do not use photoshop, I'm hopeless at it. I would not buy a quad just for that. But rendering, as I stated above, does not receive an insignificant time reduction with more cores.

werxen said:
You can keep your circular reasoning but it might not be applicable for 99.9999% of people.


I never said it would.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 12:20:46 AM

randomizer said:
You also said it was on the front page so I assumed you just used the wrong word. My bad, which thread is it then? I don't have time to search through every thread on this forum for it, especially since I don't even know the title...


Incorrect assumption again, you're arguing a straw man. I am a very impatient person when I have to wait for the computer to complete a task. If I can shave 5% off rendering times then that's a good thing. Fortunately, having more cores does alot better than that. Scaling is almost linear. My i7 without HT would render the same image in half the time of an equally clocked dual core of the same architecture. Enabling HT drops render times by another 15%, which is significant for a longer render. Perhaps if you tried doing something other than playing games you'd understand more about the world outside your little box.

I could also argue that you don't need anything more than a P4. All your software runs on it, why would you ever want 2 cores?!



I don't care what you don't notice when you've clearly never done what I do. No I am not a professional, I'm an amateur and I do it because I enjoy it. I do not use photoshop, I'm hopeless at it. I would not buy a quad just for that. But rendering, as I stated above, does not receive an insignificant time reduction with more cores.



I never said it would.


It's not a straw man attack. Get your fallacies and rhetoric straight.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 1:05:01 AM

Wow. This is stupid.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 2:02:04 AM

It is a strawman because you are arguing against a misrepresentation of my opinion since you clearly can't argue against the real thing. You're out of your depth trying to argue with me on a task which I do and that you have no idea about. Perhaps you should try bringing it back to games again.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 2:39:05 AM

No a strawman is taking one of your points and blowing it up like its your only point. Wrong. Attacking your argument that IS the base (ie: dual vs. quad and the necessary usage for both hence the title and point of this thread) is NOT a strawman. Do not fall back on logical fallacies when your argument is mute in its infancy. If you enjoy rendering and that is what YOU do, great. 99 percent of us here on Toms do not. Most of us game and do side projects like photoshop every once in awhile. That being said, the only reason I can see a person on Toms wanting anything above a dual is to benchmark.


The only reason I bring this up is because you are a mod advocating more and more cores and threads and people actually take your advice over other peoples because of your 'title'. I have suggested my fair share of 920 builds until I saw the 1156 socket so we are both in the wrong with that. The only thing is I don't need to save face and hide it.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 6:03:01 AM

werxen said:
No a strawman is taking one of your points and blowing it up like its your only point. Wrong.

That is precisely what you are doing. You are making out that I advocate more cores in all circumstances. I have never maintained this, it's purely a figment of your imagination.

werxen said:
Attacking your argument that IS the base (ie: dual vs. quad and the necessary usage for both hence the title and point of this thread) is NOT a strawman.

I don't see you arguing about what a dual and quad should be used for. I see you starting a pointless thread trying to get people like myself and cjl who do use quads to respond and defend the use of quads. I am stating actual uses for quads, you are stating meaningless numbers like 99.9999% and 0.00001 of this and that in order to "refute" my argument. You have no argument, and you're using exaggeration and sarcasm to make yourself appear credible. Congratulation, you win a prize.

werxen said:
99 percent of us here on Toms do not. Most of us game and do side projects like photoshop every once in awhile.


Oh look, another meaningless number. What a surprise.

werxen said:
That being said, the only reason I can see a person on Toms wanting anything above a dual is to benchmark.

That's great, you're entitled to your opinion. I will continue to disagree.


werxen said:
The only reason I bring this up is because you are a mod advocating more and more cores and threads and people actually take your advice over other peoples because of your 'title'.

Not my problem. People should do research instead of taking my word for things, and they sure as hell should do research before taking yours. My job is to enforce the ToS. If people want to think that being a moderator means that I have some secret knowledge then they are only fooling themselves.

EDIT: I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue this. I have no reason to prove anything to you.
a c 125 à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:48:55 AM

The processor is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 2:25:02 PM

Man. I'm using a quad and I love it. Could I be using a dual core? Probably. Would it perform exactly as I want it to and as well as my quad in everything I do? NO. I realize that a quad is not necessary, and I would probably be ok with one, but I LOVE my quad. When I'm running multiple web browsers, various excel, word, and powerpoint documents, as well as having a virus scan going on in the background, I like being able to still boot up a game and enjoy it, without having to close up all my work, etc. Plus, today, more and more games are becoming more and more multithreaded, which means that they will perform better and better on more and more cores. Why would I buy a dual core when I can get a quad for not THAT much more money (or even less if you pick up an AMD!). I really see no reason NOT to get a quad core today unless your budget really cannot fit it, as it will be more and more useful in the future. BTW- did you READ the SBM budget machine article where the unlocked 4th core adds as much/more performance as overclocking in many of the benchmarks? Extra CPU power is really nice to have.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 5:46:17 PM

flyinfinni said:
Man. I'm using a quad and I love it. Could I be using a dual core? Probably. Would it perform exactly as I want it to and as well as my quad in everything I do? NO. I realize that a quad is not necessary, and I would probably be ok with one, but I LOVE my quad. When I'm running multiple web browsers, various excel, word, and powerpoint documents, as well as having a virus scan going on in the background, I like being able to still boot up a game and enjoy it, without having to close up all my work, etc. Plus, today, more and more games are becoming more and more multithreaded, which means that they will perform better and better on more and more cores. Why would I buy a dual core when I can get a quad for not THAT much more money (or even less if you pick up an AMD!). I really see no reason NOT to get a quad core today unless your budget really cannot fit it, as it will be more and more useful in the future. BTW- did you READ the SBM budget machine article where the unlocked 4th core adds as much/more performance as overclocking in many of the benchmarks? Extra CPU power is really nice to have.


lol... you are a perfect example of the picture I posted. You do not need a quad to core for:
multiple web browsers, various excel, word, and powerpoint documents, as well as having a virus scan going on in the background, I like being able to still boot up a game

You are confusing RAM with CPU CORES. Common mistake. I multitask more than you and never have to close anything. You would think you were running a 12 core CPU if you had an SSD and 6 gigs of ram in your system. :love: 
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 5:55:10 PM

Werxen- thats not true at all. Sure you can multi-task with lots of ram on a dual-core, etc. but adding cores also assists in CPU intensive/threaded applications, or running multiple CPU intensive applications. Now I know a lot of the things I listed are not particularly CPU intensive, but still- I don't like to ever notice a CPU maxing out, which I've notice many times (especially on this crappy laptop) with dual core or single core machines. watching my system monitor and seeing my ram usage less than 50%, and my CPU with both cores at 100% and my computer choking, and then going home and doing the same thing and seeing my CPU usage much lower, and things running smoothly. Where does that = RAM usage? Thats a straight-up CPU limitation and I love my quad for that. Heck- I've downclocked my quad to 2 GHz and had less CPU lag in my computer usage than I have with a 2.6 GHz dual core. Don't try to tell me that a quad core is completely unusable, and makes zero difference. I don't know what planet you are from, but a quad core makes a big difference for me.
Also- once again- READ the SBM article if you think extra cores are worthless. Why are you so adamant that nobody could ever want/need more than 2 cores?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/system-builder-mara...
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 7:27:53 PM

flyinfinni said:
Werxen- thats not true at all. Sure you can multi-task with lots of ram on a dual-core, etc. but adding cores also assists in CPU intensive/threaded applications, or running multiple CPU intensive applications. Now I know a lot of the things I listed are not particularly CPU intensive, but still- I don't like to ever notice a CPU maxing out, which I've notice many times (especially on this crappy laptop) with dual core or single core machines. watching my system monitor and seeing my ram usage less than 50%, and my CPU with both cores at 100% and my computer choking, and then going home and doing the same thing and seeing my CPU usage much lower, and things running smoothly. Where does that = RAM usage? Thats a straight-up CPU limitation and I love my quad for that. Heck- I've downclocked my quad to 2 GHz and had less CPU lag in my computer usage than I have with a 2.6 GHz dual core. Don't try to tell me that a quad core is completely unusable, and makes zero difference. I don't know what planet you are from, but a quad core makes a big difference for me.
Also- once again- READ the SBM article if you think extra cores are worthless. Why are you so adamant that nobody could ever want/need more than 2 cores?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/system-builder-mara...



First off I never said quads were useless.

Second don't compare a single core P4 @ 3.4 gigs to a wolfdale core @ 3.4 gigs

Which segways perfectly into my third point

The Toms article shows NOTHING of architecture. They are comparing the architecture of an AMD to an i7 platform.

Third point they USE multithreaded benchmarks to show what the system can do AT ITS MAX. Those benchmarks push those systems to the breaking point limitation of something be it GPU or CPU. That's amazing and all but you don't push your cpu to its max just like the rest of us. Don't use benchmarks to validate a CPU - otherwise we would all be buying i7s to check out email.

You talking about your quad multitasking - aka - checking email and having firefox open while running a game shows how small your side is. I can do everything you can at much less heat + power + overall cost. 930 architecture beats the P2 most of the time does that mean that 8 threads > 4 all of a sudden?!?! No. Get your facts straight.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 7:39:27 PM

werxen said:
First off I never said quads were useless.

Second don't compare a single core P4 @ 3.4 gigs to a wolfdale core @ 3.4 gigs

Which segways perfectly into my third point

The Toms article shows NOTHING of architecture. They are comparing the architecture of an AMD to an i7 platform.

Third point they USE multithreaded benchmarks to show what the system can do AT ITS MAX. Those benchmarks push those systems to the breaking point limitation of something be it GPU or CPU. That's amazing and all but you don't push your cpu to its max just like the rest of us. Don't use benchmarks to validate a CPU - otherwise we would all be buying i7s to check out email.

You talking about your quad multitasking - aka - checking email and having firefox open while running a game shows how small your side is. I can do everything you can at much less heat + power + overall cost. 930 architecture beats the P2 most of the time does that mean that 8 threads > 4 all of a sudden?!?! No. Get your facts straight.



Lets compare a e5200 with an q8200 (which is supposed to be 2xe5200, just with lowered frec. to 2.33GHz). On the both platforms we put 8gb ddr3, an beast mobo with excellent chipset, and 2xHDD in RAID0 (let's say wd black or spinpoint f3)

NO OC'ing, both on stock frec.
Then install Win7 x64

And fire up your av software to do a scan, open 20+ tabs in fiefox, open some game, lets say mw2, and open wmp, and excel, word documents.

Then you will SEE a difference
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 7:52:24 PM

The article shows the difference between a tiple-core and a quad-core of the SAME architecture. and yes, they run a bunch of benchmarks, but at the same time, a lot of the places where the 4th core showed good performance increases over the triple core CPU, are actually real-world situations that a real person would actually find. Many people out there actually do media encoding, rendering, file compression, and other such things, that show noticeable and appreciable improvements with more cores. There is no denying that a normal person compressing a large amount of data will appreciate having the extra cores. Sure you can DO it with 2, heck- you can DO it with 1! But hey- if you can take a couple of minutes off of a task like that, or you can render your frames for your next animation class a few minutes faster, you have more time to do other work. I've done some 3d animating and rendering for the class I took was HOURS of processing, and our group was using several computers. If I'd had a quad core at the time that was running well, we could have cut that time nearly in half compared to the systems we were running. It would have given us lots more time to tweak things before we had to stop and get the rendering going in time to have it done for class. I don't understand why you are so adamant about arguing AGAINST quad cores. You have your opinion, so don't spend your money on one, and don't suggest them to others. I have my opinion and my experience and I can see a difference with a quad, so I bought one and would recommend it to others, especially when AMD quads can be had for $100! My wife does a good bit of photo editing, so I got her an AMD Athlon II x3, and unlocked it to an x4 and she's been THRILLED because it reduces the time it takes to run various filters and processes on photos by so much compared to the unlocked version of her CPU. This is the same chip, and the same architecture.
Sorry, my previous example sucked, but it is a situation where I have noticed a difference. Sure you can do it fine on a single or dual core CPU and be fine. However, there are situations where it really makes a difference. If you can't accept that, go ahead and believe whatever you want to.

Edit: Unknown- EXACTLY. When you run enough stuff, you NOTICE the difference, which is what I was trying to get at.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:05:10 PM

Well, i said 8gb ddr3, raid 0 and other stuff so the difference between 2 and 4 in nowadays would be more clear.

Werxen, you are right (in dual vs quad cpu) if this thread was in 2007, but we're 2010, and we have os that is making better use of multicore cpus (win7), and apps that are written to make use of quads and games that require a quad core so thay can run smooth (GTA4) and games that are making use if quads (cod4,5,and mw2, fc2, bfbc2, dirt2, upcoming total war (which makes use of 6 cores already, so you got to have a quad for that game) etc.)
a c 83 à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:21:04 PM

I'll put it simply, I went from an Athlon X2 7750 @ 3.0Ghz to a Phenom X4 9850 @ 3.0Ghz on the same exact set up with 4Gb of DDR2 1066, and the improved responsiveness of my machine was well worth the jump. I have no desire, or reason to ever purchase a dual core again unless its for a low power web browsing box.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:23:46 PM

unknown_13 said:
Lets compare a e5200 with an q8200 (which is supposed to be 2xe5200, just with lowered frec. to 2.33GHz). On the both platforms we put 8gb ddr3, an beast mobo with excellent chipset, and 2xHDD in RAID0 (let's say wd black or spinpoint f3)

NO OC'ing, both on stock frec.
Then install Win7 x64

And fire up your av software to do a scan, open 20+ tabs in fiefox, open some game, lets say mw2, and open wmp, and excel, word documents.

Then you will SEE a difference


*Face palm*

You guys just don't understand... at all like seriously its like a brick wall. Sure - you will notice a difference in your example. Want to know where? In the game - that's it. Not because its quad vs. dual but because both processors suck ass and have a very low frequency.

Here take a look for yourself:
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/659536-contagion-revi...

Amazing difference, bro. The hilarious part is you actually think that firefox, winamp, excel, and a word document being open USE the cpu... :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Its called RAM bro. Learn more about your PC before falling into the quad bandwagon. You are arguing ARCHITECTURE not CORES.

*Face palm* And BTW in 2007 I was advocating duals when people were advocating quads such as the Q6600 so it would be 'future proof'. This non nonsensical thinking STILL applies.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:36:50 PM

Dude- how about YOU realize that we can monitor our RAM usage, and without filling our RAM, we are still slowing down with that much stuff open, oh and hey- maybe we're monitoring our CPU usage as well and it is pegged out! If you are actually opening and closing programs, running a virus scan, and things like that you actually ARE using your CPU, or do you think that the RAM can communicate with your screen and your hard drive and read/write itself BY ITSELF? Come on man- we're not stupid, and aren't clueless about how a computer works. Oh- and BTW- HOW are we arguing ARCHITECTURE and not CORES when we are using the SAME ARCHITECTURE with DIFFERENT NUMBERS of CORES? And- what about (like we have been saying) the newer games and OSes and software packages that are being optimized to use MORE THAN 2 Threads?
P.S- the Athlon x2 7750 is actually virtually the same architecture as the Phenom 9850 (made of a tweaked version of the phenom core), so those two procs clocked the same are virtually the same architecture (disable 2 cores on the Phenom and have almost exactly the same proc).
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 8:39:54 PM

werxen said:
*Face palm*

You guys just don't understand... at all like seriously its like a brick wall. Sure - you will notice a difference in your example. Want to know where? In the game - that's it. Not because its quad vs. dual but because both processors suck ass and have a very low frequency.

Here take a look for yourself:
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/659536-contagion-revi...

Amazing difference, bro. The hilarious part is you actually think that firefox, winamp, excel, and a word document being open USE the cpu... :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Its called RAM bro. Learn more about your PC before falling into the quad bandwagon. You are arguing ARCHITECTURE not CORES.

*Face palm* And BTW in 2007 I was advocating duals when people were advocating quads such as the Q6600 so it would be 'future proof'. This non nonsensical thinking STILL applies.



You're wrong about cpu and ram
I did all those things i mentioned ("And fire up your av software to do a scan, open 20+ tabs in fiefox, open some game, lets say mw2, and open wmp, and excel, word documents. ")
and get constant 38%-50% CPU usage and 60% RAM usage. (i have q8200 and 4gb ddr2)That would mean 75%-90% usage on a dual
Do that on yours (suggest you having a E8500?) and see for yourself
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 9:11:27 PM



There you go. I played Team Fortress 2 since I don't have stupid games like MW and averaged 70% CPU usage - everything maxed @ 1080p resolution. Then I played Fallout 3 and reached 89% CPU usage. Then I played Metro 2033 and maxed 79% usage.

BTW: I have not formatted since I built this computer - what like 2 1/2 years ago? I have 53 processes in all running when I took this. I also have 2 gigs of ram. When I closed avast my CPU usage went down to 3%. I think my work here is done. Have a good day bandwagon. If this is what you call multitasking then bring it on.

One last thing: it does not matter if you have "38-50"% usage on your box. That just proves my point that you have cores sitting there not doing crap. My box only worked on gaming nothing else. When I alt-tabbed my games my CPU usage would go back to ~ 10%. Think you can play multiple games at one time, eh? You must be a god. No point in a quad. That rhymed... ain't no crime. Quit cryin.

flyinfinni said:
Dude- how about YOU realize that we can monitor our RAM usage, and without filling our RAM, we are still slowing down with that much stuff open, oh and hey- maybe we're monitoring our CPU usage as well and it is pegged out! If you are actually opening and closing programs, running a virus scan, and things like that you actually ARE using your CPU, or do you think that the RAM can communicate with your screen and your hard drive and read/write itself BY ITSELF? Come on man- we're not stupid, and aren't clueless about how a computer works. Oh- and BTW- HOW are we arguing ARCHITECTURE and not CORES when we are using the SAME ARCHITECTURE with DIFFERENT NUMBERS of CORES? And- what about (like we have been saying) the newer games and OSes and software packages that are being optimized to use MORE THAN 2 Threads?
P.S- the Athlon x2 7750 is actually virtually the same architecture as the Phenom 9850 (made of a tweaked version of the phenom core), so those two procs clocked the same are virtually the same architecture (disable 2 cores on the Phenom and have almost exactly the same proc).


No wonder you don't understand anything... you think the i5 and E8500 are the same architecture... Silly noob.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 9:32:32 PM

werxen said:
]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/6789/e8550own.jpg

There you go. I played Team Fortress 2 since I don't have stupid games like MW and averaged 70% CPU usage - everything maxed @ 1080p resolution. Then I played Fallout 3 and reached 89% CPU usage. Then I played Metro 2033 and maxed 79% usage.

BTW: I have not formatted since I built this computer - what like 2 1/2 years ago? I have 53 processes in all running when I took this. I also have 2 gigs of ram. When I closed avast my CPU usage went down to 3%. I think my work here is done. Have a good day bandwagon. If this is what you call multitasking then bring it on.

One last thing: it does not matter if you have "38-50"% usage on your box. That just proves my point that you have cores sitting there not doing crap. My box only worked on gaming nothing else. When I alt-tabbed my games my CPU usage would go back to ~ 10%. Think you can play multiple games at one time, eh? You must be a god. No point in a quad. That rhymed... ain't no crime. Quit cryin.



No wonder you don't understand anything... you think the i5 and E8500 are the same architecture... Silly noob.



I think he was saying about e5200 vs q8200. Same architecture. e5200=c2d, shared l2 cache, q8200=2x5200 (like all c2q=2xc2d), same architecture, shared l2, just lowered frec. to 2.33GHz

And ALL cores were doing the "crap". One at 60%, one at 35%, 3-th at 50%, fourth on 55%. So, there isn't any "wasted silicon".

edit-there were 67 processes
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 9:47:57 PM

The i5 and E8500 are totally different architecture. An Athlon II x3 and unlocked Athlon II x4 are identical architecture, which is the same architecture as the Phenom II, with the L3 cache disabled. The Athlon x2 7750 is built on the same AMD K10 Architecture as the Phenom 9850, could have been called a phenom x2 7750 instead of the Athlon x2 7750 if AMD had wanted to.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-athlon-x2-7750-be-rev...
I don't know what you think architecture is, but how the heck can you possibly call these "different architecture"?

Also- Avast is known for being incredibly light on resources, even when running a scan, maybe someone who is using a heavier scanner would get a different result- did you think about that? AVG Free (which is what I'm using) is much heavier on resources and would maybe have caused you to hit 100% and some lag when playing fallout. I can't confirm this as I don't have your CPU, and I don't even KNOW what your GPU is. Also- run Windows Media player instead of Winamp. Different people have different setups. If you are happy with yours, great. I love my quad core and it has improved my performance. I don't know how I can show you that it makes a difference in my every-day usage, but it does.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 10:53:36 PM

Don't virus scanners run at lower priorities so that they don't interfere with other tasks as much? I haven't used one for a while so I don't remember.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 10:58:53 PM

Haha.. wow... so now I'm using the wrong kind of software. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Thanks guys. This thread has made my day.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2010 11:06:51 PM

Well I'm actually agreeing with you here. The only benefit of having more cores while running a virus scan and gaming simultaneously is that the virus scan may complete faster. But if you're playing a game you probably aren't interested in how long the scan takes. Of course I'm assuming the scan runs at a low priority. But even if it doesn't the game is a foreground task so it still takes precedence unless the virus scanner is set to run at a high priority (who does this?).
a c 125 à CPUs
March 20, 2010 6:09:47 AM

TeamFortress 2 is ok for multicore. It wont get much higher than 35% on a quad.

But Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 will hit 80% on my Q6600 @ 3GHz because of the massive amounts of AI that can be on the screen.

Thats where a quad helps. A lot when you want to play the game like L4D while having a video endoce in the background.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2010 8:06:30 AM

Yea L4D(2) is one of the few games that actually shows a benefit. Although if you don't run background tasks then your framerates, providing you have a decent video card, are going to be sky high anyway.
!