Your thoughts on Quad Core?

MacMan

MacMan

Partition Master
8-core vs 4-core regarding games Test Results

Rob Williams said:
As you are probably well aware, Intels Kentsfield has been released from the grasp of NDA, and benchmark results are plenty. My favorite review was from Anand, and I can say that I am two-sided on the Quad Core release. Personally, I have absolutely no need whatsoever for a Quad Core... and I can't see anyone on this forum needing such a beast either.

But, games written for Dual Core will be released late next year. If you have a Kents and two cores are still being used up, then the other two can be used for DVD ripping, or what have you.

This is the same debate we had when Dual Cores were released. "Great, I can play a game and rip a movie at the same time!" Once games take advantage of two cores, we will have the same prediciment. Essentially, if you have a Dual Core and are playing a game that takes well advantage of both cores, then you may as well consider it a Single Core because you cannot add any additional processes without slowdown.

Whew... but that's a ways off. I look forward to games like Alan Wake and UT2007 that can take advantage of the additional cores though. Should allow a lot more freedom to the developers, and not require the gamers to pick up something like an AGEIA card.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Just an interesting article on 8-Core machines vs a 4-Core machines regarding game performance. Apparently as the link below shows, a 8-Core machine is no faster than a 4-Core machine when used for gaming!

Hmmm, I never would have thought.

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro2.html
 
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
That link is broken, but it's not much of a surprise. Games won't even take advantage of 4-cores currently (except a very select few), let alone 8-cores. I expect by this time next year, more games will take proper advantage of these additional cores.
 
Greg King

Greg King

I just kinda show up...
Staff member
I fully believe that DX10 is going to force programmers to account for the growing number of cores on CPUs. In all reality, 4 cores now doesn't equate to a better gaming experience in most games but it's gaining ground. Just because it's early doesn't mean that there isn't a future for it.
 
b1lk1

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
Well, depending on how far they drop the prices of the Q6600 with the upcoming April 20 price drops, I just might have to eat my own words if I buy one. Although, the E6420 is screaming my name out very loudly, LOL!
 
Greg King

Greg King

I just kinda show up...
Staff member
The Q6600 should be in the low to mid $500s. Do not quote me on that, but thats the buzz around the 'net.
 
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
The Q6600 for $500 is a steal if true. E6600 in Canada costs $400 right now, so a Q6600 should wind up being $600 if conversion is accurate. 50% higher cost for 100% more cores sounds like a good deal.
 
b1lk1

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
I am hoping like hell the E6700 drops to the E6600 price and I am all over one like stink on you know what. $600+ is still out of my league, but $400 for a E6700 sounds delicious, especially since I am in the market for a new CPU with a high multi.
 
NicePants42

NicePants42

Partition Master
Well, the Q6600 is getting down there. They're even lower over here.

Initially I was of the majority opinion that 4 cores are a complete waste at this point in time - and to a large extent I think they still are. For the vast majority of people, the point at which 4 cores will make a noticeable difference is still a LONG way off.

But then you see a really pleasant surprise like Supreme Commander already making use of 4 cores, and it makes you wonder.

I think that a lot of enthusiasts are going to get 4 cores sooner than they originally thought - especially now that the prices are coming down significantly. $525 isn't chump change, but there are people who paid $350 for an E6600 and $250 for 2gb of DDR2 a few months ago - now you can buy the same RAM for ~$180, so add another $100 and you get two more cores.

For enthusiasts, I can't argue that $800 for Q6600+RAM is a waste when $700 for E6600+RAM was within reason 60 days ago.
 
Last edited:
Greg King

Greg King

I just kinda show up...
Staff member
I was one of those that paid $300+ for the E6600 when it launched. While I don't regret that purchase, the new pricing for the entire Intel lineup is a welcome sight and great for those who are about to build a machine. I am personally thinking about getting a Q6600 and then an E4400 for the wife's PC. I think the new prices are fantastic. Now where is a Q6400 damn it! 4 cores for the masses!
 
madstork91

madstork91

The One, The Only...
Will the average joe ever actually need this though?

I know alot of us here on this forum enjoy games regularly, but the amount of gaming done on most computers is still relatively next to none. So why, how, and when will the average pre built PC ever need, have, and use a quad core?

And once these questions are answered... Do you really think they can force this transition?
 
Greg King

Greg King

I just kinda show up...
Staff member
I cant daily users needing four cores for a while. Most users, particularly in a business setting, have one or two core responsibilities so the amount of programs that they are using at any particular time isn't enough to justify giving everyone quad core PCs. The same can be said for the average daily user. Not to many people, I think, would truly benefit from the extra cores. Now with dual cores, I can see the need. Sometime, one core just isn't enough. Thats not to say that one core is bad, I mean how long have we gotten by quite nicely with single core CPUs, so we can suddenly say that they are pointless now but with dualies so cheap now, its a no brainer.

On servers, the more cores the merrier but for the average users at home or work, there honestly isn't a need for more than 2 cores.
 
NicePants42

NicePants42

Partition Master
madstork91 said:
Will the average joe ever actually need this though?

I know alot of us here on this forum enjoy games regularly, but the amount of gaming done on most computers is still relatively next to none. So why, how, and when will the average pre built PC ever need, have, and use a quad core?

And once these questions are answered... Do you really think they can force this transition?
Click to expand...
Of course the average joe will need this eventually. No one can tell you when though, because average joe makes his own decisions.

What I can tell you is that you can get an X2 for $69 these days - and many average joes still don't use all that power. When average joe starts buying quad-cores, it isn't going to be because he needs them, it'll be because it's the best value around, and the lowest option offered by Dell/HP/etc. Have any average joes complained to you lately about being 'forced' to transition to dual-core? Do you think people will complain when they have to shell out $80 for a quad-core cpu?
 
Greg King

Greg King

I just kinda show up...
Staff member
NicePants42 said:
Do you think people will complain when they have to shell out $80 for a quad-core cpu?
Click to expand...

No, I doubt anyone will, just as no one is complaining that they are stuck with 2 cores. With that said though, how realistic is an $80 quad core in the near future. Man it would be glorious is they were that cheap now though.
 
b1lk1

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
Quadcores are really only suited for professionals that need the extra computational power for video editing and server needs. Games don't need them. There are not even any games that can put 100% load on both cores on a dual core out. I think things are just progressing much too fast, and people are buying into it. I just dumped my Core 2 Duo and got an AM2. My PC feels just as fast and the only way I can tell the difference is by running benchmarks. Some things even seem to run smoother now, but that is mostly my opinion and not really possible to prove. New tech can keep growing by giant leaps every 6 months like it has, but we don't need it. Hell, Nvidia is pumping out DX10 video cards as fast as possible when there are not even any proper drivers or games for them. I think we are getting ripped off as consumers since many people are willing to shell out the crazy money for new high end stuff that drops 1/3-1/2 in price 3-6 months later. OH well, I guess this just turned into a rant........ :p
 
madstork91

madstork91

The One, The Only...
64 bit...

As soon as 90% of the avg. users daily programs are 64 bit, and they MUST run 10 of them at a time, that is when I will say that quad core and higher is necessary.

On another note, WYSIWYG programs, as bloated as some are foretold to be/are, might require some extra power.
 
D

dvregan

Obliviot
Some say we don't need more than dual core even if we fold, maybe. But I think as more of the world gets on 10/100Mpbs broadband, we'll be consistently on bit torrent and such. Dual core will be minimum, quad core if you wanna fold/BT/backup/work at the same time.
 
b1lk1

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
I bought the cheapest Quad possible (Xeon X3210) and I cannot honetsly tell the difference from the E6600 I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top