<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:35:18 -0400<br>
From: Fairlight <<a href="mailto:fairlite@fairlite.com" target="_blank">fairlite@fairlite.com</a>><br>
Subject: OT: Re: quad cores vs not.<br>
To: filePro Mailing List <<a href="mailto:filepro-list@lists.celestial.com" target="_blank">filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</a>><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20080320193518.A20744@iglou.com" target="_blank">20080320193518.A20744@iglou.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Walter brought up quad cores in another thread...<br>
<br>
The reality is that, available or not, quad cores are almost useless<br>
outside of a strict server environment. It's not like they're rubbish, but<br>
there are -very- few things that will utilise all the cores on a desktop<br>
system:<br>
<br>
* CAD - Some probably will<br>
<br>
* Games - Mixed. Many single-core games (even current releases--Tabula<br>
Rasa only used one of two cores), some dual core. Most won't make use<br>
of more than two.<br>
<br>
* Applications - Depends how threaded an application is. Varies.<br>
<br>
* Video Editing/Transcoding - One of the most CPU-intensive tasks anyone<br>
will be doing on a desktop, editors are often multithreaded and make use<br>
of multiple cores, but the -important- part, the codec, is often a single<br>
core application, non-multithreaded. The only multithreaded codec I can<br>
confirm is WM9. Even XViD is singlethreaded. The codec is honestly<br>
where you want firepower to count.<br>
<br>
* BOINC infrastructure based applications - Will make use of as much as you<br>
can toss at them. Great if you spend money to support seti@home and all<br>
the other @home projects, but otherwise not so impressive.<br>
<br>
* Graphics - SOME graphics renderers will make use of multiple cores. Some<br>
do it in a limited fashion. Also highly processor intensive, yet<br>
programs like Bryce don't even make use of a second core.<br>
<br>
The reality is that you're better off with something like a Wolfdale dual<br>
core than a quad core at this point in time, and probably for several years<br>
(3-5 would be my guess). You're better off throwing 3GHz dual core at<br>
something where at least most of it will be used, than you are throwing<br>
4 cores or more at a lower clocking at things that won't use it. Unless<br>
you multitask, it's a LOT of expensive wasted firepower. You can actually<br>
outperform a quad core with a dual core in many cases. I considered going<br>
quad (Q6600) and was advised that the E8400 dual was a better bet at this<br>
point in time, especially for my uses.<br>
<br>
I'd recommend the Intel E8400 3GHz Wolfdale in a heartbeat. They're<br>
currently in short supply due to popularity, but if you can get one,<br>
they're -great-. There's one Wolfdale that's 0.166 GHz faster for like<br>
$120 more--totally not worth it.<br>
<br>
I also recommend going for chips with reduced die sizes. That was one<br>
advantage of the Wolfdale series, was the reduced die size. That<br>
translates to a LOT cooler chip and less power consumption. I couldn't<br>
give much of a damn about power consumption, but heat == death, so cooler<br>
is better. This thing runs ridiculously cool. In fact, the memory<br>
controller hub on the mainboard runs hotter than the chip itself, as does<br>
the I/O controller.<br>
<br>
I was told that Intel almost religiously releases every 11 months. They'll<br>
release one line with increased performance, then 11 months later they'll<br>
release the same line with -slight- improvements but mostly just a reduced<br>
die size. Those are the ones to get.<br>
<br>
mark-><br>
--</blockquote></div><br>My 2 cents: <br><br>My Q6600 is the best thing that's ever happened to me as a developer. I definitely multitask a LOT, and have tons of apps on the go all at once.<br><br>Also, many of my devtools and other apps are opensource, and as such get updated frequently and often just to take advantage of cool stuff. <br>
<br>Plus running virtual machines is fast as blazes! Right now I am using virtualbox on my Ubuntu dev machine in seamless mode to give me a windows taskbar on the bottom of the Ubuntu desktop & integrate any Windows windows into the xwindow manager. This is awesome, as it frees me from the limits of having to switch to a virtual desktop to see my running Windows apps. I can have IE and FF app windows running on Windows XP nicely arranged right next to my Aptana development window and any reference materials I've pulled up in my browser on my Ubuntu desktop.<br>
<br>My roomie's Q6600 is the best thing that's ever happened to HIM as a gamer :) Nuff said.<br><br>My only regret is that I don't have 64bit computing, but I can wait on that for quite a while yet until 64bit computing is a little more mature.<br>
<br>I'd agree for the average user that a quad core is useless. Then again, for the average user the latest and greatest has been more iron than they can handle for some little while now. You don't need 3GB of RAM and a 1024MB grfx card to surf the internet for porn, read filthy email responses from your post on Craigslist, play MP3s downloaded via P2P and editing the Unabomber manifesto in Word.<br>
<br>Tyler<br>