AMD 3 and 4 core CPUs...

Motoman · 28th Mar 2008, 11:40 PM

Now that they're out there, I have to wonder what the applicability is to real life use.

For example, say you've got a 3Ghz dual-core Athlon like I have. I have a hard time believing that anything I do would benefit from going to a 3 or 4 core chip, granted that the available clock speeds are much lower right now.

If you've got a 3-core chip at 2.5Ghz (7.5Ghz total) or even a quad-core at that level (10Ghz total), I don't see games or other applications being able to leverage those extra cores to the point where 2 3Ghz cores (6Ghz total) isn't going to give better overall performance.

Thoughts?

ChampionLLY · 29th Mar 2008, 12:33 AM

Quad-core is not yet mainstream for gaming, & tri-core is redundant to me...

Other than benchmarking, my quad truly shines when it comes to video encoding..

Motoman · 29th Mar 2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChampionLLY

Quad-core is not yet mainstream for gaming, & tri-core is redundant to me...

Other than benchmarking, my quad truly shines when it comes to video encoding..

...that's pretty specialized use. I'm thinking in terms of things that *everybody* does...games, Office applications, etc. I just don't see 3 & 4 cores helping. Certainly not now, anyway.

zy · 29th Mar 2008, 02:53 AM

my guess is that RAM, hard disk etc will be the bottle neck .. LOL ..

in terms of gamin, most likely graphics card will be the bottleneck..

Max_87 · 29th Mar 2008, 03:00 AM

Unless you run any of those Distributed Computing softwares or encoding videos, quad cores are pretty much "useless".

Mac Daddy · 29th Mar 2008, 07:57 AM

Quad cores are pretty limited so far especially with software support as mentioned by other members. For video encoding or rendering they are powerful for sure. As for gaming not so much.

On the AMD stuff and I think you are refering to the Phenom quads coming out been watching feedback closely and L2 cache seems to be the biggest issue with them. All things get worked out with time but for real life I don't think a quad is really needed.

I am running an E6550 Duo with a 3.0G O/C and running my 9600gt with stock settings. I don't need much more especially for gaming. My Everest CPU benchmarks match Q6600 scores and on 3dmark6 with the viddy card stock settings I am getting around 11k.

Zenphic · 29th Mar 2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max_87

Unless you run any of those Distributed Computing softwares or encoding videos, quad cores are pretty much "useless".

Indeed, Folding@home on a quad-core is kickass

Chai · 30th Mar 2008, 01:24 AM

This is why I didn't bother getting a quad core. Waste of money and power.

Adrian Wong · 4th Apr 2008, 03:16 AM

Yeah, for now. But eventually, ray-tracing may replace rasterization for 3D graphics. When that happens, multi-core CPUs will really take off.

Right now, quad-cores are great if you do video encoding. It may not be AMD-related but you can take a look at the performance differences between quad-core and dual-core processors in this guide - Tech ARP - Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.3

bslee · 6th Apr 2008, 11:39 AM

I've still a soft spot for AMD and still wondering if my next upgrade should be Intel or AMD. I still hear AMD is no more bang for the buck. I only now wonder when they'll break through again. I hope its soon.

28th Mar 2008, 11:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
Motoman Warming up Join Date: 13 Jan 2008 Posts: 106 Reputation: 62 Rep Power: 2	AMD 3 and 4 core CPUs... Now that they're out there, I have to wonder what the applicability is to real life use. For example, say you've got a 3Ghz dual-core Athlon like I have. I have a hard time believing that anything I do would benefit from going to a 3 or 4 core chip, granted that the available clock speeds are much lower right now. If you've got a 3-core chip at 2.5Ghz (7.5Ghz total) or even a quad-core at that level (10Ghz total), I don't see games or other applications being able to leverage those extra cores to the point where 2 3Ghz cores (6Ghz total) isn't going to give better overall performance. Thoughts?

29th Mar 2008, 12:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
ChampionLLY News Writer Join Date: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 1,265 Reputation: 757 Rep Power: 12	Quad-core is not yet mainstream for gaming, & tri-core is redundant to me... Other than benchmarking, my quad truly shines when it comes to video encoding.. __________________ \| PentiumDC E2140 @ 3.2Ghz \| ASUS P5B-E Plus \| mixed 3GB @ DDR2-800 CL5 \| Hitachi 160GB SATA2 \| HD4870 1GB OC \| BENQ 20.1" LCD \| \| Pentium-M 740 \| Kingston 1GB + Nanya 256MB \| Seagate 120GB 5.4krpm \| RADEON X700 64MB \| 14" LCD

29th Mar 2008, 02:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
zy Dead Join Date: 16 Dec 2002 Location: Buffalo NY / Penang MY Posts: 13,336 Reputation: 2158 Rep Power: 41	my guess is that RAM, hard disk etc will be the bottle neck .. LOL .. in terms of gamin, most likely graphics card will be the bottleneck.. __________________

29th Mar 2008, 03:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
Max_87 h@x! Join Date: 11 Aug 2003 Location: the land of bandwidth cap Posts: 11,430 Reputation: 2090 Rep Power: 38	Unless you run any of those Distributed Computing softwares or encoding videos, quad cores are pretty much "useless". __________________ Max_87 Tech ARP http://www.techarp.com Dell Studio 15 / P7350 / 3GB DDR2 / Radeon HD 3450 / 250GB 7200RPM / 15" @ 1920x1200 E8600 @ 4.4GHz 1.36v / Asus P5E3 Deluxe / 2x2GB DDR3 / Radeon X1800 / Barracuda 7200.9 120GB / 7200.10 320GB x2 / Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS / WD6400AAKS x2 / Dell 2007FP x2 / Silverstone ST56F

30th Mar 2008, 01:24 AM	#8 (permalink)
Chai Administrator Join Date: 6 Oct 2002 Location: Maranello Posts: 27,884 Reputation: 4630 Rep Power: 81	This is why I didn't bother getting a quad core. Waste of money and power. __________________ Chai (Contributor & Forum Admin) http://www.techarp.com/

29th Mar 2008, 07:57 AM	#6 (permalink)
Mac Daddy Pickin' Da Gitfiddle Join Date: 19 Nov 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,051 Reputation: 802 Rep Power: 13	Quad cores are pretty limited so far especially with software support as mentioned by other members. For video encoding or rendering they are powerful for sure. As for gaming not so much. On the AMD stuff and I think you are refering to the Phenom quads coming out been watching feedback closely and L2 cache seems to be the biggest issue with them. All things get worked out with time but for real life I don't think a quad is really needed. I am running an E6550 Duo with a 3.0G O/C and running my 9600gt with stock settings. I don't need much more especially for gaming. My Everest CPU benchmarks match Q6600 scores and on 3dmark6 with the viddy card stock settings I am getting around 11k.

4th Apr 2008, 03:16 AM	#9 (permalink)
Adrian Wong Da Boss Join Date: 10 Oct 2002 Location: In front of my ASUS F8V notebook! Posts: 32,299 Reputation: 3574 Rep Power: 75	Yeah, for now. But eventually, ray-tracing may replace rasterization for 3D graphics. When that happens, multi-core CPUs will really take off. Right now, quad-cores are great if you do video encoding. It may not be AMD-related but you can take a look at the performance differences between quad-core and dual-core processors in this guide - Tech ARP - Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.3 __________________ Dr. Adrian Wong Tech ARP \| Blog @ Tech ARP \| The Free Trade Zone DYKT : The only offshore account I have is at the sand bank? We need PROGRAMMERS and TECHNICAL WRITERS! Contact us if you are a hot shot programmer or technical writer! My items for sale : 50x SD Card \| Memory Stick PRO \| Cyclone Energy Saver \| Seiko SS watch \| Tiger/Carlsberg beer jugs \| Travel Speakers \| Motorola V600 \| Nokia N90 SOLD! \| New Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Other items for sale @ the FTZ : Zalman CNPS9500 LED @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7700 Cu @ $20 \| Zalman CNPS7000 Cu @ $20 \| Swarovski bracelet watches \| Dell 17" LCD \| Hi-Fi speakers \| English DIVX movies \| HP LaserJet toners! \| Office chairs

6th Apr 2008, 11:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
bslee Getting there Join Date: 6 Feb 2005 Posts: 236 Reputation: 15 Rep Power: 5	I've still a soft spot for AMD and still wondering if my next upgrade should be Intel or AMD. I still hear AMD is no more bang for the buck. I only now wonder when they'll break through again. I hope its soon.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ED#61 : It's The End-Of-Life For Intel Core 2 Mobile CPUs Too	Dashken	Reviews & Articles	0	10th Oct 2007 12:23 AM