Questions on multi cored intel processors.

[SAFETY]

I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme. Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is an ENORMOUS waste of money.
After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core. That lead to the question of what the difference between would be between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz core duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the clock speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and a price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it open to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by SAFETY

I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme. Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is an ENORMOUS waste of money.
After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core. That lead to the question of what the difference between would be between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz core duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the clock speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and a price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it open to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.

Okay - here's a good question you should be asking yourself : "What am I going to use this PC for?" If it's for some extreme, rough gaming, I suggest you can go for the casual Core 2 Quad. The Core 2 Extreme might have extra stabilities (not sure about that - usually those stuff can be overclocked without too much problems) and unlocked multipliers, and that's why it's extremely expensive too (no pun intended!).

If you want a *good* gaming machine, go for the E6750 - and I heard that it overclocks well. Not sure of the performance difference - unless you have programs which FULLY utilizes quad core and all together.

Let me summarize : the Extreme edition processors are usually for overclockers, and with unlocked multipliers, these can go very far, and up to the skies. But you gotta pay more. If you ain't overclocking it, any casual C2D or C2Q will help. And of course, even the lower end Pentium Dual-Core could be a better replacement of a P4 3.0GHz (either the Prescott or the Northwood or the Gallatin ones).

[Papercut]

Ignore it dude, they're spammers

[Max_87]

Originally Posted by The_YongGrand

Okay - here's a good question you should be asking yourself : "What am I going to use this PC for?" If it's for some extreme, rough gaming, I suggest you can go for the casual Core 2 Quad. The Core 2 Extreme might have extra stabilities (not sure about that - usually those stuff can be overclocked without too much problems) and unlocked multipliers, and that's why it's extremely expensive too (no pun intended!).

If you want a *good* gaming machine, go for the E6750 - and I heard that it overclocks well. Not sure of the performance difference - unless you have programs which FULLY utilizes quad core and all together.

Let me summarize : the Extreme edition processors are usually for overclockers, and with unlocked multipliers, these can go very far, and up to the skies. But you gotta pay more. If you ain't overclocking it, any casual C2D or C2Q will help. And of course, even the lower end Pentium Dual-Core could be a better replacement of a P4 3.0GHz (either the Prescott or the Northwood or the Gallatin ones).

You don't need quad for gaming. Quads are pretty much "useless" unless you do a lot of video/audio encoding/decoding, photoshop or any other similar softwares that can actually fully utilize multicore processors.

[Max_87]

Originally Posted by Papercut

Ignore it dude, they're spammers

LOL yeah, just noticed his sig

[silverhawk_184]

ok, i have a question,

which is better for video editing, (in order of most desirable to buy)
2x amd opteron 64 2.2ghz single core
2x dual-core 3.6 ghz or
quad core 2.6 ghz

according to a previous post, video editing systems need alot of cpu power; i just dont know which setup is better. i am/will be using pinnacle ultimate on winxp pro. if anyone has any other suggestions on what i need to work on please reply.

right now, i have 2x 2.8ghz dual-core xeons and a crappy radeon 9250 and i transcoded Microsoft's Amazon 1080i sample to AVCHD in just under 20mins. i would like to beat that with the new system. and as i am building it for my church i am on a tight budget.

things i know i need:
fast cpu (for trans/encoding)
fast gpu (for rendering transitions)
raid0 2xsata2 hd
LOTS of RAM

[Wildfire]

People who work with videos a lot will most definitely benefit from having a quad-core processor. Video encoding software utilize multiple cores much more efficiently than other applications.

I'm not sure how a single quad core processor compares with two dual-cores though, but I'm guessing performance would be about the same assuming they use the same cores and clock speeds are equal.

[Adrian Wong]

A quad-core is best for video encoding. You can check out the performance comparison here - Tech ARP - Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.2

Just make sure your video encoder supports multi-core processing.

[silverhawk_184]

thanks very much

i found a q6600 (nice and cheap) that is 64 bit but does not have hyper threading.
Q1) is wow64's emulation good enough for now until pinnacle ports to 64 bit or should i hardware it down to 32bit.
Q2) and is the lack of hyperthreading going to hurt me, as i know that it divides the process up for each processor. given that it [pinnacle] spanned across both my xeons i think its safe to assume it will be ok.

Q3) also, how was my encoding with my xeons compare to others, i cant find any other references

Q4) the increase in fsb (from 533 to 1066) and the decrease in cpu (2.8ghz(-x for 2cpu) to 2.4ghz) should even out right?

sorry for all the questions,

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by silverhawk_184

thanks very much

i found a q6600 (nice and cheap) that is 64 bit but does not have hyper threading.
Q1) is wow64's emulation good enough for now until pinnacle ports to 64 bit or should i hardware it down to 32bit.
Q2) and is the lack of hyperthreading going to hurt me, as i know that it divides the process up for each processor. given that it [pinnacle] spanned across both my xeons i think its safe to assume so.

Q3) also, how was my encoding with my xeons compare to others, i cant find any other references

Q4) the increase in fsb (from 533 to 1066) and the decrease in cpu (2.8ghz(-x for 2cpu) to 2.4ghz) should even out right?

sorry for all the questions,

IMHO, you don't really need 64-bit processing. Video encoding works fine in 32-bit. What you really need are those FOUR cores crunching all that video data for you.

I'm not sure what Xeons you are using, but the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is based on the Core microarchitecture. So, you cannot compare it on a clock-to-clock basis against older Intel processors based on the Netburst microarchitecture. The Core microarch is much faster on a clock-to-clock basis.