AMD 3 and 4 core CPUs...

Discussion in 'Processors, Motherboards & Memory' started by Motoman, Mar 28, 2008.

  1. Motoman

    Motoman Newbie

    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?
     
  2. ChampionLLY

    ChampionLLY News Writer

    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..
     
  3. Motoman

    Motoman Newbie


    ...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.
     
  4. zy

    zy zynine.com Staff Member

    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..
     
  5. Max_87

    Max_87 huehuehue

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

    Mac Daddy Pickin' Da Gitfiddle

    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.
     
  7. Zenphic

    Zenphic Newbie

    Indeed, Folding@home on a quad-core is kickass :thumb:
     
  8. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

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

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    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
     
  10. bslee

    bslee Newbie

    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.
     
  11. goldfries

    goldfries www.goldfries.com

    I'm eyeing on the phenom.

    looking to get quad-core for folding@home purpose. :thumb:

    time to boost my stats
     
  12. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Well, Intel still offers the best bang for the buck right now. AMD really has to improve their yields and performance before they can beat the Core 2 processors.
     
  13. Lacus

    Lacus Newbie

    Best bang eh..But Intel are usually smart..They always come out with newer proc and newer chipsets which actually burns some user's pocket... (like mine...) I too might get a Phenom..Maybe...Or maybe a Intel Quad Core proc..If everything goes in place :p
     
  14. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Actually, the lower-end Intel processors offer the most bang for the buck now. The higher-end quad-core processors are pricey but that's because AMD Phenoms do not pose a real challenge to them. :(
     
  15. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    It's a waste of money to go quad core now unless you primarily do video encoding.
     
  16. Lacus

    Lacus Newbie

    But does Quad Core system do any good beside on video encoding? Like for gaming wise? Or doing multitasking? Does that conclude that Dual Core system is more than enough? From what i heard AMD is releasing a Quad Core Processor for around 300+ (phenom 9100 if i can recall =/)
     
  17. generalRage1982hrv

    generalRage1982hrv ARP Reviewer

    there is no point of using a quad core cpu
    maybe because neither the linux or windows use it fully
    they can only be used for servers and then you would see a benefit of it
    in most games and programs other two cores are offline and highest score is geting a two core cpus
     
  18. Max_87

    Max_87 huehuehue

    1. and distributed computing. Other than that no. Like Chai said before, waste of money and power.
    2. No
    3. No (unless you are doing video encoding/distributed computing while doing other stuff, which bring us back to question 1)
    4. Yes


    The 9100 will perform badly especially in games or any other applications that utilizes only 1/2 threads or relies heavily on raw clock speed.

    Bad choice unless you want to do video encoding or DC AND you already have an AM2 based system. Don't even think about overclocking this chip, it's most likely the leftovers from the binning for higher models. Plus the yields are already bad enough to begin with.
     
  19. Lacus

    Lacus Newbie

    but if certain model of quad core are cheap, then is it worthy to get quad core?Meh, already replied before i can type anything =_="
     
  20. Max_87

    Max_87 huehuehue

    No, I believe this question has been answered several times. Like we mentioned before, waste of money and power. This is the main reason why me and Chai chose E6850 instead of Q6600 back then when both costs almost exactly then same. Another reason is E6850 overclocks better.
     

Share This Page