Talal
Sun May 25 08:41:50 PDT 2008
Thanks for the ExcellenT reply.
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:g1brnt$vp1$1@aioe.org...
> Talal Itani wrote:
>> Intel Quad at 2.4 GHz is priced the same as a Dual at 3.0 GHz. I will be
>> using Windows XP. Which CPU should I get?
>
>
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/103582.html
>
> "Q: My local computer store is selling high-end dual core computers for
> about the same price as quad-core computers. The dual-core
> processor
> seems to have a faster clock speed. Which would run my applications
> faster?
>
> A: Today, thanks to recent price cuts by Intel, the quad core Q6600
> chip,
> which consists of four processing cores, each running at 2.4 GHz,
> is
> priced at about the same level as the more recently introduced
> e6850
> dual-core chip, which features two processing cores, with each
> running
> at 3.0 GHz. That means computers based on these chips should - all
> other
> things being equal - cost about the same amount.
>
> Which one you should buy should depend upon two things: how
> frequently
> you run many processor-hungry applications at once and how much you
> want
> to purchase a computer with the future in mind.
>
> For single applications that are not specifically designed to take
> advantage of multi-core processors - and that means most - then the
> 6850 will hold a slight speed advantage.
>
> But for applications that are designed to see and use multiple
> cores
> in a processor - and these should be right around the corner - the
> Q6600 will easily win out."
>
> Multimedia programs are the most likely to use four cores in a symmetric
> fashion. Some multicore games, have exhibited an asymmetric loading
> pattern,
> like 100%-30%-30%-30% loading pattern. (There are also some games that
> have managed better than that, but they are lesser known titles.)
>
> If your software is older, chances are it does not use multiple cores,
> in which case the E6850 dual core 3GHz would be a better fit to the
> application.
>
> Sure, you can think in terms of the future if you want, and buy the
> quad hoping that more software will use the four cores. But consider
> how difficult it is to program for multicore processors, before
> making that decision.
>
> There are always benchmarks, that can show you how effective these
> solutions are. This site has multiple benchmarking articles, but
> don't present all the processors they've tested, in the same chart.
> The chart would be too big. In this article, the E8400 is a dual
> core at 3GHz, which is pretty close to benchmarking an E6850 dual core
> at 3GHz. The E8400 is slightly faster than E6850 on some stuff.
>
>
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14573/8 (Compare E8400 to Q6600)
>
> Paul