[CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[Fred Jones]

I will be buying a new Dell computer next week and I'm a little confused 
about all of the new processors even after reading wikipedia articles so I 
thought I would ask you guys (always a big help in the past - THANKS very 
much and TIA here too!). 

So the question is - which processor would be best for me - best bang for 
the buck? 

Other than the internet I mostly use MS office and an older dos based 
accounting program I need to keep. I don't play games or do any video or 
photoshop stuff. 

I will be replacing a 3 year old Dell OptiPlex 620 that has a 3.60 gigahertz 
Intel Pentium 4, Windows XP and 2gb RAM. 

Earlier this year I bought a Dell Optiplex 755 with a 3.00 gigahertz Intel 
Core2 Duo (e8400 I think), Windows XP, 2gb RAM. 

Comparing the two computers the Optiplex 755 with Core2 Duo is noticably 
faster thank Pentium 4 when running several applications at the same time - 
part of what I thought benefited the most from multi core processors. 

Now I see all sorts of options for multi core processors. Will a quad core 
processor likely make that much difference for me?  What would be the best 
bang for the buck in a new processor? 


thanks for any help


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[Tony B]

For office machines like you describe, the performance of a single
core machine will be indistinguishable from a multi-core machine. The
sweet spot price-wise right now is the dual cores, so get one of
those. For your needs I wouldn't pay a penny extra for any more than
that.

That your newer machine seems faster when having more apps open is
probably just due to the newer Windows install. Wipe the old machine
and install WinXP clean and I bet you'll see no difference. It's
unlikely office apps are actually *using cpu*  at the same time
anyway. Just having them 'open' doesn't use cpu at all.

I wouldn't buy WinXP now. Get Vista, it's clearly the future of
Windows, and you're going to have to learn it eventually.


On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Fred Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will be buying a new Dell computer next week and I'm a little confused
> about all of the new processors even after reading wikipedia articles so I
> thought I would ask you guys (always a big help in the past - THANKS very
> much and TIA here too!).
> So the question is - which processor would be best for me - best bang for
> the buck?
> Other than the internet I mostly use MS office and an older dos based
> accounting program I need to keep. I don't play games or do any video or
> photoshop stuff.
> I will be replacing a 3 year old Dell OptiPlex 620 that has a 3.60 gigahertz
> Intel Pentium 4, Windows XP and 2gb RAM.
> Earlier this year I bought a Dell Optiplex 755 with a 3.00 gigahertz Intel
> Core2 Duo (e8400 I think), Windows XP, 2gb RAM.
> Comparing the two computers the Optiplex 755 with Core2 Duo is noticably
> faster thank Pentium 4 when running several applications at the same time -
> part of what I thought benefited the most from multi core processors.
> Now I see all sorts of options for multi core processors. Will a quad core
> processor likely make that much difference for me?  What would be the best
> bang for the buck in a new processor?
> thanks for any help


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[Tom Piwowar]

>For office machines like you describe, the performance of a single
>core machine will be indistinguishable from a multi-core machine...

Absolutely! Intel has been stuck, unable to boost the performance of its 
processors. So they pull this multi-core PR trick. Multi-core if of 
benefit only in certain situations and depends on the OS and applications 
developers writing code that divides work among the cores. Often they 
don't bother.

I recently had a processor-intensive task that pegged one core at close 
to 100% for several hours. The computer still worked fine using the 
second core. Something like that happens to me maybe once a year. So that 
was useful, but too rare to get very excited about.

>That your newer machine seems faster when having more apps open is
>probably just due to the newer Windows install. Wipe the old machine
>and install WinXP...

Which brings up the question: Do you really need a new computer? A "Dell 
OptiPlex 620 that has a 3.60 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4, Windows XP and 
2gb RAM" should be more than enough for the kind of use you are 
describing. Maybe you should just skip Vista? Or if you have money you 
have to spend then try out a Mac.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[Jeff Wright]

> Absolutely! Intel has been stuck, unable to boost the performance of
> its processors. So they pull this multi-core PR trick. Multi-core if of
> benefit only in certain situations and depends on the OS and
> applications developers writing code that divides work among the cores.
Often they
> don't bother.

This is just nonsense today.  Intel was bumping up against the limitations
of the Pentium 4, but no longer.

Intel abandoned their Netburst architecture that they used for the Pentium 4
when they accidently discovered the much better performance that came from
the laptop-based Pentium M architecture, which is the basis for the Core2
Duo CPUs today.  Intel completely changed their roadmap in the middle of the
P4 line.  A 1.5 GHz Pentium M would run circles around a 3 GHz P4.

Multi-core CPUs became possible from the smaller manufacturing process that
both AMD and Intel advance (which stands around .45 microns), which have
lower power requirements, even though they generally have a much higher
transistor count.

> I recently had a processor-intensive task that pegged one core at close
> to 100% for several hours. The computer still worked fine using the
> second core. Something like that happens to me maybe once a year. So
> that was useful, but too rare to get very excited about.

I recently replaced our graphics workstation, a 3.0 GHz dual-core Pentium-D
(P4) Dell Precision (with a 10K RPM hard drive), with a 2.3 GHz Intel Core2
Duo quad-core Dell Precision (with a 7200 RPM drive) and the difference in
response time just from the OS is incredible.  It's just plain faster.  Both
have 4 GB of RAM.  My graphics guy loves how much faster he can get work
done, too.

There used to be a significant cost difference between full Pentiums and
Celeron single cores, but the cost difference between single core and dual
core is so nominal, it makes no sense to buy a single core.  Buying a
multi-core CPU gives you more headroom for future OS and software demands,
which *will* happen.  

The rule hasn't changed:  buy as much computer as you can afford.  Buying a
single core today only means that you will be replacing it sooner than you
would with a multi-core.

Buying a single, multi-core is also good for software that licenses by the
CPU (Oracle, SQL Server).  Buy one quad-core and save yourself some cash.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[gerald]

i bought an ACER 5100 with an AMD quad-core.  was under $600 delivered, with 
most everything on it.  came with good set of bells and whistles and an 
acceptable video card..  have little use for the quad core, or the speed, but 
at that price, it is difficult to buy much of anything for much less.  we have 
only owned 4 or 5 ACERS, but have had good luck with them as an econobox.

the hardest part of setting the thing up is getting rid of all the "free" crap.

At 12:43 PM 11/16/2008, you wrote:
>I will be buying a new Dell computer next week and I'm a little confused about 
>all of the new processors even after reading wikipedia articles so I thought I 
>would ask you guys (always a big help in the past - THANKS very much and TIA 
>here too!). 
>So the question is - which processor would be best for me - best bang for the 
>buck? 
>Other than the internet I mostly use MS office and an older dos based 
>accounting program I need to keep. I don't play games or do any video or 
>photoshop stuff. 
>I will be replacing a 3 year old Dell OptiPlex 620 that has a 3.60 gigahertz 
>Intel Pentium 4, Windows XP and 2gb RAM. 
>Earlier this year I bought a Dell Optiplex 755 with a 3.00 gigahertz Intel 
>Core2 Duo (e8400 I think), Windows XP, 2gb RAM. 
>Comparing the two computers the Optiplex 755 with Core2 Duo is noticably 
>faster thank Pentium 4 when running several applications at the same time - 
>part of what I thought benefited the most from multi core processors. 
>Now I see all sorts of options for multi core processors. Will a quad core 
>processor likely make that much difference for me?  What would be the best 
>bang for the buck in a new processor? 
>thanks for any help
>
>
>*
>**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
>**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
>*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] dual core vs quad core processors

[John Duncan Yoyo]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM, gerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> i bought an ACER 5100 with an AMD quad-core.  was under $600 delivered,
> with most everything on it.  came with good set of bells and whistles and an
> acceptable video card..  have little use for the quad core, or the speed,
> but at that price, it is difficult to buy much of anything for much less.
>  we have only owned 4 or 5 ACERS, but have had good luck with them as an
> econobox.
>
> the hardest part of setting the thing up is getting rid of all the "free"
> crap.
>
>
Try the PC Decrapifier  from   In my
experience it takes care of most everything but Norton.

-- 
John Duncan Yoyo
---o)


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*