OT: Re: quad cores vs not.

[Fairlight]

Walter brought up quad cores in another thread...

The reality is that, available or not, quad cores are almost useless
outside of a strict server environment.  It's not like they're rubbish, but
there are -very- few things that will utilise all the cores on a desktop
system:

* CAD - Some probably will

* Games - Mixed.  Many single-core games (even current releases--Tabula
  Rasa only used one of two cores), some dual core.  Most won't make use
  of more than two.

* Applications - Depends how threaded an application is.  Varies.

* Video Editing/Transcoding - One of the most CPU-intensive tasks anyone
  will be doing on a desktop, editors are often multithreaded and make use
  of multiple cores, but the -important- part, the codec, is often a single
  core application, non-multithreaded.  The only multithreaded codec I can
  confirm is WM9.  Even XViD is singlethreaded.  The codec is honestly
  where you want firepower to count.

* BOINC infrastructure based applications - Will make use of as much as you
  can toss at them.  Great if you spend money to support seti at home and all
  the other @home projects, but otherwise not so impressive.

* Graphics - SOME graphics renderers will make use of multiple cores.  Some
  do it in a limited fashion.  Also highly processor intensive, yet
  programs like Bryce don't even make use of a second core.

The reality is that you're better off with something like a Wolfdale dual
core than a quad core at this point in time, and probably for several years
(3-5 would be my guess).  You're better off throwing 3GHz dual core at
something where at least most of it will be used, than you are throwing
4 cores or more at a lower clocking at things that won't use it.  Unless
you multitask, it's a LOT of expensive wasted firepower.  You can actually
outperform a quad core with a dual core in many cases.  I considered going
quad (Q6600) and was advised that the E8400 dual was a better bet at this
point in time, especially for my uses.  

I'd recommend the Intel E8400 3GHz Wolfdale in a heartbeat.  They're
currently in short supply due to popularity, but if you can get one,
they're -great-.  There's one Wolfdale that's 0.166 GHz faster for like
$120 more--totally not worth it.

I also recommend going for chips with reduced die sizes.  That was one
advantage of the Wolfdale series, was the reduced die size.  That
translates to a LOT cooler chip and less power consumption.  I couldn't
give much of a damn about power consumption, but heat == death, so cooler
is better.  This thing runs ridiculously cool.  In fact, the memory
controller hub on the mainboard runs hotter than the chip itself, as does
the I/O controller.

I was told that Intel almost religiously releases every 11 months.  They'll
release one line with increased performance, then 11 months later they'll
release the same line with -slight- improvements but mostly just a reduced
die size.  Those are the ones to get.

mark->
-- 
"Moral cowardice will surely be written as the cause on the death
certificate of what used to be Western Civilization." --James P. Hogan