Buy Core 2 Duo Now Or Wait For Quad Core Chips?

[Crushdepth]

I'm looking to buy a new computer (something along the lines of the Arstechnica hot rodand had been eyeing off the new Core 2 Duo chips...until I heard about the quad core chips coming out this month.

I am wondering whether the quad cores are likely to be offered for a similar price range (ie. will they displace the Core 2 Duo chips immediately), or if they will come with a very high price tag.

Not sure whether to buy or wait.

[A_Traveller]

Have just {last two weeks} commissioned a new Dual Core E6400 system. Looking at the present X series prices here I would be very surprised to see the quads coming in at a 'reasonable' level in the near term. In addition though the quads are due to be announced in November {they were originally going to be brought to Market late q1 '07} my understanding is that availability will be very tight.

Guess the answer to your question is dependent on the anticipated life span of the system you a buying. If you see yourself on a, say 18 month or 2 year cycle, then I'd say get the duo now and by renewal time move to the 4's, 8's or... ?

Regards

[Ian_B]

I'd get the dual core now

Quad cores will be expensive and it will take a long time for programs to be written that can take advantage of the 4 cores

[TallTravel]

I'd get the dual core now

Quad cores will be expensive and it will take a long time for programs to be written that can take advantage of the 4 cores

I agree. I think you would be far better off getting a system now if you want it than waiting for 6,8, or 10 months.

[Tywais]

I also agree with the other posters. The release price shows about $1000.00 and will be much more then that here. Also availability in Thailand will probably be about 6 months behind other places. Software that takes advantage of the multi-cores is still very weak.

An article from zdnet > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6132033.html

An excerpt from the article.

"When only one application is running, the QX6700 doesn't perform as well as the dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 or even the Core 2 Duo E6700, according to AnandTech's review. The reason? To keep the QX6700 within the same thermal profile as the Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel reduced the clock speed of the QX6700. The X6800 runs at 2.93GHz, while the QX6700 and the E6700 run at 2.66GHz."

[Crushdepth]

Many thanks...Core 2 Duo it is (E6400).

[Jamie]

In 5 years time, Intel said they would have the ability to make 80 core chips. Not sure what kind of applications one would be running to require that amount of power, but then again, 5 years off is a long time when it comes to computers and software.

[Tywais]

In 5 years time, Intel said they would have the ability to make 80 core chips. Not sure what kind of applications one would be running to require that amount of power, but then again, 5 years off is a long time when it comes to computers and software.

Actually I have a need for that now. I've been asked to build a cluster system (basically a personal super computer). Will probably be using the Intel dual dual-core Xeon board (4 processors on one board) and start with 2-3 systems (8-12 CPUS) and add more boards over time as funds arrive. The purpose is to run Biological Dynamic Simulations for physics research. The software is built to distribute across multi-CPUs. Of course not practical for the general user and the software has to be written specifically to support it. The Physics and other science community will be very happy to see that.

One of the largest clusters is based on 1536 dual G5 Apple servers making a total of 3132 CPUs. The result, a 16 Teraflop computer, ranking in the top 10 of all supercomputers. Guess I need to clear out one of my rooms to make room for it.

[autonomous_unit]

What kind of applications do you intend to run? With my athlons, I was able to buy a mid-range cpu a couple years ago and then upgrade to a much faster chip for another $100 recently as a simple chip swap. Unless I were running some high performance computing app or something where the app response time meant real money to me, I'd focus more on the mid-range value "sweet spot" than the high end. Even if the quad core prices are good, just imagine how cheap that will make a nice dual-core clock-rate upgrade!

Anway, I've just done some seat-of-the-pants benchmarking of a 2.4 GHz core 2 duo machine to compare it to some existing althon64 machines of the same clock speed.

For my mixture of java and a "compilation" task, it is modestly faster than the athlons. I have to do some handwaving to compensate for the second core, since my athlons are not dual-core. The speeds are roughly equal on non-parallelized stuff and almost double on parallelized.

I have one SSE/MMX/float math benchmark that the core 2 duo smashes the athlons on. But, based on the above results, I have to consider the fact that my benchmark may be RAM bandwidth limited rather than core instruction rate limited. The core 2 duo system has dual-channel DDR2 RAM, whereas the athlons have dual-channel DDR.

If I were shopping again right now, I'd probably assume dual core and about 2.4 GHz cpu rate. I'd focus more on getting a good DDR2 setup and also other I/O like a good onboard SATA, gigabit ethernet, etc., and hope that I could swap out for a faster chip once in the life of the system...

[astral]

In 5 years time, Intel said they would have the ability to make 80 core chips. Not sure what kind of applications one would be running to require that amount of power, but then again, 5 years off is a long time when it comes to computers and software.

Well said Jamie.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.

[Gary A]

At least for what I do with my computer, I lost my enthusiasm for super fast processors. My P-4 3.0 Ghz processor died and I couldn't find a replacement. I ended up with a 2.66 Ghz Celeron. I can't tell a bit of difference between the two. I think the 7200 rpm SATA hard drive and the Gig of ram are far more important. I recently came back from a visit to the US. I was shopping for a new laptop and had a chance to play with dual core and single core machines. If there was any difference I didn't notice it. The computer salesman just shrugged his shoulders when I quizzed him.

[Grover]

if your interested in an increase in general performace, I heard that upgrading the HDD to a 36GB 10000 speed, 5.x m/s seek time HDD is a good choice. They should only cost about 3000-4000 baht.

[King Dong]

Many thanks...Core 2 Duo it is (E6400).

How much faster is that (E6400), than this (Intel Pentium D 945 3.4GHz EM64T 2x 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core CPU)?

[Douggie Style]

At least for what I do with my computer, I lost my enthusiasm for super fast processors. My P-4 3.0 Ghz processor died and I couldn't find a replacement. I ended up with a 2.66 Ghz Celeron. I can't tell a bit of difference between the two. I think the 7200 rpm SATA hard drive and the Gig of ram are far more important.I recently came back from a visit to the US. I was shopping for a new laptop and had a chance to play with dual core and single core machines. If there was any difference I didn't notice it. The computer salesman just shrugged his shoulders when I quizzed him.

I found the same, plus a fast motherboard and keeping system regulalry cleaned and defragged. It's about bottle necks, the CPU on most home systems is down the list. Get the fastest motherboard, hard disk and memory you can afford first.

[Firefoxx]

Actually, the motherboard isn't that much of a factor. The amount (and mainly the *amount*) of RAM is a deciding factor if you've got too little, say 512MB (which is the typical Pantip config these days) and are using WinXP. Upping to 1GB gives a big boost, while upping from 1GB to 2GB only gives a siginificant boost if you're using programs that use that much memory (or using a lot of programs, period). Same goes for hard drives. Typical notebooks come with 4200rpm drives. Upping to 7200rpm (hard to find) gives a *siginificant* boost, while upping to 5400rpm not as much. In other words, these things do matter, but only up to a certain point, then it's the rule of diminishing returns (just like for CPUs). You *don't* need to get the fastest/most, just to stick a dinky CPU (the only one you can afford after paying for those things) in it.

It all depends on what you want to do with your computer. If you're playing 3D games, doing CAD/CAM, photoshop, video editing, playing HD vids, and the like, you'd want the fastest CPU you can afford, and it makes a BIIIIIIG difference. If, however, you're only doing word processing, you can get a second hand computer from the 90's and still be happy (this is assuming that you'll never ever want to change/upgrade your programs). If you don't play games or do 3D, getting a great graphics card is pretty pointless (unless of course you want all the nice visuals coming in Vista).

[waldwolf]

Many thanks...Core 2 Duo it is (E6400).

How much faster is that (E6400), than this (Intel Pentium D 945 3.4GHz EM64T 2x 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core CPU)?

The following "Intel Processor Number Feature Table" may help answer some of your questions: CHART (pdf)

waldwolf

[astral]

What kind of applications do you intend to run? With my athlons, I was able to buy a mid-range cpu a couple years ago and then upgrade to a much faster chip for another $100 recently as a simple chip swap. Unless I were running some high performance computing app or something where the app response time meant real money to me, I'd focus more on the mid-range value "sweet spot" than the high end. Even if the quad core prices are good, just imagine how cheap that will make a nice dual-core clock-rate upgrade!

Anway, I've just done some seat-of-the-pants benchmarking of a 2.4 GHz core 2 duo machine to compare it to some existing althon64 machines of the same clock speed.

For my mixture of java and a "compilation" task, it is modestly faster than the athlons. I have to do some handwaving to compensate for the second core, since my athlons are not dual-core. The speeds are roughly equal on non-parallelized stuff and almost double on parallelized.

I have one SSE/MMX/float math benchmark that the core 2 duo smashes the athlons on. But, based on the above results, I have to consider the fact that my benchmark may be RAM bandwidth limited rather than core instruction rate limited. The core 2 duo system has dual-channel DDR2 RAM, whereas the athlons have dual-channel DDR.

If I were shopping again right now, I'd probably assume dual core and about 2.4 GHz cpu rate. I'd focus more on getting a good DDR2 setup and also other I/O like a good onboard SATA, gigabit ethernet, etc., and hope that I could swap out for a faster chip once in the life of the system...

Parallel processing is the way to go, but PC operating systems cannot make use of it yet.

The top end mainframes from Hewlett Packard, the NonStop Servers have been using parallel processing for over 30 years.

Anything from 2 to 4080cpus working in parallel mean they can handle 100's of business transactions per second.

This is why they are used for the processing of almost all the world's ATM transactions and at many of the major stock exhanges of the world.

Currently the technology is using Itanium processers.

[nikster]

Actually, the motherboard isn't that much of a factor. The amount (and mainly the *amount*) of RAM is a deciding factor if you've got too little, say 512MB (which is the typical Pantip config these days) and are using WinXP. Upping to 1GB gives a big boost, while upping from 1GB to 2GB only gives a siginificant boost if you're using programs that use that much memory (or using a lot of programs, period). Same goes for hard drives. Typical notebooks come with 4200rpm drives. Upping to 7200rpm (hard to find) gives a *siginificant* boost, while upping to 5400rpm not as much. In other words, these things do matter, but only up to a certain point, then it's the rule of diminishing returns (just like for CPUs). You *don't* need to get the fastest/most, just to stick a dinky CPU (the only one you can afford after paying for those things) in it.

I agree that 4200 notebook drives are dead slow, but 5400s can compete with 7200s. Especially considering that you can get a larger 5400 drive. Simplified, the number of bits you can read in a given time period depends on two things: How fast the platter spins by == rotational speed and how many bits are being read during that time == bit density. Tests show that a 160GB 5400 drive is faster than a 7200 100GB drive.

The other factor is access speed - 7200 is faster here but not significantly. For all intents and purposes a large 5400 drive beats a smaller 7200. The largest 7200 drive you can buy today is 100GB, whereas the largest 5400 drive is 160GB - the latter is the current sweet spot for speed IMHO.

Having run a Core Duo for the last 6 months, I also need to say that the second core speeds up the system tremendously, and that without any software that specifically takes advantage. Consider that on your computer today, there's hundreds or even thousands of programs running "in parallel". Most of those are little things that hardly use any CPU, but they do add up. A single processor machine now runs all these one after the other, simulating a parallel system. A dual core has two cores to spread the processes on and for that reason "feels" a lot faster.

Practical example would be one CPU-hogging task which has one core all to itself, with all other background processes using the second CPU. Another one is tasks that crap out with 100% CPU - those are much more harmless if you have a second core that you can shut them down from.

The visible effect is: Less wait time in front of the computer, and a system that feels a lot faster in daily use. I am probably extreme in that I run on the order of 10-20 programs in parallel most times. I definitely feel the second core.

It remains to be seen whether quads deliver a similar boost. I would imagine there are diminishing returns but who knows? I would never have thought that two cores make that much difference either.

Also: For speed, buy as much RAM as you can. 2GB is best, 1GB a minimum. It has a much bigger impact than processor speed.

[The Coder]

Tests show that a 160GB 5400 drive is faster than a 7200 100GB drive.

Do an apples to apples comparison: Hitachi 160GB 5400RPM vs 100GB 7200RPM

In almost every test the 7200RPM drive is quicker. It would thus appear the gains in bit density are not enough to offset the loss in rotational speed. But the other thing to note is neither drive is top of the tree. There are other things that influence performance like buffer size and interface bandwidth. There are "good" 7200 drives and "bad" ones. Sort of like trying to judge a video card by how much ram it has.

[Crushdepth]

Ok 55k later I've got it. I got talked into upgrading the specs a bit (by the GF's dad). Ended up with:

* 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo (E600, with a 4MB cache)

* Asus P5W DH Deluxe motherboard (newer chipset than the P5B I'd been looking at, plus on board wifi and a few consumer gimmicks like remote control)

* 2 GB RAM (800 MHz)

* Spark GF7950 GT video card (nockoff brand using the GeForce 7950 chipset but with 512MB RAM)

* LG super multi DVD rewriter (GSA-H22L)

* 320 GB Seagate hard drive

* Gview case

* The rest I already had.

So far quite happy and no problems. I was a bit hesitant about the video card but it had twice as much RAM as the name brand NVIDIA for a similar price, and it is a huge improvement over my last card. Been playing a bit of Splinter Cell / Pandora Tomorrow and it is just amazing. Dual booted with Ubuntu and no problems there either.

The case is a very cheap one (~1,000 baht) but I like the design - it has a huge rear fan to vent the case, a smaller one at the front to cool the hard drives and a side duct that fits over the processor (which came with what looks like a very nice heat sink).

[cobra]

I understand that the quads are currently aimed at the server market,

Probably 12 - 18 months before any code is written for pc apps, etc,

I just upgraded a P4 Win machine to a Core Duo (T7600, 2.3ghz), Dell M1710,

Benchmarked same and was not surprised that it was significantly faster.

[kbaboom]

Need your subjective opinion. Looking at P4 1.86 Dual Core2 or P4 3.4 Dual Core 945. Both priced similarly at around 7,000 baht. Which one should I go for

[mikeinminburi]

as stated by a few other's already,

buying the dual core's do see a lot of improved performance, but only if you really need it!

seriously, whats the point in someone going out and buying the latest and greatest, when all they do is use i.e or firefox, maybe play a few games the odd time, print off a few documents, and have a 20 min webcam convo to someone else....

ABSOLOUTLY NO POINT AT ALL.

now, someone who really does need it and uses the computer for god knows what reasons tbh, then fair enough if you have the money then go ahead and buy it...

but seriously, if your one of those people who go on the net for an hour or so a day, browse around, chat on msn/yahoo etc and play an odd game,

BUY A COMPUTER FOR ABOUT 10,000 BAHT IN TOTAL...

dont waste 30 - 40k baht on something thats going to go mouldy sitting in the corner.

take myself, i know too much about computers... use to build them back home before i moved to thailand.

now, i find myself struggling to spend an hour or 2 on the computer a day.

during school, i have a laptop that i can use. it does the job for using the internet.

at home, i might play a game of counter strike, or quake the odd time.

buy honestly, i dont really need a computer that has dual cores, 2 - 4 gb ram, 10,000 rpm hard drives, a mouse and keyboard that look really cool and save me 1ms in game time, or a monitor that has millions of different ports and connections, or a computer tower that tells me the time, the temperature, the speed of my hd fans etc when i dont really care as long as it works....

people do like these things, i did for a long time myself, but the other day a fiend of mine told me he wants a computer upgraded.. so i told him what to buy... another 512mb ram, a new HD and if he really wanted a new monitor cos he has a 15" crt...

he then rang me 2 days later and told me he bought a new computer with dual cores, 2gb ram, 2 hard drives with nearly a terabyte of hd space, over priced and not needed super keyboards, and all the rest of the <deleted> that you can buy...

he spends his days playing solitare, and surfing the net downloading music...

WOW... you could do all that and a lot more on a <deleted> pentium 2 400mhz!!!! with 128 mb ram...

cost him almost 40,000 baht.

seriously, save your money, because you really dont need quad cores unless your running a business that needs simutaneous programs running on more than 10 machines at one time.

dual cores are even not needed for 99% of the things you will be doing over the next year or 2.

honestly, if you want it buy it.. but there isnt a huge need for it right now.

maybe when vista comes out, then more programs will need 64bit, ddr2, 512mb graphics cards with ddr3/4 and so on and so forth.

[autonomous_unit]

Mikeinminburi: I agree about high-end computer parts being a waste for casual home users. A much better value can be had on "last year's" or older stuff that was considered good enough then...

But a surprising number of the folks here use their computers for work as software, web, or content developers. The extra expenditures for faster parts or better user experience are easily worth it when you spend your whole work day in front of the computer, unless all you do is browse the web for work.

[Simmo]

A good rule of thumb I use is to buy 12 to 18 months "behind the curve" for PC parts, especially video cards and cpu. Prices usually drop 30-50% in that time, and all the early adopters iron out the bugs and issues so you're dealing with a mature product.

[mikeinminburi]

exactly as i said. the people who need it, then fair enough, go for what you need and desire. but the people who are home user's, and dont really know too much about what they are doing, then there is no point in buying the latest and greatest.

its a waste of time and money on your half....

simmo, yeah im the same. when i lived in ireland, i was always keen on the new and greatest cards, hardware etc..

then changed when i learned that in about 6 - 18 months the price would be about half the cost it is now...

take the athlon 64 4000+

cost about 600 euro maybe more about 6 months ago...

now its dirt cheap about 200 quid

WHY??

because its outdated by the dual cores and newer models and processors.

so 6 months ago, if you waited, you would have saved your self about 400 quid...

the same with he dual cores now.

if you wait for a few months, then something newer and faster and better will come out, and the price will drop conciderably...

all good things come to those who wait...

[Jamie]

Some people just enjoy the latest and greatest, but I agree, if you have no use for it, it's a waste of money. I was able to talk my sister out of dropping some serious money on a new computer. I just did some minor upgrades on a computer I gave them a year ago. This thing will work well for their needs for the next year or possibly 2 years. I believe my brother in law breathed a sigh of relief knowing that is one less thing she'll be spending money on.

[Firefoxx]

mike, look at what he said he ended up doing with his overpriced notebook:

"Been playing a bit of Splinter Cell / Pandora Tomorrow and it is just amazing. "

And now go and try to use that 10,000 baht computer to do the same thing.

The thing about notebooks today is that they're fast replacing desktops for pretty much everything. It's convergence, and you don't *have* to have a desktop anymore, since notebooks can do nearly everything desktops can ("albeit not as good as the latest and greatest"). Another point about convergence is that you're using your notebook for gaming and entertainment, and those things need at least a *bit* more power than the lowest denominator. I, for one, use my notebook to edit HDV (1440x1080 resolution videos), and even *THE MOST EXPENSIVE* notebook available is not fast enough for me. And I don't even do this professionally.

Yes, some people still be using only wordstar and wordperfect, but the rest of the world has moved on and wants fancier things.

You also shouldn't use high-end processors as an example. They're traditionally overpriced for the speed crazy, and have low volumes but high profit margins. It's basic marketing. Yes, they will be replaced by faster processors in time, but aren't all things? Cars, TVs, LCDs, practically all appliances and electronics. It's the way of the world. You may rant and rave all you want, it won't change, since it's integral to the market economy. There *will* be people that buy them, and there will be those who buy the least denominator. The point is you have a *choice*, but at the same time so do other people, and they base their choices on their own *needs* which aren't the same as yours. It's not a world of mikes, but a world of individuals.

Yes, you can wait, but you could also wait indefinitely, and they'll be given away for free. But at that point, they're free since they're so outdated that they're practically useless (hence, worthless). The buyer decides when the price and the product are at a point where he is satisfied, not when someone *else* (except maybe your wife) is satisfied. If you truly like things real cheap, go to the local landfill and take your pick. The calculators there still work.

[ourmanflint]

the new quad cores are out now! They are socket replacements for core duo I think so buy whatever you can now and upgrade the processors when you can afford it

easy

[Crushdepth]

mike, look at what he said he ended up doing with his overpriced notebook:

"Been playing a bit of Splinter Cell / Pandora Tomorrow and it is just amazing.

I also do a lot of graphic/publication/web work...in addition to playing games. I guess I could have kept doing most of that on the old machine but its performance had been annoying the crap out of me for quite some time. Plus I've been wanting to own a second machine so I can experiment with setting up a server on my home network...that is the fate of the old one.

My happiness index is now very high, it was worth every cent