Why buy Quad Processors??

[Boo-Yeah!!]

So I took a look at processor prices just for kicks and giggles. I have no desire to get a new processor at the moment I love my AMD Athlon x2 2.9ghz dual core which is overclocked at 3.0 right now. I was amazed at the Core i7 prices vs the Phenom 4. I know that Intels quad cores are better at the moment than AMD's but to be honest I cannot justify spending $500 on a Core i7 and then 300 for the corresponding mainboard. Not to mention that quad cores are still grossly unneeded in todays gaming world and dual cores can handle games just as efficiently still. It seems to me that owning an i7 is more about bragging rights and look how much money I have. However showing how the trends go in the microprocessor world these would probably drop in price towards the end of the year hopefully.... and hopefully AMD will get their stuff together because their dual cores rocked Intels dual cores.

I will probably end up with an i5 if the prices dont go down or a Phenom. Spending almost 1000 dollars for a board and chip.... I cant think of any reason I would ever need or want a quad core processor at the moment considering that my dual core can be just as efficient and sometimes still better than the quad cores...

Plus I cant think of any game that requres a quad core processor... Hell Im sure even Crysis can run just as well on a dual core as on a quad core... The only game in the near future that I can think of that would warrant a quad core is Crysis2


So can anyone tell me the rationale for spending so much money on a quad core when I get pretty much the same level of detail on my game with a Dual core AMD for 425 dollars cheaper or even a triple core thats 400 bucks cheaper?

Granted the Intels look a hell of a lot a better with their stats but to me thats not worth paying an extra 400 dollars for the processor and extra 200 dollars for the main board. If I had to get a new PC right at this moment I would settle for a Phenom or i5. Theres just no need to spend that much money on the i7 and such until it comes down in price or games maximum settings start requiring it.

 

[Simon]

I actually have a somewhat active thread discussing intel vs amd right now


Personally, I own an intel, although not i7. I agree with you, they are fairly overrated, and the cooling sucks!

I think AMD has the market for gamers and regular pc users.

The only reason I got an intel quad was because I tend to multitasking with high-end applications, and it was avalible at a good price, at the time

 

[FreakingHell]

Almost no games at this point require quad cores, but many recommend having a quad. You can guarantee in a year or two, there will be many that require it. Multithreaded applications are the future.

 

[Cut Chem!st]

Trust me, you'll want one for the future. Huge performance increase once games start utilizing them.

Bad Company 2 will benefit greatly from quads. Dual cores are struggling in the beta.

 

[reflex99]

intel makes an i7 thats only $280 (read: i7 920)

thats not all that bad. Besides i remember some years back when people were all like "who needs a dual core, games run fine on my pentium 4"

i7 920

 

[Passerby]

also think beyond gaming i do tons of things that are everyday for me where my 2 quads really help out alot.

first of all i work producing music and when im working at home where i olny have a pro tools LE system and no audio dsp cards like i have at the studio with pro tools hd system all audio and effects have to be processed with the cpu and having 8 cores in all to work with helps a lot when im working with big 64 track sessions at 24bit 96khz with some bulker plugs on each channel like the SSL channel strip. doing this on a duel would just crush it and i wouldn't even be able to mix.


and the same goes for web and application development where your using a lot of VM's to compile and set up test and build environments.

and also the reason why most games don't see much improvements with extra cores is because there isnt enough market with quads or better yet so once a good portion of the market has quads game developers with start multithreading there games to takes advantage of it.

 

[SingularPoint]

I don't listen to all those people who talk about futureproofing. AMD's Bulldozer and Intel's Hexa cores are coming out soon. Give two years or so after they hit the market, and they'll become standard. What next? Well we add more cores!

Technology moves to fast for anyone and if you want the best, you have to pay more. Company's know that, and they know earlier adopters will pay so things like the i7 will stay high even if it's not totally worth it. Just look at the Q6600, when it first came out people said in a year everything will be multicore ready. It's been three years and counting and most programes aren't multicored.

 

[Rogue Sniper]

Well one the best thing of having an i7 920 is that a) hyperthreading [8 threads total] and b) you can over clock it to 4.0GHz which means for 2 - 3 years itll run everything fine. Next tri-channel RAM runs faster than dual channel, my 6GB of DDR3 TriChannel runs a lot faster than 8GB of DDR2 Dual channel (Yes I know DDR2 and DDR3, but its a huge difference).

I can max every game including Crysis @ 1920x1200 (or highest allowed resolution) with 90fps +. This CPU + a 4870 can run all my games and programs without hassle. Granted yes it was 280$ but I remember spending that much on a 7900GT/GTO 3.5 years ago, so really not that much for a CPU. I dont plan on upgrading to a 6Core until Aion pushes my machine enough (Aion 3.0 may migrate to CryEngine 3).

So if you ask is it worth getting a quad core, I say yes.


Crysis does not run the same on a dual as a quad, due to poor coding to requires a lot of CPU and GPU power, having a quad will double (or most likely) the frames of a dual core (with all other parts the same for both settings). I wouldnt even dare play Crysis on my dual core laptop, hell FarCry 2 has to be ran on half the settings (8600M GT) of this system. CPU does help in game or having a GPU with PhysX but since I use more CPU intensive programs it was better for me to go Intel/ATi rather than a AMD/Nvidia or AMD/ATi or Intel/Nvidia. The CPU picks up where the GPU lacks AKA physics calculations.

 

[PewPewBangBang]

So I took a look at processor prices just for kicks and giggles. I have no desire to get a new processor at the moment I love my AMD Athlon x2 2.9ghz dual core which is overclocked at 3.0 right now. I was amazed at the Core i7 prices vs the Phenom 4. I know that Intels quad cores are better at the moment than AMD's but to be honest I cannot justify spending $500 on a Core i7 and then 300 for the corresponding mainboard. Not to mention that quad cores are still grossly unneeded in todays gaming world and dual cores can handle games just as efficiently still. It seems to me that owning an i7 is more about bragging rights and look how much money I have. However showing how the trends go in the microprocessor world these would probably drop in price towards the end of the year hopefully.... and hopefully AMD will get their stuff together because their dual cores rocked Intels dual cores.

I will probably end up with an i5 if the prices dont go down or a Phenom. Spending almost 1000 dollars for a board and chip.... I cant think of any reason I would ever need or want a quad core processor at the moment considering that my dual core can be just as efficient and sometimes still better than the quad cores...

Plus I cant think of any game that requres a quad core processor... Hell Im sure even Crysis can run just as well on a dual core as on a quad core... The only game in the near future that I can think of that would warrant a quad core is Crysis2


So can anyone tell me the rationale for spending so much money on a quad core when I get pretty much the same level of detail on my game with a Dual core AMD for 425 dollars cheaper or even a triple core thats 400 bucks cheaper?

Granted the Intels look a hell of a lot a better with their stats but to me thats not worth paying an extra 400 dollars for the processor and extra 200 dollars for the main board. If I had to get a new PC right at this moment I would settle for a Phenom or i5. Theres just no need to spend that much money on the i7 and such until it comes down in price or games maximum settings start requiring it.

Ummm........i7's are not $500 for the CPU and $300 for the MOBO. If you want budget i7 920..........its about $280 for the CPU and mid $100's for a cheap MOBO that is decent. I spent $240 for the i7 920 from microcenter and about $200 for an EVGA 3x SLI after rebate (very good deal).

But yes, AMD are much better for the price, they will perform fine in games, as long as you OC to a high speed.

Quad cores aren't really needed though. They help with Multi-GPU solution no doubt though. Especially the i7's, they have benchmarks on i7 scaling with Multi-GPU's and its amazing how much they benefit.

 

[Bravo Company]

The thing is, you can get a pretty damn decent quad core running at 3.0 GHZ (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...1&cm_re=amd_phenom_940-_-19-103-471-_-Product) for not alot of money are all.

I went back and used an old pentium 4 at 3 GHz and remember why I've bought a quad core. Efficient multi-tasking is pretty much only possible on a quad core (imo).

 

[SingularPoint]

If you want a inexpensive i7. You could look into a x3440. It's a i7 with the fancy shmancy name.

 

[Librarian]

Don't even need to buy an i7 for now. You could buy an older model quad until the hex cores come out and drop in price. For a decent price you can get a good ole core that will run very well. i7's are over-rated I do agree with that. For the most part my older xeon can do just as good as an i7 or better (except the very expensive ones).

Like someone else did say, you need not spend $300 on a mainboard, I've never spent over $150 on a board and it handles everything I could ask of it, and that's quite a bit.

 

[FreakingHell]

i7's are not overrated. If you think they're overrated, than you don't need or can't use the extra power. If you could, you would understand the huge difference between the i7 and any other line of processors.

 

[Ph?bus]

I never realized how much people disliked quad cores, particularly the i7.
Beyond gaming, quads are much better than duals.
In most games, you will get maybe 5-15fps more with a tri core or quad, or you will just get the same as you would with a dual core.

 

[PewPewBangBang]

Yall need to take into account how much better Multi-GPU solutions scale with i7's.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/6

Read this article and benchmarks and you will see why some of us pick i7's. I have tri-fire 4850's and this is one of the reasons why i picked up an i7 920.

These are all stock clocks too........i overclocked my i7 920 to 4.0ghz

 

[DragonD]

I have an AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition. Not quite as fast as the I7, but soooo much cheaper (and easier to overclock).

 

[FreakingHell]

I have an AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition. Not quite as fast as the I7, but soooo much cheaper (and easier to overclock).

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind stating that it's easier to overclock than an i7.

 

[mad pistol]

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind stating that it's easier to overclock than an i7.

Not necessarily "easier" but AMD does give you more options for less money. You can get AMD's fastest Phenom II X4 processor for $180 at newegg, and that comes with an unlocked multiplier. The PII 940 obviously doesn't. Also, intel's i7 975 comes with an unlocked multiplier too, but you have to drop a cool $1k to get it, and the PII's direct competitors are limited by what motherboard you choose.

The value of the Phenom II's is not in the processors themselves, but the platform. It's been proven time and time again that you get comparable gaming performance for about $200-$300 less than that of a comparable i7 920 based system. Check it on newegg if you don't believe me. The cheapest 1366 motherboard is $170 currently. That buys you a cheap barebones motherboard with only a handful of features compared to the highend boards. The most expensive AM3 motherboard is $200, and those come absolutely loaded.

Make whatever arguments you want, but AMD is targeting budget minded buyers, and in that respect, they're doing very well. I guess if you want to spend hundreds of extra dollars on an i7 system that yields virtually no increase in gaming performance, that's your right. You can listen to the benchmarks if you want, but when you compare the processors in real world conditions, the Phenom II's are a viable alternative to the the i7's. Benchmarks never tell the full story, and it's pretty obvious that intel designed their current architecture to run those tests very well. If the i7's were truly that much more powerful, then the gaming performance would reflect that. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I was able to buy a 5870 with the money I saved, and that is a huge value bonus.

 

[D.T.S.]

This discussion can persist endlessly.

Processors are like lawn mowers. How big is your yard, and how much heavy debris do you want to be able to run over, and how fast does it need to happen?

Higher performance machines do not automatically equate to the best purchase. If you need the highest performance, then you buy the highest performance available. Many people need an i7 or two, far more do not.

Gaming applications will (for the time being) target a higher performance crowd than the everyday home user. Design and production applications target an even higher performance market.

Buy what you need, what you can afford, and what you want. Futureproofing works to a certain extent, because you're buying ahead of the power curve and other applications will catch up to you. It's an investment. Higher performance hardware will be released by that time, but that doesn't mean you won't still be sitting pretty.

Until your core application group begins to target a market that's higher performance than you, which means it's time to upgrade.

The best machine for you doesn't necessarily mean the highest benchmarks possible. If that was the case then everyone would recommend extreme overclocking and cooling measures like are demoed at trade shows and expos.

Performance to dollar ratio is a good guide, along with an educated guess on how long it will be before you have to reinvest in a new machine. That's pretty much the bottom line for me.

For me. Not others. Purely a personal opinion except those lucky few that require extreme high performance for their media applications.

 

[Bravo Company]

i7's are not overrated. If you think they're overrated, than you don't need or can't use the extra power. If you could, you would understand the huge difference between the i7 and any other line of processors.

Yall need to take into account how much better Multi-GPU solutions scale with i7's.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/6

Read this article and benchmarks and you will see why some of us pick i7's. I have tri-fire 4850's and this is one of the reasons why i picked up an i7 920.

These are all stock clocks too........i overclocked my i7 920 to 4.0ghz

For us that don't have a ton of money to put into having 2, 3, 4+ GPUs we don't need an I7. Not everybody has $400 to put in a CPU we probably won't even use to its full power. Really, an I7 is a huge niche product.

Most of us here will never need the power of an I7 for our computer usage, I do alot of heavy gaming plus some and don't even think an I7 is really necessary. Anything over 3 GHz is overkill IMO.