| Author
|
what are your takes quad core??
|
danalog
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
3
Posted : May 11, 2008 19:51:53
|
hey guys, am interested in upgrading my pc's processor and go quad core...
what am interested to know from u guys who are on quad core aswell, is how worth it, it actually is??? have u seen major improvement with the amount of work load you pc can handle..? |
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : May 11, 2008 20:52
|
I upgraded to the new Q9450 yesterday.
I was on Core2 Duo 6600 before, and I wasn't struggling with anything but my motherboard died and I just decided to go the whole hog and build an extreme PC. (4GB High end memory and a Spinpoint 1000GB drive)
Um, in a word. It's brilliant. 50+ VSTi, 100+ fx.. not an exaggeration.
If you want to work that way, it's great. But I actually bounce a lot of stuff to work with it differently so I'll never use all that power.
|
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 11, 2008 20:56
|
or get an E2160 and overclock it 
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 11, 2008 22:19
|
|
Allegoric - Psynce
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
61
Posts :
1453
Posted : May 12, 2008 00:34
|
quad core is really powerful and is really efficient... 
if you have enough money and want to get a much more powerful machine you can go for 2 x Quad core which makes it 8 cores 
 Truth will always guard our souls......
http://www.myspace.com/allegoricpsynce |
|
|
|
XuN
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
499
Posted : May 12, 2008 02:32
|
I got my quad 2 weeks ago... can only say... Quad core, cause you'r worth it!... with 4GB ram it is pure love... Running 25 VSTi's and still only using 20% cpu...
www.xun.dk / myspace.com/xundk
!!PLUR!! |
|
|
|
danalog
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
3
Posted : May 12, 2008 14:38
|
|
awesome.. sold |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 12, 2008 19:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-11 22:19, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-11 20:56, Mike A wrote:
or get an E2160 and overclock it
|
|
The quad cores overclock just fine as well
|
|
yea, but it costs like 6 e2xxx
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 12, 2008 22:29
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-12 19:40, Mike A wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-11 22:19, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-11 20:56, Mike A wrote:
or get an E2160 and overclock it
|
|
The quad cores overclock just fine as well
|
|
yea, but it costs like 6 e2xxx
|
|
Where did you pull that figure from?
€70 vs €200 is 2.8 times more.
Even if the E2160 was free I would gladly pay €200 to get a quad core. (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : May 12, 2008 22:44
|
a core 2 duo e8400 and a q9550 perform in exactly the same with the same vsti/vst
example..
30vsti in an e8400 will have say 50% cpu and in an q9550 will have 25%
but when u max the e8400 and have 100% cpu u will max the q9550 but with 50% cpu.. this happens cause most apps still dont take full advantage on multicores (cubase, flstudio etc.)
u maybe will see in a quad core an even share on load on 4 cores but the representation in task manager isnt true its an approximation.
also
a quad core q9550 comes with a 8.5x multiplier and an e8400 dual core comes with a 9x multiplier means that u can overclock a e8400 alot more than a q9550 (they run in 3.0ghz and 2.5ghz respectively default speed) that also means that it will handle high cpu tasks faster and using less power and producing less heat.
best choice for me now is a e8400.
cheap and powerfull with lots of overclocking abilities is the e8200.
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
Dharma Lab
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
342
Posted : May 12, 2008 23:04
|
I have a Q6600 and love it. For music apps, having more cores is, without a doubt in my mind, far superior to have less cores running at a higher speed. In my experience, the added gHz don't come handy nearly as often as having more CPU to run more plugins. In fact, when it comes to speed, I find that the speed of the hard drive is the biggest bottleneck (i.e. when rendering/loading/playing audio)
If cost is critical, the dual core will be cheaper, but I feel the quads are sooo worth it.
Keep The Faith,
Christian K. |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : May 12, 2008 23:31
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-05-12 22:44, orange wrote:
a core 2 duo e8400 and a q9550 perform in exactly the same with the same vsti/vst
example..
30vsti in an e8400 will have say 50% cpu and in an q9550 will have 25%
but when u max the e8400 and have 100% cpu u will max the q9550 but with 50% cpu.. this happens cause most apps still dont take full advantage on multicores (cubase, flstudio etc.)
u maybe will see in a quad core an even share on load on 4 cores but the representation in task manager isnt true its an approximation.
also
a quad core q9550 comes with a 8.5x multiplier and an e8400 dual core comes with a 9x multiplier means that u can overclock a e8400 alot more than a q9550 (they run in 3.0ghz and 2.5ghz respectively default speed) that also means that it will handle high cpu tasks faster and using less power and producing less heat.
best choice for me now is a e8400.
cheap and powerfull with lots of overclocking abilities is the e8200.
|
|
If you like 9x multi go for a Q6600 then. It's very cheap and easily goes up to around 3.6Ghz per core.
One thing though with the 9x multi is that you will have to push the FSB will mean that RAM and mobo will be quite stressed and you might have to budget for faster RAM to run at that speed.
I lowered the multi on my Q6600 so the PC-800 RAM runs on it's rated speed but the cores run at 3.2Ghz.
I use Ableton and it is very good at distributing the processes to the different cores.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : May 12, 2008 23:55
|
but there is the thing...
the q6600 is multiplier unlocked and the q9450 isn't.
I'm really quite torn between the two (the G0 variant of the Q6600).
So if you want to overclock q6600 is perhaps the better chip then the q9450. If you don't q9450 is the better chip then the q6600. At least thats my current thinking. Although I'm far from certain at this point. (cheers Intel - nice arbitrary decision there - guess they think AMD isn't a threat ATM)
Dual core doesn't even get a look in I'm afraid. My brain is having a tough time as it is choosing without confusing the issue.
The general consensus at the point of release (and still remaining) was that the q6600 was one of the best mainstream chips ever. Period.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : May 13, 2008 00:00
|
if u want a good pc a u dont just get a good cpu.. u need a good mobo and good ram to go with it.
yes indeed pushing the fsb will increase the speed of the ram also.
having some good ram modules to work alongside ur cpu is essential for me.
if u want to overclock the cpu its better to get some 1066mhz ram modules as well.
although i have my e8400 running @ 3.7ghz and my kingston ddr2 800 cl4 @ 920mhz with no problems whatsoever!
a good cooler is needed ofcourse and a good mobo (abit ip35 pro for me)
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
danalog
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
3
Posted : May 13, 2008 00:53
|
|
phew!!! too many complicated words and names for my liking!! hehehe |
|
|
|
