the more cores the better?

[Clutz]

This question has to do with multi core chips, threading and all that sort of stuff.   I could live with my 3.4 Prescott for a long time still to come, but I want to keep up with the future and most of all, find a way to make AH run better, as that is the total method to my madness.

Now it seems to me if I buy a QX6700 (quad core), that this processor would not run AH better than a Conroe x6800. However, it seems to me that the lack of performance hit the QX6700 will take over the Conroe x6800 would be one that is minimal. And on the bright side, if I get the quad core chip, then I will have a chip that will last into the future when more applications make use of more cores and more threads, up to and including vista.  Does this logic I am using here make any sense?

So may I ask, if AH plays well on a standard single core Pentium chip, and even better on a dual core X6800 conroe, how long will it be before AH (or other programs for that matter) make use of a chip like the quad core QX6700? Or, should I just quit thinking (which often works well for me ) and follow everybody else and just get the x6800?

Thank you very much, Clutz

[Skuzzy]

Quad core will not help make the game run any better.   Dual core helps over a single core.  However, your P4 is already Hyper-threaded, which is a partial dual core.

Beyond that, the Core 2 Duo family runs circles around your currnt Prescott P4 in everything.  And it uses less power to do so, generates less heat as well.

Quad core is a nice marketing ploy/

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Quad core has real world benefits in certain video rendering applications etc. not so much in gaming.

[Skuzzy]

Very specific applications, but the cost/performance ratio is terrible.

2 dual core computers acting on the threads of those video applications would be approximately 100% faster than a single quad core computer.

And if you look at the cost performance ratio, in that comparison, you will probably find it to be more bang for the buck as well, over a quad core.

The performance bottleneck for a multi-core computer is the memory bus.  With 4 CPU's contending for thier time slice of the memory bus, it will lower performance gains significantly.  Remember, only one CPU at a time can access memory.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Very specific applications, but the cost/performance ratio is terrible.

2 dual core computers acting on the threads of those video applications would be approximately 100% faster than a single quad core computer.

And if you look at the cost performance ratio, in that comparison, you will probably find it to be more bang for the buck as well, over a quad core.

The performance bottleneck for a multi-core computer is the memory bus.  With 4 CPU's contending for thier time slice of the memory bus, it will lower performance gains significantly.  Remember, only one CPU at a time can access memory.

If I recall right AMD is going to address that bottleneck in its own quad-core cpu's. The downside being you need double the ram like doing a Raid 1. But I agree with you in that it's not wise to get a quad core if you want bang for buck.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If I recall right AMD is going to address that bottleneck in its own quad-core cpu's. The downside being you need double the ram like doing a Raid 1. But I agree with you in that it's not wise to get a quad core if you want bang for buck.

Sort of.
Theory is that with HT you have less of a performance hit using multiple cores than sharing the FSB.

Was demonstrated with some of the reviews of the Intel Quad Core v the AMD 4x4.
The more and more you threw at them the less the 4x4 started to run into bandwidth limits than the Intel Quad core.

Agreed though, pointless for most people.

Saying that AMD anounced second half of this year they are moving into 8 core processing. Most suspect they are talking about 2 x 4 core K8Ls on the AMD 4x4 platform, and aren't springing a single 8 core CPU on the world.
Where will it end lol.

At the point where -
Software isn't keeping pace with CPU's
CPU's aren't keeping pace with GPU's. (conservative guess - CPUs would need to double in speed to be fast enough for the latest graphics cards)