Dual or Quad Core?

[Sawamura]

Hi,

 

After thinking and talking a few weeks, i want to ask you. :thumbup:

 

Right now, im talking only about Lock On. What would be better for more performance: Dual (For example: 2x 3166 MHz [Core 2 Duo E8500]) or Quad (for example: 4x 2833 MHz[Core 2 Quad Q9550].

 

I personality prefer a quad core but what do you think?

 

Do you have some experience with dual or quad core?

 

Thanks for all tips. ;)

[Flyby]

I'm interested too

 

I'd like to hear from others about this as well. My thinking right now is to build a system that will perform well on combat flight sims that take advantage of multi cores. So far Oleg's Storm of War is the only combat flight sim on the (distant) horizon that will take advantage of multiple-core CPUs. Black Shark does not take advantage of multiple cores in it's DX9 rendering engine. Later iterations will, but not now. But I will add that if I were to buy a cpu right now I'd want a quad that could easily overclock to about 3.6 ghz. That speed seems to be a sweet spot in some GPU reviews in that the reviewers want to eliminate the cpu as a bottleneck to the testing. Barring a quad, I'd like a dual that could easily overclock to the same level. The E8500 definitely would be on my list. Also I think cache level helps too. The more the merrier (games will be).:D

Btw, I am without a gaming system at the moment. But one day perhaps when lions ly down with lambs (without gutting them) and eagles fly with the doves...well, we'll see.

Flyby out

[crazysundog]

I went through this and debated with myself for a month, and decided on an E8500 now, and will probably upgrade to a fast quadcore in a year or so, hopefully the price will be cheaper... as for lofc, dont have it installed so i couldnt tell you how it runs.

[Kuky]

If it concerns lockon only I'd go for dual core cpu. They are cheaper, use bit less power and overclock better and since lockon runs on single core only it will benefit more from higher clocks.

 

If you don't use any software that runs on multi cores dual core is better option in my opinion.

[qrazi]

If the choice is between those two CPU's, then I'd go for the Q9550. The clockspeed difference isn't that big, and I use enough other software that benefits from 4 cores. Besides the argument that DCS will get support later on.

 

However, there is also a big price difference between the two CPU's, and being dutch as I am, I would go for the E8500. The main goal in this choice is gaming, and the E8500 just has the best value of the two.

[Pilotasso]

Wait for nehalem. They may or may not be a quantum leap in gaming (rather multitasking) but they will offer quad for middle range systems (actualy 8 threads) whereas you will pay a premium for all components supporting a quad (and the CPU itself) of the Penryn Generation. LOMAC will not use more than 1 core, so you have to analyse what other aplications you have that could take advantage of either 2 or more cores. (DCS will but years from now after upgrade of the software).

 

Curently half my tittles uses Quad, and I do a lot of encoding. The difference between my Quad and my brothers dual is quite visible in system responsiveness.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Kuky]

Nehalem or Core i7 CPU's will be very expensive... check out these pre-order prices (in Australian Dolars)

 

Core i7 920 2.66GHz $676.50

Core i7 940 2.93GHz $1138.50

Core i7 965 Extreme 3.20GHz $2574.00

 

this is at www.auspcmarket.com.au

 

Way too expensive if you ask me... then also add the bit higher price of DDR3 (and you now need 3 stick for tripple channel) and motherboards won't be cheap either (at least not at the begining)

 

The only afordable CPU here I see would be the 920 version... There is no way I'd give $1000 just for the CPU and I wonder what rich nut would spend some $2500 for the Extreme version... and it still runs at 3.2GHz. Don't know how much the actual architecture is going to be but for any aplication utilizing single core only, again I couldn't justify this price over current 45nm Core 2 Duo's.

[Sawamura]

Yeah you guys are right.

 

Well so, since Lock On only uses one core, Lock On would use on the Quad, i posted, 2833 MHz and on the Dual, i posted, 3166 MHz, right?. Is there a big differenz?

 

To sum up my system, i will buy:

 

Intel Qore 2 Quad Q9550

GF9800GT

4 GB DDR2 RAM

1000 GB HD

Good creative soundcard

 

 

I think Lock On should work not that bad on that system, or? :pilotfly:

[Pilotasso]

If you have a good case and good cooling you can get your Quad (look at my sig) at 3400Mhz easy. (my case on stock voltage).

 

If your not crazy about overclock then the difference from 2.83 Ghz to 3166 is not something you will notice much. (I tried that same speed)

[qrazi]

Perhaps a faster videocard? 9800GT is actually pretty mainstream. Then again, the lower the resolution, the more CPU bound any game is, and on top of that is DCS:BS already more sensitive to CPU performance then most games.

 

If your budget allows, better videocard. If not, so be it... :)

[Pilotasso]

Lomac runs pretty good on a 9800GT (I simulate it by going single card mode). by comparison my old 8800GTS 640 ran up to 5 FPS slower (most times less of a difference). The CPU made the biggest change, though. From the Q6600 I had at 2.4 Ghz to my current Q9550 at 3400 Mhz I almost doubled FPS. (this speed also pushed GFX perfomance up to this effect)

 

At this setting I also can play with the pit fully zoomed out and get good FPS (even at stock 2830Mhz) while on my previous CPU, it was utterly unplayable (so choppy I couldnt measure FPS), even when I had it at 2666Mhz.

 

Kuky: yikes I had no idea on the prices...Intel seems to start abusing lack of competition from AMD.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Sawamura]

Not bad, not bad. :)

 

Sounds good. Thank you, everyone. :thumbup:

 

Im looking forward to fly Lock On with my new system. :)

 

Mh btw Pilotasso, i dont think im crazy about overclocking, since i dont know, how to do it. *g*

Im not the hero about pcґs. :music_whistling:

Edited October 24, 2008 by Sawamura

[Sawamura]

Another small question about 32 and 64 bit systems.

 

What is the differenz between 32 and 64 bit systems and about what have i to be carefull on a 64 bit system? :music_whistling:

[qrazi]

Main difference is in the amount memory being supported. consumer 32-bit OS's have support for a maximum of 4GB, and most of the time the OS sees no more then ~3.2 GB of it. Also, in Windows XP and Vista 32-bit, an individual process can consume 2GB's maximum.

64-bit versions support way more memory, all the way up to TB's (depending on the exact OS). And they allow a process to have more then 2GB memory.

 

Windows 64-bit uses WOW64 as a sort of emulation layer to run 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS. This is with very little performance penalty, and in some cases actually some small gains.

 

The main disadvantage is that not all software just runs on 64-bit. Things like drivers, and virusscanners need specific 64-bit support. That said, almost any modern piece of hardware will run on 64-bit.

 

IMHO, if running 4GB (or more) memory, 64-bit is the way to go.

[Sawamura]

Main difference is in the amount memory being supported. consumer 32-bit OS's have support for a maximum of 4GB, and most of the time the OS sees no more then ~3.2 GB of it. Also, in Windows XP and Vista 32-bit, an individual process can consume 2GB's maximum.

64-bit versions support way more memory, all the way up to TB's (depending on the exact OS). And they allow a process to have more then 2GB memory.

 

Windows 64-bit uses WOW64 as a sort of emulation layer to run 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS. This is with very little performance penalty, and in some cases actually some small gains.

 

The main disadvantage is that not all software just runs on 64-bit. Things like drivers, and virusscanners need specific 64-bit support. That said, almost any modern piece of hardware will run on 64-bit.

 

IMHO, if running 4GB (or more) memory, 64-bit is the way to go.

 

Ah thanks a lot. :)

 

I learnt something new, today. *g*

[Mugatu]

So how much addressable memory does a 32 bit app have running in 64bit Vista?

 

Main difference is in the amount memory being supported. consumer 32-bit OS's have support for a maximum of 4GB, and most of the time the OS sees no more then ~3.2 GB of it. Also, in Windows XP and Vista 32-bit, an individual process can consume 2GB's maximum.

64-bit versions support way more memory, all the way up to TB's (depending on the exact OS). And they allow a process to have more then 2GB memory.

 

Windows 64-bit uses WOW64 as a sort of emulation layer to run 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS. This is with very little performance penalty, and in some cases actually some small gains.

 

The main disadvantage is that not all software just runs on 64-bit. Things like drivers, and virusscanners need specific 64-bit support. That said, almost any modern piece of hardware will run on 64-bit.

 

IMHO, if running 4GB (or more) memory, 64-bit is the way to go.