Roy said:Hello guys, which is really best for high end,performance
application;
Core 2 Extreme or Quad Core....?
Which is more costly between the two and which is the best high
performance computing assuming the graphic and Graphic cards are
optimized as well.
The QXnnnn Core 2 Extremes are quad core CPUs. As far
as raw performance is concerned, the Extreme will beat
the Quad. The number of applications presently available
that can utilize all cores of a multicore CPU is rather limited.
Re pricing: In Canada the Quad Q9650 is $429, and the Extreme
QX9650 is $1311, nearly triple the price. Of course, the QX is
designed for overclocking, as the multiplier is unlocked.
Try some benchmark charts.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Maincon...
Make sure the chart you pick, represents the activity you want to
do with the computer.
In some of the benchmarks, only two of the cores are being used, so
the application may not even be matched to a quad core processor.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-...
Paul
Roy said:From that bench marks the Corei7 surpassed the core 2
extreme...meaning the corei7 is the best choice for high performance
desktop that will take a long time before another cpu and motherboard
upgrade?
But what I don't understand if the Corei7 is the top of the line , how
come the core 2 extreme is more expensive ?
Does the core 2 extreme have features and benefits that are unique
and not found in corei7?
Roy said:Hmm, therefore it means hat core2 extreme is the way to go supposing
you want to builld a high performance PC
That will take longer time to upgrade than the multicores in the
quadcore?
That pc is to be used for Autocad ,photoand video editing plus high
end gaming performance?
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy
Overall, your question seems too generic to answer, like you
want a simple choice when it is more complicated than that.
There is no true "high end" except to continually upgrade
the system every few quarters so pick what suits your
current uses and let tommorow take care of itself.
The Core i7 has the advantage that the memory controller is part
of the processor chip. That reduces the latency or delay, for
info to get from memory, into the processor. That is the main
benefit of Core i7. Basically, Core i7 is doing the same thing
that AMD has been doing for a while - direct memory interface.
*******
With regard to your question about the older Extreme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2
"This means that the only major difference between the regular Core 2 Duo
and Core 2 Extreme, is the clock rate and unlocked multiplier....
The unlocked upward multiplier is of use to enthusiasts as it allows the
user to set the clock rate higher than shipping frequency without modifying
the FSB..."
So the Extreme is mainly intended for rich guys, who like to overclock
without having to work very hard. You basically dial up the multiplier
until it crashes.
With regular processors, the multiplier is limited (my processor only
goes to x13 for example). If I want to overclock, I have to increase the
FSB frequency. Some chipsets can support FSB settings all the way to
FSB2000, before there is trouble. So if you purchase a nominal FSB1333
processor, the "FSB headroom" makes it possible to do a 50% overclock,
if the processor will allow it.
The owner of an Extreme, on the other hand, doesn't have to torture
the chipset on the motherboard. By adjusting the multiplier freely,
they can increase the core frequency inside the processor, without
affecting other subsystems. For the privilege of doing that, Intel
wants more money.
The way to go is...
to look at price and performance.
You can look at the number of reviews first, to understand what other
people are buying. What you'll notice, is people are buying two different
processors.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=201034034....
632 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz/FSB1333/ 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W $269
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041
3099 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz/FSB1066/ 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W $220
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
The Q9550 is the cheapest processor with 12MB of cache. You can raise
the core frequency, by overclocking the FSB. A good motherboard
will leave room for FSB manipulation.
The Q6600, an older processor, represented good value, because it
could be overclocked. So the purchaser is not limited to 2.4GHz
operation.
For the price difference, the Yorkfield will be a better value.
But you also have to work out what a Core i7 could do for you.
Once you take the price of the motherboard into account,
and how much the memory will cost, that will give you a better
idea of how a Core i7 system compares to a Core2 Quad. The price
of the processor is not the only expense.
I used really cheap DDR2 memory on my motherboard, and that
helped keep the price of my upgrade reasonable. My whole upgrade
cost $300 at the time, and I got to reuse my old video card.
Naturally, it doesn't have the performance of what you're planning,
as it is only a dual core.
Paul- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -,l
I generally fix the budget first, go to Newegg's motherboard
power search and select the options I want on a board, pick
one of the major brands like Gigabyte or Asus, subtract that
board cost from the budget and see what's left for the CPU,
memory, and video... allocating most of what's left on CPU,
since memory is dirt cheap and video cards getting that way
too if gaming isn't a priority. In your case the Blu Ray
drive will be another significant fraction of total system
cost, the drive as well as media for it.
I don't generally favor building something high end, in 18
months whatever was built seems outdated again and the
difference in performance from a midrange and high end
system seldom justifies the disproportionate increase in
price, plus it's often the case that merely overclocking
midrange parts will result in higher performance than the
high-end parts can achieve through higher bus and memory
speeds, though the more serious the use, data on the system,
the less desirable overclocking becomes.
IMO, better to stay 18 months behind the curve, remembering
that 18 months ago people did manage to compute with the
hardware available at the time. Things change if
productivity is tied to income, but seldom is that really
the case for a personal PC. Usually we, the users, are the
bottleneck.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I generally fix the budget first, go to Newegg's motherboard
power search and select the options I want on a board, pick
one of the major brands like Gigabyte or Asus, subtract that
board cost from the budget and see what's left for the CPU,
memory, and video... allocating most of what's left on CPU,
since memory is dirt cheap and video cards getting that way
too if gaming isn't a priority. In your case the Blu Ray
drive will be another significant fraction of total system
cost, the drive as well as media for it.
I don't generally favor building something high end, in 18
months whatever was built seems outdated again and the
difference in performance from a midrange and high end
system seldom justifies the disproportionate increase in
price, plus it's often the case that merely overclocking
midrange parts will result in higher performance than the
high-end parts can achieve through higher bus and memory
speeds, though the more serious the use, data on the system,
the less desirable overclocking becomes.
IMO, better to stay 18 months behind the curve, remembering
that 18 months ago people did manage to compute with the
hardware available at the time. Things change if
productivity is tied to income, but seldom is that really
the case for a personal PC. Usually we, the users, are the
bottleneck.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hmm .. that is interesting .we seem to share the same interest for aI was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.
At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.- Hide quoted text -
Consider this moment in time versus 18 months ago. 18
months ago most better systems didn't use i7 CPU, DDR3
memory, have more than 4GB memory, and video cards with HDMI
were a lot fewer and the cards themselves significantly
slower for gaming. 18 months ago solid state drives were
ridiculously expensive for their performance (some would say
they still are... give it a few more 18 month periods?).
It's not that the system becomes obsolete per se, but that
when you're buying high end you are paying top dollar for a
modest benefit over the midrange parts, and after those 18
months the benefit has already vanished with less expensive
systems surpassing it.
I suppose for some purposes it's important to finish jobs as
fast as possible but it is the most expensive way to go, and
in my experience the more someone pays the more likely they
end up using the system for longer trying to get value out
of the price paid, meaning their average computing power
over time wasn't any higher, just the cost was.
Depends on the buyer? Certainly some of both, particularly
with younger buyers that hang out on website forums there is
more interest in the latest highest end stuff, or at least
overclocking to come close to that.
I was more or less addressing the OP, who was trying to
decide between a performance Core 2 Quad, or Extreme.
In the case of the quad, it's probably budget neutral to go
for a Core i7, and for the Extreme, there's a financial advantage
with the Core i7 Extreme. It's a lot less expensive than the
Core 2 Extreme, for a lot more computing power.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
With a good high-end SSD, a laptop can do quite well. With
a mechanical HDD, or even the few laptops that can fit two
mechanical HDD, a desktop is still substantially faster due
to 2.5" HDD bottlenecking the laptop.
Naturally it depends upon the use, and as you wrote
portability is a big plus. I wouldn't necessarily count on
many years of use of a higher end laptop though, some people
get lucky, usually those using it as a desktop replacement
where they seldom move it around much, but it's all too
common to get only 2 to 4 years out of a laptop these days,
even the high end ones have most of their addt'l cost put
into the performance specs unless you get something
especially ruggedized like a Toughbook. I'd definitely take
the extended warranty on a high end laptop if you want long
life, though I seldom if ever take the extended warranty on
anything else I buy.
Roy said:Besides being not a kid anymore fascination with games is of less
importance( if that its the main issue for the necessity of upgrading
less than 2 years).
You might be surprised at the number of "not kids anymore" who are avid
gamers.
Jon