Core2extreme vs Quad Core

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.

Roy wrote:
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.

Try some benchmark charts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...1.5.1,832.html

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/d...x1050,818.html

Paul

"Roy" wrote in message
...
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.

On May 15, 9:25*am, "Ian D" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message

...

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.

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 May 15, 8:46*am, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
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.

Try some benchmark charts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/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/d...3-2008/Crysis-...

* * Paul

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 wrote:
On May 15, 8:46 am, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
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.
Try some benchmark charts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/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/d...3-2008/Crysis-...

Paul

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?

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.

Paul

Roy wrote:
On May 15, 9:25 am, "Ian D" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message

...

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.

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?


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/Produc...ubcategory=343

632 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz/FSB1333/ 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W $269

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041

3099 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz/FSB1066/ 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W $220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

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

On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

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.

Seek benchmarks of the specific app version you need use,
whether it is dual core or more core optimized means quite a
lot. There is no valid generalization, it entirely depends
on the specific jobs you run, though if you are the type to
keep a system for several years and upgrade the apps along
the way, more cores tend to yield higher performance.

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.

On May 14, 11:18*pm, kony wrote:
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.

Well what I want to ensure that the PC should stay the way it is for
a longer time without the need for regular upgrades if compare to a
unit that just have average or much worse ,low end hardware
components.
Its just a pain the arse you have shop and replace for pc
components....regularly...
Being used to running high end desktop replacement system..grin I
am not an adherent to such periodic change of hardware components.

If that can be possible I don't mind spending more money initially for
that particular PC than to spend every now and then for periodic
upgrades. I think the economics might favor assembling a high end
unit than just settling for what is commonplace... What's your opinion
about it....?

Supposing I want that PC for high end Gaming, Autocad and 3D
modelling, Matlab number crunching, Photo and video editing, plus Blu-
Ray recording what CPU , motherboard and graphics pieces do you
recommend?

On May 14, 10:19*pm, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
On May 15, 8:46 am, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
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.
Try some benchmark charts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/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/d...3-2008/Crysis-....

* * Paul

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?

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.


Hmm, thanks , that makes sense.....