What, if any, software utilizes Intel quad cores?

I am in the process of building a new system and was in a deep discussion about the Intel Q6600 when a techie friend of a friend piped in and said that it is a total waste to go for the Q6600 because there is almost no software that utilizes more than 2 cores. He said that 2 cores will go completely unused. Is this true?

Almost everything I have read on several online retailers have nothing but good stuff to say about the Q6600 but I am having a hard time finding out specifics...Fire anything you got at me and it will be appreciated.

Thanks

What its true not every program you use will take advantage of multiple cores.. the ones that do see a nice performance boost. If your building a new system there is no reason not to. The q6600 is a very nice balance of price/performance.

Due to the price of the Q6600, I'd say... why not! Games will not benefit from the additional cores though and aren't likely to any time soon... at least not to a profound degree IMO! Multithreaded gaming is in it's infancy at this point and has alot of maturing to do.

recoveringknowitall:

Due to the price of the Q6600, I'd say... why not! Games will not benefit from the additional cores though and aren't likely to any time soon... at least not to a profound degree IMO! Multithreaded gaming is in it's infancy at this point and has alot of maturing to do.

Thats not to say there aren't games out there that don't benefit ex:Supreme Commander.  Also there is other software out there that will use your system to the fullest, examples being video editing and picture editing software.  Alot of those types of production software have been multi threaded for a very long time.  it all depends on what you wanna spend and how you use your system. 

 as stated above go for it, but to answer your question 3d Applications and video rendering software use multi cores. But I bet you Techie friend didn't tell you can can tell programs to pun on each core, so say you wanted to game and listen to music and do something else you can go into the task manager and tell each program to run on X core and you'll not see the slow down.

Endersothergame:

recoveringknowitall:

Due to the price of the Q6600, I'd say... why not! Games will not benefit from the additional cores though and aren't likely to any time soon... at least not to a profound degree IMO! Multithreaded gaming is in it's infancy at this point and has alot of maturing to do.

 

 

Thats not to say there aren't games out there that don't benefit ex:Supreme Commander.  Also there is other software out there that will use your system to the fullest, examples being video editing and picture editing software.  Alot of those types of production software have been multi threaded for a very long time.  it all depends on what you wanna spend and how you use your system. 

I need to do plenty of video editing and already do lots of photo editing but is it worth the extra $50 - $100 for the Q6600 over a good Dual core? I don't have many games and don't plan on buying any in the near future or I won't have the time to edit my videos!

Thanks for the input!
 

Der Meister:

 as stated above go for it, but to answer your question 3d Applications and video rendering software use multi cores. But I bet you Techie friend didn't tell you can can tell programs to pun on each core, so say you wanted to game and listen to music and do something else you can go into the task manager and tell each program to run on X core and you'll not see the slow down.

Should I go XP or Vista for the Q-core to perform better or does it matter?

Here is the kicker.. .

 E6750 = $189 2.66g, 1333mhz  >>> Overclocks like a champ to an easy 3.2-3.4 to over 3.6 if you know what you are doing.. . This processor is almost like a declocked E6850. 

E6850 = $280 3g, 13333mhz  >>> I haven't researched what this processor a ton but on Newegg.com it looks like you can overclock well but # for # it will come up a little shorter than the 2.66 chip so we'll say 3.5 with ease, 3.8 to 4.0 max

 Q6600 = $280 2.4g, 1066mhz >>> You would think the lower FSB effects this chip but not really, MANY people are overlocking this puppy to 3.0-3.2 without even bumping the v-core voltage above 1.35 which it runs stock at 1.25v.. . Many people are getting 1333mhz out of the FSB with ease and also pushing 3.4g + if your components work well.. . so almost the same single thread performance can be had with this as the E6850 if you overclock well enough. 

 so a recap for a non-overclocker person that might use a Autotune software

E6750 = 3.2  >> 2 cores  >> 1600mhz >>  needs overclocking to run flawlessly >> at Almost $100 less, I'd be willing to buy this overclock and upgrade a year from now to a new 45 nanometer processor. 

E6850 = 3.5 >> 2 cores  >> 1600mhz >> Smokes any single thread application stock >> if you don't have the balls to overclock, this processor might be the better option if you only keep computers around for 2 or less years

Q6600 = 3.2 >> 4 cores  >> 1333mhz  >> Hardcore overclocking will really suck the WATTS, over 170 when you push 1.5V-core and could push 200watts which will require a bigger PSU than the core 2s.  Multithreading is a breeze but REALLY needs overclocked to run flawlessly for games and single threading

For Multithreading like you do, which one do you think is going to stay a FAST processor for LONGEST Time???   The answer is obvious

If you are getting a new motherboard as well, it might be a good idea to look into boards tha will support 45 nanometer chips as well.  I'm getting the Asus P5E x38 Board. 

Hi All,

If video editing is something that you'll be doing a lot of then the Q6600 is the Processor you'll want to get, as Video editing programs will utilize all 4 cores.

ChicagoJack:

Der Meister:

 as stated above go for it, but to answer your question 3d Applications and video rendering software use multi cores. But I bet you Techie friend didn't tell you can can tell programs to pun on each core, so say you wanted to game and listen to music and do something else you can go into the task manager and tell each program to run on X core and you'll not see the slow down.

Wow, that is good to know...I might be checking back if I can't figure out how to manipulate that but I can probably get it on my own. Great to know and thanks!

Should I go XP or Vista for the Q-core to perform better or does it matter?

 In line with recoveringknowitall, you have nothing to loose, so 'go for it' I firmly adhere to buy the fastest most useful cpu you can afford, as it saves you money down the road(less need to buy new for upgrades).

As far as I know both Vista and XP are equally good at manipulating multiple cores, so the choice is yours, personally at this time I prefer XP because the OS is more mature, stable and familiar. 

you should go Vista 64 if you want to run more than 3.4gig of RAM.  32bit systems can not support more mem that ~3.4.  Vist 64 can support like 128gig I think.. . Just get 2x2gb sticks and you are set!   This will leave room for 2 more sticks to get you to 8gb which will smoke all your photoshop work!

2point:

Here is the kicker.. .

 E6750 = $189 2.66g, 1333mhz  >>> Overclocks like a champ to an easy 3.2-3.4 to over 3.6 if you know what you are doing.. . This processor is almost like a declocked E6850. 

E6850 = $280 3g, 13333mhz  >>> I haven't researched what this processor a ton but on Newegg.com it looks like you can overclock well but # for # it will come up a little shorter than the 2.66 chip so we'll say 3.5 with ease, 3.8 to 4.0 max

 Q6600 = $280 2.4g, 1066mhz >>> You would think the lower FSB effects this chip but not really, MANY people are overlocking this puppy to 3.0-3.2 without even bumping the v-core voltage above 1.35 which it runs stock at 1.25v.. . Many people are getting 1333mhz out of the FSB with ease and also pushing 3.4g + if your components work well.. . so almost the same single thread performance can be had with this as the E6850 if you overclock well enough. 

 so a recap for a non-overclocker person that might use a Autotune software

E6750 = 3.2  >> 2 cores  >> 1600mhz >>  needs overclocking to run flawlessly >> at Almost $100 less, I'd be willing to buy this overclock and upgrade a year from now to a new 45 nanometer processor. 

E6850 = 3.5 >> 2 cores  >> 1600mhz >> Smokes any single thread application stock >> if you don't have the balls to overclock, this processor might be the better option if you only keep computers around for 2 or less years

Q6600 = 3.2 >> 4 cores  >> 1333mhz  >> Hardcore overclocking will really suck the WATTS, over 170 when you push 1.5V-core and could push 200watts which will require a bigger PSU than the core 2s.  Multithreading is a breeze but REALLY needs overclocked to run flawlessly for games and single threading

For Multithreading like you do, which one do you think is going to stay a FAST processor for LONGEST Time???   The answer is obvious

If you are getting a new motherboard as well, it might be a good idea to look into boards tha will support 45 nanometer chips as well.  I'm getting the Asus P5E x38 Board. 

 

This lays it right out there...The choices is getting easier and I am getting closer to my final build config. I thought I was a halfway decent techie before I doing this project! I think this thread is sparking some fires out here!

Thanks for the input on the main board too...it ain't goin' to waste!

jtm55:

Hi All,

If video editing is something that you'll be doing a lot of then the Q6600 is the Processor you'll want to get, as Video editing programs will utilize all 4 cores.

I have decided to go with the "Q" ...I haven't heard anything or read anything bad about it and the price is getting lower everyday. I saw the OEM "Go Stepping" version on ClubIT.com for just over $260 Shipped and I have seen Dual Cores well over $300. Now, I just gotta get that Bonus check at the end of the month and pull the trigger. And then get editing!

Well, by 2009 undoubtably most games will be optimized for quad-core, just like most games of 2007 are optimized for single-core.  In 2005-06, people were saying dual-core wasn't worth it for games.  Well, now it's almost required.  Non gaming, a lot of things use it.  It's tempting to go for the extra 600Mhz dual-core for the same price, but I would advise against it.

 We've already started down the direction of multithreading. More games are picking up, as stated, past 2009 most applications will take that turn. Especially considering the roadmaps of 8 core and 16 core systems. Unfortunately I'm still on a 3.2 prescott single core >_<..ouch indeed considering I do video editing and 3d modeling. But I had the pleasure of building a q6600 rig for a family friend. Oc'ed it easily to 3ghz, 24+ hours orthos stable. Ran MEGUI for a x264 encode and I must say...WOW. As more software becomes multithreaded, performance will see incredible boosts.

 But even so, considering the price right now, and soon to be price cuts when the penryn based quads are out, there's no reason not to nab a q6600. Yes, you could nab a e8400 and enjoy the faster clock speed. But if you're overclocking, no point not too, you can always up the speed, can't add more cores. Even with the e8400's current pleasure in speed, down the road a couple or so years, the quad rigs will end up living a longer life.  I must say, the multitasking in a quad environment is a absolute dream. It really makes me want to cry considering the rig I'm on right now [:'(]

 But just to name a few applications, Most video encoding software, video editing, 3d modeling, gaming (crysis, the witcher, and many more titles coming), graphical design (photoshop, illustrator, etc), among many others. It's kinda hard to name them all, but there actually quite a lot of programs that are multithreaded out there, but they are mostly in the workstation scenario when it comes to video, 3d, graphic, and audio work. But gaming will soon enter that route full force in the next few years ^_^.

If you use TMPGenc Xpress to convert video to mpeg2 DVD formats I know that supports multicore CPUs very well. encoding time drops a lot on a multicore system. My dual core opteron 185 transcodes at more than twive the speed of my 3.2 ghz Intel prescott system and it runs at a slower clock speed. Oh and the Meron Core 2 Duo laptop chips rip through encoding despite a 667 mhz FSB when put in a desktop system, with fast SATA hard drives.

Ok, I have been waiting for the new 45nm Quad-Cores to come out already, but they are still not out. Here are the following reasons why I want a quad-core. First of all, I do a lot od Designing, Animating, and much more that require Rendering. All of these software are made to work with as many processors as possible. Video Editingk, and Photo Editing goes the same way. I also think it is a nice thing to have a Quad-Core because let's just say you have a Program Running in the background that uses up 2 Cores, but then you decide to open up another program that uses two additional Cores, if you do not have a Quad-Core then you will see a performance decrease, but if you do then you will se a major performance increase.

Peti: You are definitely looking for a quad core then. But are you planning on overclocking? Keep in mind the new yorkfields will have a lower multiplier, so they won't OC as well due to FSB limits being met early on. If they ran the same 9x multiplier as the q6600, you'd be able to push those suckers far, but they hit the FSB limit earlier (if memory serves me right, the lowest end has a 8 or 8.5 multiplier, with the q9450 (the one I'm eying) has a 8x). If you don't plan to OC, wait for the new yorkfields, they run cooler, take less voltage, and offer performance boosts thanks the 45nm process as well as the SSE4 instruction set, the SSE4 instruction set on encoding application and other apps that take advantage in it will see a pretty big boost in performance. ^_^ 

 I do WCG (BOINC) on two of my servers and my workstation (see sig), it uses all cores available.

x264 uses 4 cores .