Can someone explain to me how dual core and quad core and shit work?
 

I'm thinking of upgrading my PC....doing alot of video work these days and of course faster would be better.

I've got a dell 8300 something or other, Windows XP media edition.

P4 3.2ghz, 2GB RAM, 400GB hard drive.

Now if I went to dell's site and they said processors were now 6ghz then I'd know that's double....instead they have these kind of descriptions "Intel® Core?2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB) "

so I really have no idea how it compares to what I have now.

I paid like 3K for this box a couple years ago and before I spend probably that much again I'd like to know what I'm getting....I won't spend that much for only a 20% improvement in performance.

You should wait a couple months for the new quad cores if you are going to be doing a lot of video work. They will be the first chips with all four cores on a single die. I'm waiting for them too. ;)

I bet it would be about 5X faster at encoding than what you're using now.

How does that compare to using two motherboards with 2 seperate processors??

That can be done right?

Lenny, that will be a *major* upgrade in processor speed for you. Direct comparisons are hard to make nowadays with all the processor series and naming schemes. I also own a number of Dells. But I can tell you from experience about the approx performance of some of these systems.

My Dual Core Ghz 3.0 (Dell 9300 series) that I mostly use to edit hdv seems to do video encoding about twice as fast than my 2.8 Ghz P4 which I mostly use for editing SD videos and graphic design nowadaus. Now My Core 2 Duo 2.66 Ghz (E660 processor) series pc does video encoding twice as fast as my my afore-mentioned dual Core 9300 series pc. So the Core 2 Duo is perhaps four times as fast as the P4 for video encoding.

The P4 is fast enough to edit standard def video with Premiere Pro but the dual core 3.0 Ghz pc is fast enough for hdv including the Cineform intermediate format that I use. Acording to some tests that I read online (TomsHardware.com I think), the Core 2 Quad may even be twice as fast for video encoding as the Core 2 Duo.

Here's a nice processor comparison script. Note how much faster the quad cores are even compared with the dual cores when it comes to video editing. The Q6600 is probably the best bang for your buck right now.

Thanks Jim, very informative post.

What do you guys think of this deal?
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pa...oductDetail.do

I found it when searching for info on quad core stuff...alot of the stuff on it isn't what I would have picked, but it has the quad core, 3GB of RAM that's upgradeable to 8GB....looks like it might be a nice machine for video editing for under $1K

I just killed off one of my systems yesterday because it was ripping video way too slow I have no patience, I was going to go with a Quad core, but needed to special order it (again no patience) so I went with a Dual Core and I love it it's easily 3x faster than what I was using before. The Quad's are probably going to be insane, at which point I will have to upgrade again.

Personally I would never buy a computer from Circuit City, find a local ma and pa shop with a good rep or have a geek friend / family member build it for you. :2 cents:

Am I understanding this correctly?

Currently the quad core only really works when you're using an application that supports quad core technology....so on most applications you're just using two 2.4ghz processors, as opposed to the 1 x 3.2ghz processor I have now.....but on the apps that support the multithreading or whatever, then I get to actually use all 4 processors?

in theroy, you are correct. the quad-core should kick the shit out of the dual-core. i actually have a machine that was in excess of $5K, all of the latest, fastest tech. guess what...i have yet to find a "video encoding" or video processing" program that TRULY takes advantage of the quad-core. so, honestly, you can build a better machine and wait for the technology or you can build 2 or 3 machines and get shit done...

your choice....

Dual = 2
Quad = 4

I theory what you are saying is true however most multithreaded apps are designed for dual core, not quad core so you won't get the performance increase from the 3rd and 4th core. Where quad (and dual, to a lesser extent) shines is in running more than one app at a time due to the fact that each app will be running on a different core therefore getting the full speed of each chip.

dude you should just build a system yourself. In this day and age it's damn easy IMO.. You will get way more bang for your buck.

I built a quad core system with a top end video card for well under $2k.

I really appreciate your geek bravado guys, but I really have no interest or desire in building a computer myself, I don't care if it's as easy as buiding something with legos.

I just want to find out if the dual/quad thing is worth it before I spend the $$.
After I make the decision, I want to pull something out of the box, plug it in, and start working. :2 cents:

oops....

The days of saving money by building a pc yourself are long over. One can buy a one-step-behind the-latest-technology pc that is very fast for video editing and encoding that will easily be under $1000 without a monitor. Perfect examples are the deal on that Core 2 Quad you saw online and the deal I got for my Core 2 Duo six months ago.

Buying a comparable processor and building it yourself will always cost more. The only reason to build yourself nowadays is if you must have the absolute latest fastest pc technology and you are willing to spare no expense on doing it.

if it's mainly for video work, I would strongly suggest a Mac.

I disagree, sure you can find something around the same price, but you won't get the same quality or performance out of a "store bought" PC. Not for the same price anyway.

A dual core will give you all the power you need, your not doing 3d work and considering no editing software is 64 bit your pissing money away.

Hollywood, CA. Nuff Said.

I agree, Mac users are like Jehovah Witnesses.. brainwashed.. :1orglaugh

Windows users remind me of you... clueless... :1orglaugh

I have a dual core and 2 quadcore systems. I do a lot of 3d animation, so it's great for rendering. If you do video editing, most high-end software will take advantage of all cpu's when rendering.

You won't notice huge differences in speed when doing general workflow, but when it comes time to encode, render, etc....it kicks ass.

I'm getting an octocore as soon as they come out. I can never have enough speed. Time is money.

this will rock for you :http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/APE...8_overview.asp

Isn't it obvious?

Dual Core is XX,

Hard Core is XXX, and

Quad Core is XXXX (yikes!)

Right.. I've worked on a few macs in my time. I guess if you just like burning CD's and browsing the internet they are ok. I'll take a buggy version of windows Vista over a mac OS anyday, because even with a buggy OS like Vista... At least I know I can get any program I need, much less any game if I want to do a little gaming.

Most 3D work in Hollywood is done using unix/linux based OS's on PC's. Same with the Render farms they use for both video editing and 3 work.

Like I said, clueless...

News Flash: Macs can run XP and Vista.

Most 3D work isn't done in Hollywood, it's done in Culver City.

Don't PC's come with some sort of map program?

I ended up buying this one yesterday along with a 17 inch flatscreen monitor that was on clearance for $83.

All in all I got off pretty cheap I think, now I have to set it up and see how it works. (and find a program that works on vista and will do the multi threading thing to use all 4 processors)

that's a nice machine

true, cuz those macs are nothing but pc's in an expensive white box :)

true. OK, those "store bought" PCs will have a Core 2 Duo or Quadcore processor, a big HD and a decent amount of RAM, but those HDs won't be raptors, the PSU will be a piece of sh*t (tip: Get a TAGAN PSU),....

Dual = 2 or 1+1
Quad = 4 or 2xDual or 4x1

depends what do you want to do with your cpu.
if you are hanging whole day on GFY the upgrade is useless :)

:thumbsup Good Choice!

Let us know how it works with your applications.

About what said Crockett:

You are right in a way but let's think a little. Only few few of us have deep knowleges about computer parts like: video card, ddr RAM, bus speed and many others + many parts have compatibility issues. I don't think you'll like when you are running a application and your computer will do a reboot or you will get a blue screen :winkwink:

Take Care!

i have intel core 2 duo 5600 1,83 GHz on my 15' Toshiba satellite laptop

The more core, the more power and ofcourse the more money

does it even worth the time these days to build a system from scratch? Prices are very competitive and in most cases i think you'll barely save enough $ to justify the hassle.