Re: What is faster Intel Q 6700 or Intel E 8400? With WinXP Pro?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Paul, Oct 18, 2008.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    Ritter 197 wrote:
    > What is faster of the 2 above Intel CPU's?
    >
    > I use Windows XP, MS Office Pro, E-mail, Internet, Digital Photo
    > software (simple though when compared to the top in this field) and
    > Movie Maker for digital videos ( little there, but beginning).
    >
    > No games.


    Q6700 E8400
    Activity Quad @ 2.67GHz Dual @ 3.0GHz
    MS Office Pro --- Faster
    E-mail --- Faster
    Internet --- Faster
    Digital Photo Faster ---
    Movie Maker Faster ---

    Generally speaking, quad cores are more useful for
    multimedia applications. Such applications use a
    "divide and conquer" approach, and tend to have
    symmetric loading of the CPU cores.

    If we take Photoshop as an example, only some of
    the filters use multiple cores. Not all the filters
    do that. The story will change from one version of
    Photoshop to the next, as the filters get re-coded
    to make necessary changes. Adobe favors accuracy
    over speed, and sometimes a newer version is slower
    than an older version of the application.

    There are no certainties with the threading on software,
    and you have to do extensive research to answer your
    question properly. In the fullness of time, the Q6700
    will become more useful. And considering the small
    difference between the 2.67GHz number and the 3GHz number,
    it would be shortsighted of me to suggest the E8400 is
    a good choice. But you may find, if you do buy the Q6700,
    that most of the time, three of the four cores are
    relatively idle.

    Total compute power (assuming multimedia type applications,
    written for multi core processors)

    Q6700 = 4 * 2.66 = 10.64 units
    E8400 = 2 * 3.00 = 6.00 units

    The extra potential performance is not to be sneezed at.

    On the other hand, on single threaded activities, like
    the top three in the comparison list above, the E8400
    is 3/2.67 = 1.12 times as fast. So there are times
    when the higher clock rate makes a difference. To make
    the E8400 really pay off, you'd need a program that runs
    the CPU at 100% for a couple hours, the program is single
    threaded, and it finishes a bit faster because the clock
    is 3GHz. None of the single threaded programs in the
    list above, meets those criteria.

    It is a tough choice to make. I would say, of the things
    you listed as activities, rendering movies is the only
    activity that sustains long period of computing with
    as many cores as are available. So depending on how
    many movies you leave rendering in the background,
    that would be the time when the Q6700 pays for itself.

    You didn't mention games. Microsoft Flight Simulator
    (FSX) is capable of running on four cores, but the
    loading pattern is 100%-30%-30%-30%, and is an
    uneven load. There are a couple relatively
    obscure games, with better loading of the cores
    (but the page the results were on, I cannot find
    now).

    Software people have had years to improve the parallelism
    of the stuff they write, and it is not an easy thing
    to do. It is unclear to me, whether they'll ever be
    able to consistently load all the cores. Which kind of
    ruins the attraction of hardware people proposing
    processors with even more cores, for a desktop.
    On a server, it could still be valuable.

    Paul
    Paul, Oct 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul

    caveat Guest

    "Ritter 197" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > That was a great explanation. Thanks so much.
    > I did mention that "no games", that meant, I play no games, other than
    > Chess or Bridge.
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message news:gddfjs$omd$...
    >> Ritter 197 wrote:
    >>> What is faster of the 2 above Intel CPU's?
    >>>
    >>> I use Windows XP, MS Office Pro, E-mail, Internet, Digital Photo
    >>> software (simple though when compared to the top in this field) and
    >>> Movie Maker for digital videos ( little there, but beginning).
    >>>
    >>> No games.

    >>
    >> Q6700 E8400
    >> Activity Quad @ 2.67GHz Dual @ 3.0GHz
    >> MS Office Pro --- Faster
    >> E-mail --- Faster
    >> Internet --- Faster
    >> Digital Photo Faster ---
    >> Movie Maker Faster ---
    >>
    >> Generally speaking, quad cores are more useful for
    >> multimedia applications. Such applications use a
    >> "divide and conquer" approach, and tend to have
    >> symmetric loading of the CPU cores.
    >>
    >> If we take Photoshop as an example, only some of
    >> the filters use multiple cores. Not all the filters
    >> do that. The story will change from one version of
    >> Photoshop to the next, as the filters get re-coded
    >> to make necessary changes. Adobe favors accuracy
    >> over speed, and sometimes a newer version is slower
    >> than an older version of the application.
    >>
    >> There are no certainties with the threading on software,
    >> and you have to do extensive research to answer your
    >> question properly. In the fullness of time, the Q6700
    >> will become more useful. And considering the small
    >> difference between the 2.67GHz number and the 3GHz number,
    >> it would be shortsighted of me to suggest the E8400 is
    >> a good choice. But you may find, if you do buy the Q6700,
    >> that most of the time, three of the four cores are
    >> relatively idle.
    >>
    >> Total compute power (assuming multimedia type applications,
    >> written for multi core processors)
    >>
    >> Q6700 = 4 * 2.66 = 10.64 units
    >> E8400 = 2 * 3.00 = 6.00 units
    >>
    >> The extra potential performance is not to be sneezed at.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, on single threaded activities, like
    >> the top three in the comparison list above, the E8400
    >> is 3/2.67 = 1.12 times as fast. So there are times
    >> when the higher clock rate makes a difference. To make
    >> the E8400 really pay off, you'd need a program that runs
    >> the CPU at 100% for a couple hours, the program is single
    >> threaded, and it finishes a bit faster because the clock
    >> is 3GHz. None of the single threaded programs in the
    >> list above, meets those criteria.
    >>
    >> It is a tough choice to make. I would say, of the things
    >> you listed as activities, rendering movies is the only
    >> activity that sustains long period of computing with
    >> as many cores as are available. So depending on how
    >> many movies you leave rendering in the background,
    >> that would be the time when the Q6700 pays for itself.
    >>
    >> You didn't mention games. Microsoft Flight Simulator
    >> (FSX) is capable of running on four cores, but the
    >> loading pattern is 100%-30%-30%-30%, and is an
    >> uneven load. There are a couple relatively
    >> obscure games, with better loading of the cores
    >> (but the page the results were on, I cannot find
    >> now).
    >>
    >> Software people have had years to improve the parallelism
    >> of the stuff they write, and it is not an easy thing
    >> to do. It is unclear to me, whether they'll ever be
    >> able to consistently load all the cores. Which kind of
    >> ruins the attraction of hardware people proposing
    >> processors with even more cores, for a desktop.
    >> On a server, it could still be valuable.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >


    Ritter 197,

    Just a note for future reference, don't top post!!!
    You may get flamed for top posting - bad Usenet etiquette, kind of like
    using a cell phone to text during a movie, everyone will hate you for doing
    it!!!
    caveat, Oct 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. William McStay
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,179
    Sharanga Dayananda
    Jul 15, 2004
  2. Jr

    Yamada/Umax DVD 6700 Crack Wanted

    Jr, Sep 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    605
    Troy Robertson
    Sep 14, 2005
  3. Man-wai Chang

    Is 64-bit WinXP faster than 32-bit WinXP?

    Man-wai Chang, Apr 22, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    787
    Man-wai Chang
    Apr 23, 2006
  4. Becky

    AMD Richland A10-6800K and A10-6700 APU

    Becky, Jun 6, 2013, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    680
    Becky
    Jun 6, 2013
  5. Becky
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    Becky
    Jun 13, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page