QX9300 vs X9100 Question

Hi all,

I am confused as to what difference in performance can I expect between a dual core and a quad core processor. I am particularly looking at the X9100 and QX9300. What applications/software would favor which and is the difference big?

I should also clarify that I am not interested in gaming performance difference. I plan on using my new computer to do a lot of computation in evaluating complex numerical approximation systems, Bayesian statistics stuff etc. I guess the bottomline is which one will be better if I ask it to run a loop say 100K times where at each step it evaluates several different things and manages large multidimensional arrays (may be the last part has to do with RAM mostly).
Or may be there are no significant differences between these two if I plan to use them in this way?

Thanks

 

huge difference.

in a multi-threaded environment (game or app), even the cheapest quad-core (Q9000) will crush the most expensive of dual cores (X9100).

if you want raw number crunching power, then a quad-core is the best way to go.

 

Thanks for the fast responses guys. I just found this forum some hours ago but it's great so far.

The complication is that I am comparing dual core against quad core processors. I am pretty ignorant in general, but to my understanding the clockspeeds of those two type of processors can't be compared directly.
I understood that when you ask it to handle several tasks simultaneously the quad core should be better also. But I was unclear as to what environments ask it to do several things at the same time.

Actually I thought that if you want raw number crunching power clock speed is all that matters but it turns out I am wrong. Thanks Gophn, I guess I'll go with the quad core.

 

For programs that take advantage of quad core, like MATLAB and others, double the amount of cores means 100% advantage over a dual core of the same speed. You can check out WPrime scores (using the search function, there is a thread dedicated to it) to see how processors stack up in terms of number crunching ability.

 

Quad all the way, if your program can use all 4 cores

 

any quad will crush it

quad for your serious multi tasking

 

lets see here...
Assuming multi threaded app...
x9100 @3.0Ghz = 3.0Ghz x 2 = 6GHz of 'prossessing power'.
Q9300 @ 2.53Ghz = 2.53Ghz x 4 = 10.12Ghz of processing power.
so in order for the x9100 to compete with the Quad core it would need to theoretically be clocked at 5.06Ghz per core...

the Q9300 will slaugher the X9100.

 

quad ftw

 

You are very very wrong dont listen to this person. Imagine each core as a dancer and the clock speed is the thing that keeps the beat. Basically by running faster they are dancing faster but if you go too fast they get clumsy or unstable. You have TWO cores running at 3.0ghz. If the application is single threaded or only dual core the 3.0ghz CPU will be better because it can processe information faster. If the thing is multithreaded and can use the quad core you have 4 cores processing all that information vs 2. If your car has 2 wheels spinning at 25mph does that mean your going 50mph? Its the same concept here.

 

lol you just gave the dumbest explaining of the speed of a cpu possible. each core of the cpu has its own information with its own calculations. each core of the cpu share that information with the other cores. well on to your 2 wheels on a car theory, another lol. if your car has 2 wheels its not going twice the speed since its the same information on the same car (or cores) so the same information on two cores (or wheels) doesnt count toward any new information (or extra speed).

 

Well, you just messed it up again...The Car would the CPU

You said "car (or cores) so the same information on two cores (or wheels)"

Makes no sense...

And if youre going to correct someone, make sure you do it w/o mistakes. Or it makes you look like youre giving an even Dumberest explanation.

 

For fast transfer 3.06Gh 2cores is better
For multi transver 2.53Gh 4cores is better.That it

 

Well i understand it on my head i was trying to explain clockspeed with the dancer thing. Thats how my uncle explained it to me and hes been into computers since they came out decades ago. Regardless you never add up clockspeed you have two seperate cores proessing two seperate peices of information. Each core is a person they are working together they dont add up their abilities and become one super human

 

And on my 2 cars theory. Im not a dumb*** i know that when two wheels are spinning at 25mph that dosent equal 50 i was trying to explain that to the person who was adding clockspeeds or cores.

 

I under stand what you are trying to say but cars are not like computers.

2x25mph in a car = 25mph
in a computer
2x25mph would be 50mph. (thoretically)
the way you discribe it is a single, dual, and quad core at the same clocks are all the same speed, which is ONLY true for single threaded apps.

the second line of my origonal post was "assuming multithreaded". so what I said holds true.

A single core computer can handle one task at a time. so lets say = x
a dual core computer (assuming multithreaded) can devide the task in half and process the 2 pieces at the same time. = x/2
a Quad core computer(assuming multithreaded) can devide the task into 4 pieces and process them all at the same time. = x/4

one my desktop I just did a little test (I have a Q6600 2.4Ghz quad core)
I encoded a movie I downloaded (about 2hour long) in Windows movie maker(which is multithreaded).

on the first run I went into the task manger and set the Affinity to only use core 0. Time to complete = 82mins
on the second I made sure it was going to use all 4 cores, and it took 25mins.

I still stand my my claim the Quad will crush the X9100

your right, but they still get the same task done x2 as fast. which means inorder for ONE person to do the same work(as the 2 people) in the same time they WOULD have to be a super human.

Edit: before some one points it out I am working with Theoretical values, doubling the cores won't double the speed, but some apps that are well written can see nearly double the speed.

 

Im not denying you will get more preformance but you dont add up GHZ. In your case you had all 4 cores processing together seperate peices of information to complete 1 task. You didnt have 1 super core running 4 times as fast as normal.

 

absolutely, of cource but in order to achieve the same preformce out of a single core, it would have to be running at extremely high clocks to match it, that clock would likely have to be in the area of say 9Ghz (assume 100% effecient scalling)

maybe I'm missing your point, but all I'm trying to say is he/she should get the quad because it'll do much better with multi-threaded apps.

 

I think i see what your saying about the single core. My point was that with multi core cpu's you dont add the Ghz of each core to equal a total number because it dosent really work out like that each core isnt 100% efficent and as you said you went from 84 minutes on 1 core to 25 on 4 cores which isnt 4 times faster its around 3.36

 

The answer to your question is not as clear cut as many people in this thread seem to believe (but many here are willing to offer categorical advice nevertheless).

Unless your computations are possible to run in parallel and your software also is able to do so, it is not certain that the Quad Core system will outperform the Dual Core system.

My suggestion is that you do some experimentation yourself to see if your particular use-model will scale well with multiple cores. Setup your desired application package on a Dual Core system. Test the performance of your system by first restricting your application package to run on just one of the cores and compare it with the performance you get when you do not restrict it to run on just one of the cores.

On a side note: Depending on your computations, you might gain more performance be selecting a CPU with larger L2 cache (per Core) than a CPU with more cores but less L2 cache per Core (all other things equal).

 

A faster 3.0GHz dual-core will beat a slower 2.0GHz quad-core in single threaded or dual-threaded applications. The only time the slower quad-core will be faster than a faster dual core is if there are more than 2 threads running at 100% usage.

If you are just gaming or doing basic office applications, quad-cores will not do much at the moment. The other 2 cores are just waiting around doing nothing. If the software is not designed for quad-cores, it will not run faster than a faster dual-core.

 

^ this man speaks truth. I expect Quad to become relevant next year. and this year's speeds will be disappointing at that time.

 

Even a slower single core would suffice for basic office apps. Most games perform better with faster speed unless optimized for multicore support.

 

So if I use my computer for browsing the web on firefox, running AIM + MSN Messenger, Utorrent, and various games, and playing music and video I am getting the feeling the x9100 is going to outperform the qx9300.

I also like to convert xvids and other movie types into DVD video format so they are playable in regular dvd players. This process seems to be very CPU intensive and takes a long time to complete. I am assuming the qx9300 will outperform the x9100 in converting and encoding large video files but how big a difference would that be? This is the only cpu intesive thing I do so it seems the x9100 will offer me better performance overall, correct?

 

/off-topic

Don't buy x9100 for whatever reason. It is a dual core at 3.06GHz, 6MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB that consumes 44 Watts.

Intel has announced T9900 which is a dual core at 3.06GHz, 6MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB that consumes 35 Watts.

In terms of processing power they are exactly the same. Why would you burn more power for the same processing capability?

Now, continue comparing QX9300 vs. T9900.

/~off-topic


--

 

Quad is better all the way.

More overall processing power
More "future proof"

Basically your computer always has tons of threads going at once and your OS will divide it to all cpu cores. So a quad core uses all 4 cores at all times.

If you start up an application that can only use 1 cpu thread (aka not multithreaded) that is taking up 100% of a core, the OS knows to use just 1 core on the quad for that task and use the other 3 for other stuff.

Quad core means you can play a game or something while doing something else in the background.

I read all the reply (including the horrible analogies) some people hinted at the fact that a 3ghz dual core can run a dual core task faster than the slower quad. However thats only on paper, in REAL LIFE use the reality is any decent heavy cpu program is already using quad cores.

Every video rendering program I have used is multi core, my video editors are multi core, media players are multi core, and anything else that is a program that needs a lot of cpu power is multi core.

The only argument that could be presented is gaming, as the majority of games are single or dual threaded. However this is agian where real life numbers need to be applied. (one step deeper here too, old games are the ones single or dual threaded mostly and todays newer cpu's are much faster than the cpu then, just one core on a 2.53 ghz QX9300 is faster than a 3.5ghz pentium 4, but almost all newer games are coded as multi core, and infact some of them are already now having quad core in the recommended specs as its nearly required to play it well)

A 2.3ghz quad is fast enough to play 99% of any game out there with no issues, as long as your getting 60fps in the game or have maxed out your current gpu's power the quad will perform the same as the dual. This is the opposite of what you say really where the quad will have "2 cores going to waist" in reality the quad will be doing any background stuff with the other cores and the dual core will just have all the extra mhz going to waist.

So your left with this situation, any game a dual core can play a quad core can also. But there are already a hand full of games that require a quad core to play. Grand Theft Auto 4, Supreme Commander, FSX to name a few. These are games that are normally very cpu depended do to AI or phisics even with the fastest dual core your going to have a bad gameplay experience and have to turn down settings to compensate best you can, but the quad can actually play the games they were meant to be played.

I went though this argument atleast 20 times when I decided to get the Asus W90 that came with a 2.0ghz Q9000 stating that 95% of games out there will play fine at the stock 2.0ghz, and 4% more would be fine at 2.3ghz (as the laptop does an overclock via its own software to make it 2.3ghz) and the remaining 1% would be fine if I uses an overclock program to go higher.

I said this before even owning the unit and before we had any real life Q9000 tests, and sure enough if you go view my review: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=370294

Look at the benchmarks section, I did a game bench at 2.0ghz and 2.3ghz you can see in every case the 2.0ghz was playable and 2.3ghz had almost no gains, this means that already 2.0ghz was fast enough to max out the game with my gpu setup.

Now imagine here stock you already have 2.53ghz of quad core power...

Also the W90 comes with Dual 4870's! Probably the strongest gpu setup on any laptop right now, the faster your gpu's the more cpu power you need, if the 2ghz quad was ok with two 4870's then you know its going to be fine for something else.

So there in print (well pictures) in my review is the proof you seek that the quad wins over the dual core. Infact a handfull of W90 owners have already ripped out there dual core and upgraded to the quad after seeing my results (and the fact I can overclock it to 2.7ghz)

Rendering a video is a great quad vs dual event I can render a video in 10 minutes @ 2.7ghz on the quad, and it would take nearly 18 minutes on the 3.0ghz dual core. The extra cpu power is invaluable and the main reason I upgraded my laptop as now I can do all my desktop work on the go with a good speed.

 

i think the "future proof" argument is incredibly flawed. Just like those people who got suckered into buying 64-bit processor-based computers in 2005 found their CPU inadequate and irrelevant by the time 64-bit processing caught on, most who have early-adopted the latest quad core solutions will find their quad-core setups needing an update by the time a significant number of every-day applications take advantage of them.

Most will be better served by buying a C2D processor-based system. better battery life, better performance (in many cases) thanks to higher clocks, less money. and both today's Quad purchaser AND today's Duo purchaser will be looking to upgrade around the same time.

"Future proof" is a myth in the tech sector that I still get shocked when I see/hear someone say it...because we KNOW it isn't true.

For those who's most important applications are already coded to support Quad Core technology, get a Quad Core. As many have already pointed out, you'll gain by a large margin.

For everyone else (that 95% of computer users that aren't enthusiasts, video coding junkies, CAD designers, or some such), C2D is what you want for now.

 

Future Proof is a myth thats why I had it in "quotes" but this is not some obscene new tech like 64bit comming early, this is extra cpu power using the same tech as the dual core.

We had many debates back in the day about dual core vs single core, guess who won?

Now since that movement has happened the move from dual to quad is even faster.

If you honestly think a faster dual core is a better choice then by all means get one but dont tell me its better and you better do what I did and post proof of why your argument states its better.

I can give you benchmark after benchmark of my quads doing what your dual core can, and of games & applications of the dual core not even coming close to the quad.

I can link you game recommendation sepcs where quad core is stated plainly as the recommended cpu type.

Your cost evaluation is wrong, the W90 cost the same with the Q9000 as it did the 2.8ghz dual core.

Also you missed another point, your saying if your a "encoder, enthusiast, etc, etc get the quad but for everybody else get the dual" but the only laptops that offer/support quad right now are the enthusiast laptops. So by default that means if your laptop supports it you should be getting it.

 

2 is better than 1, end of story

Any Core 2 Duo is fast these days. 2ghz is more than enough for most people, and if you're not using the apps to take advantage of it, you won't notice a daily difference running at 3ghz, besides the extra heat and power consumption. Games will only see a difference if you've got a CPU bottleneck, which is rare in a notebook unless you're playing UT2K3 and aiming for 500 FPS...

Quad cores on the other hand have that extra efficiency for programs that utilize it. And if you use those programs, and there will only be more of them as time passes, you'll want a quad. A 25% faster duo will never run a multi threaded program like the quad core.

 

But i want 501 FPS... I have 2 HDDs, 2 RAM sticks, 2 GPUs and 2 cores.

Anyhow, hopefully Windows 7 and next gen CPU can bring better multicore scaling, along with lower prices, they are the future.

Wheres your old avatar? it was better than this one lol