So I'm looking at a few new CPUs as an upgrade for my E4300. They are the E8200 and E6750. Roughly around the same price and based on the specs the E8200 would be the better choice but on the Intel comparision site but it does not list "Dual Core" as a feature of the E8200.

So can any gurus out there explain the difference or better yet, just say which one is better :)

Cheers, peace out, much love to ya mumz.

What games do you play? Do you use your machine mostly for games? Do you alt-tab a lot? Do you often have eleventybillion things running at once?

From my last check, a single core CPU was better for most games, if all you did was play games and had very little else running. Most games don't support multi-core cpu's so you will get no benefit from duel core, however if you play the few games that do, duel-core away.

8200 by a bee's dick apparently

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd132/eyeamjosh/cpu.jpg

it says core duo up the top so I assume they're both dual core they just forgot to list it on one.

The 8200's extra cache makes it marginally better.

What games do you play? Do you use your machine mostly for games? Do you alt-tab a lot? Do you often have eleventybillion things running at once?

WoW, CoD4, C&C3, etc.. but I mostly want a new CPU because I have an urge to buy something. Last week it was an 8800GT which highlighted how poor my CPU is.

Aren't most games now being made to specifically make use of multi-core CPUs? If so, you'd have to be all kinds of stupid to buy a single-core.

From my last check, a single core CPU was better for most games

It must have been a long time since you've checked.

Currently a fast dual-core is the way to go for gaming over quad-cores. Single-core systems aren't even considered by most people. I don't know if they even manufacture and release new consumer desktop single-cores anymore, as I don't see much on sale.

last edited by parabol at 08:25:35 20/Feb/08

I went with a quad core simply because, apart from playing games, I also do a lot of video editing/encoding/multitasking etc. I also have a dual core on another PC and have noticed the quad shows pretty drastic improvements with the video tasks. I have also not noticed any performance hindrances for gaming with the quad over the dual core.

So whats teh deal, they failed to invent better technology recently, so instead decided to cram 2 cpus into one? Pox...

Not so much "recently"... but yeah, something like that.

I have also not noticed any performance hindrances for gaming with the quad over the dual core.

There shouldn't be any really.

The idea is that you can get a quad-core for the same price as a dual-core that is faster per-core. The latter would likely be better for gaming if it's only a moderately parallelised or single-threaded game you're playing.

It's basically a level up from the previous situation where a fast single-core CPU was a better buy than a slower dual-core (at the same price) for games. But multi-threaded games have caught on now, and when 3+ thread games are the norm we can then talk about 4 vs 8-core :)

So whats teh deal, they failed to invent better technology recently, so instead decided to cram 2 cpus into one?

Define "better technology". Do you mean faster MEGAHURTS?

They're improving the technology all the time, cramming more and more transistors and more cache into smaller spaces, reducing power-consumption and heat at the same time. Though if you look at it purely from a clock-rate point of view then you would be quite oblivious to anything.

last edited by parabol at 11:17:52 20/Feb/08

Though remember that even if you are running a single threaded game, a slower duel core CPU could still be faster.
Offloading all the various system processes to the second core, will free up the first to solely run your game.

Should work much the same with duel threaded games running on a quad core.

proper quad cores shouldn't be far off now too, if they're not already out

"proper" quad cores? What the devil do you mean Jim.

he means apples with 4 cores in them. so you end up with more core and less fruit flesh.

all four cores on a single die

What's the point, 4 cores on one die will only mean higher costs and lower yields.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/08/parallel_processing/page3.html

True quad core concepts put four cores and their cache memories onto a single die. The important thing is to have a shared, unified cache, which AMD introduces by maintaining the 512 kB L2 cache for each core, and adding a L3 cache to all cores. The advantage is that it will be possible to shut down individual cores and accelerate others in order to achieve better single-thread performance. Intel will follow the same path, but not before the introduction of its 2008 Nehalem architecture.

True, but look at the Phenoms. The yields AMD were getting was so poor they started a new line of processes called the Tri-cores, which are just broken quad cores with one of the cores turned off.

I don't think they use the system interface to communicate with the other cores tho do they? which they'd need to if there was more than one die

all four cores on a single die

Do the current quad cores have two sets of dual cores on the one cpu? TBH i didn't really look that deeply into the hardware implementation.

yeah, although I'm not up on it enough to know what's current now. 3-4 months or so ago when I was buying a new pc I was reading up on it a bit and that seemed to be the current thing then

Jim can you give us a real world performance translation please darling

Do the current quad cores have two sets of dual cores on the one cpu? TBH i didn't really look that deeply into the hardware implementation.

Yeah this is what I've read on the net. I believe it was due to a heating issue? It could be a number of factors though. The newer CPUs are using less power and stuff so heat is becoming slightly less of a problem.

I dunno what the real world performance implications are sweetcheeks
never tested it myself, I'm just relaying information I read when I was trying to decide what to buy myself

There are no Intel quad cores that have all 4 cores on a single die, and there won't be until the Nehalems are released.
All Intel quad cores are made of two dual cores linked together.

AMD's Phenoms are the only CPU that have quad cores on a single die.

There is no way to compare a Core 2 Quad with a "true" quad, since Intel don't make any of these CPUs yet. Though the word from the experts is that true quads would only see a slight gain (edit: when running tasks that utilize all 4 cores).
Something to do with Intel having perfected the use of dual-dual cores and the CPUs having so much cache.

last edited by Lynx at 13:56:51 20/Feb/08

Define "better technology". Do you mean faster MEGAHURTS?

no... ? An example would be if they discovered that microchips made of potatos led to more potential than ones made with silicon. Clearly such a discovery has not been made, no discoveries have been made, so they are cheating it to make it look like progress is still happening.

I have no doubt this didn't happen recently. The computers we are buying now were probably invented in the 80s, they just have a 30 year marketing plan for upgrades and such, to maximize profits by giving us a little at a time.

An example would be if they discovered that microchips made of potatos led to more potential than ones made with silicon. Clearly such a discovery has not been made, no discoveries have been made, so they are cheating it to make it look like progress is still happening

Trolling? I can't tell, even with the potato reference. If we're going to throw the word "clearly" around, then clearly you haven't looked into this much. Though your comments about marketing plans and maximising profits is generally true, especially when there's no competition involved (hang in there AMD!).

Every couple of generations they come up with an improved fabrication technique and semiconductor technology to make a shrink of die-area possible. For example, the recent "High-k and Metal Gate Research":

http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/high-k.htm

But as transistors shrink, leakage current can increase. Managing that leakage is crucial for reliable high-speed operation, and is becoming an increasingly important factor in chip design. Intel has made a significant breakthrough in solving the chip power problem, identifying a new "high-k" (Hi-k) material called hafnium to replace the transistor's silicon dioxide gate dielectric, and new metals to replace the polysilicon gate electrode of NMOS and PMOS transistors. These new materials, along with the right process recipe, reduce gate leakage more than 100-fold, while delivering record transistor performance

IBM and some other companies do similar research that makes it possible for better chips to be fabricated. So no, it's not like they just slap extra cores on and easily decrease chip sizes effortlessly like you imply. (while the current approach IS to add more cores, it's not as easily done as it looks)

last edited by parabol at 15:14:27 20/Feb/08