CS.RIN.RU - Steam Underground Community

On another topic RessourectoR said that he thinks the OP didn't need a quad-core CPU. This made me think.

Since most of the latest games support multi-core CPU's I've thought of this: I get a quad-core, game gets two of the cores, another core gets Flash and codec stuff and the last one gets browser, Steam, WLM, etc. This kind of usage is common for me because I play WoW and I idle most of my time to do other stuff.

Am I right? What should a person take into consideration before buying a CPU? Why dual? Why quad?

_________________
I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

I extreme this forum.

Why not hexa ?

_________________
If you have any new game acf's (with depotcache's), ncf's or gcf's, PM me !
My best post
We evolved from smart users with dumb terminals to dumb users with smart terminals.
I need updates for the following :

Why not 6-core?

_________________

I just had a talk with a friend about this, and he decides between a quad and a hexa core.

I myself wouldn't buy a dual core again, but $500 is really low budget - that's why I said he (the guy from the other thread) shouldn't go for more than dual core, he needs the money elsewhere if he doesn't want to buy crap.
The question raised is valid though. How much are multicores utilized nowadays? I also run plenty of stuff simultaneously.

_________________
ℝ.

Flash (10.1 and higher) and decent codecs won't use the CPU, but rather the GPU. Steam, WLM, a browser and Flash, that all runs perfectly fine from one core.


I'd say quad, because iirc WoW can use even 4 cores efficiently. And think of the time you spend in front of your PC, a quad core should definitely do fine and is not too little. Over that, quad cores got the advantage, that single cores can be shut down ( Windows 7 and higher ) and therefore save power over a dual core solution.

_________________
Game Industry Guardian (1K+).

Do they really use 0% CPU? AFAIK only a part of the job is done on GPU. (Not sure.)

Also, my concern is this: In the same price range, dual-cores go up to 3.6ghz per core while quad-cores go only up to 3ghz. So that means I can't have more than 3ghz power for a single thread on a quad-core CPU while I can on a dual-core CPU, but does it really matter? Will I ever need more than 3ghz on a single thread/core?

_________________
I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

I extreme this forum.

I am not 100% sure if Flash can use DXVA-HD. Anyway, on this laptop with a dual-core Intel Pentium D 1.6Ghz and an Intel GMA 965, Flash takes ~20% CPU in HD playback.


Depends on what you're doing. If you've got apps that badly thread and use them a lot, then yes. But WoW can use a lot of cores fine, as I said.

_________________
Game Industry Guardian (1K+).

What apps do you think would go over 2.6-3ghz? Afterall, I am not going to bruteforce documents I steal from Pentagon or anything. (Even bruteforcers are multi-core nowadays, but you know what I mean.)

_________________
I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

I extreme this forum.

Actually most brutefocers use the GPU nowadays (at least if possible).

Thanks for the random probability.

_________________
I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

I extreme this forum.

Thats a hex-core my frinend...

_________________
If you have any new game acf's (with depotcache's), ncf's or gcf's, PM me !
My best post
We evolved from smart users with dumb terminals to dumb users with smart terminals.
I need updates for the following :

No it's not. Can't you at least read your post before you submit it?

_________________
ℝ.

hey this is a cool thread

i feel like posting in it

screw logic

_________________
AdFly (5$ cashout!)

As I said, that depends on your application. And yes there are such apps, take a Pentium IV with 3Ghz+, that can be easily brought to 100%. It's not about Ghz actually, so that question is pretty much useless in this mean.

Of course, multi-threading is growing in importance, but if you've got CPU intensive threads, that could be still an issue nowadays. Now of course, quad-cores do deliver more overall performance, since the per core gain of a dual core is rather minimal compared to a duplication of cores. However, there is stuff which is per se not multi-threadable. WinRAR for instance, all single threaded. So yes, you'd unpack RAR files a little faster on a dual-core.


A.) The proper spelling is "hexa core".
B.) Do you've got some kind of hyperactivity disorder (ADHS?) or why the heck do you feel an itch to post useless trash in every topic you can find?

_________________
Game Industry Guardian (1K+).

Yeah, right, single threaded uncompressing. That would require more power.

_________________
I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

I extreme this forum.