Sager 9262 - Quad or Dual?

[Awake]

Hello all, I'm excited to be placing my order for a Sager 9262 soon. But I have a few questions beforehand and I was hoping they could be answered.

I will be using this computer for 3D animation and casual gaming. (Nothing to bleeding edge but recent games none the less) And I want to be able to use Windows XP. I will have 4g of RAM so I know I will have to have the X64 version (a nice tutorial provided by a forum member has all the drivers too, thank you) However I was wondering if Windows XP Pro x64 would support the quad-core. I'm looking at the Duo E8400 and the QUAD Q6700 option. I would like to know if the Q6700 is even supported by that version of XP. Also I would like to know if the quad Q6700 is even that much of a speed difference. I understand that Maya (the program I am using to 3D animate primarily) supports quad cores; However I would like to know if most programs will make use of the q6700.

Thank you for your time and suffering through my terrible formatting.

[RaderCad]

Dual VS Quad

If you do a lot of video editing and rendering or have a program for three D animation that is multi-core enabled then you are better off with a quad core. Sadly, as it is now, most games and much of the available software is not multi-core enabled so the higher clock speeds of a dual core will best the quads in most software tests.

The measure of the clock speed is addition of all the cores on the CPU and their respecitve speed of operation. Thus a 3GHz dual-core has two 1.5GHz cores in it. A quad is four cores so divide that into the clock speed of the chip to get each cores speed of opperation. Now you can figure out why a dual core can best a quad as it is the single core operation speed that is the factor in a lot of software tests. Just remember that more software is coming out that is multi-core enabled all the time. So check what you are using and find out if there is a multi-core enabled version for it. If there is get it and then get the fastest quad you can afford.

If you want to check out for yourself what is going on inside your computer there are utilities available. I use the RightMark CPU clock utility, it is free. Do not play around with your CPU settings unless you are prepared to take the responsibility. This utility allows you to over-clock and over-voltage the front-side bus, chip-set and the CPU. Or! Use it for under-clocking and lowering the voltage for the CPU, chip-set and front-side bus. I do this so I can squeeze a few more degrees of ambient air temperature operation out of my laptop without heat being a problem. I have yet to hear of a warranty being voided because of under-clocking a computer.

[Sanosukeafo]

I'd suggest the 3.0ghz duel core. Its great for gaming and it will do the job on anything else you want to do just fine.

[Doctor_WHO]

I am a hardcore gamer and also find myself with many many open windows doing different projects when not gaming.

I did a lot of research and read all th specs before purchasing my 9261. I was hell bent on getting the Extreme chip, even though Justin W suggested that I get the Q6600 or Q6700. I ended up getting the Q6600 with thoughts of possibly being able to upgrade to an Extreme Quad in the future...

NEway... I have found the Q6600 to be MORE than sufficient for anything I do. I think the loss of 2-10 FPS in the games I play (ET:QW, UT3, COD4, WOW, etc...) is negligible when you are clocking higher than 60fps anyway IMHO. Supreme Commander actually uses all the cores, so I get a boost in that game!

So for me Quad was a good deal. Money saved, a solid performing chip, and the future potential for performance on Quad enabled software.

Of course, if money is not an issue, and you want the absolute best for gaming right now with the option to upgrade (or downgrade - depending on your point of view) to Quad, the E would be the strongest.

However, you mention your 3D software uses Quad cores, and from my experience you can save A LOT of time rendering with quads. As to whether the Q6700 would work with XP 64 - I can't answer first hand. Maybe a google search will answer that. But for the life of me, I can't imagine why it would not? And even if you use XP 32bit, you can still utilize a little over 3GB of ram (for sake of conversation).

[danny_christ]

quad vs dual!?

some rare applications use the power and advantage of quad.

benchmarks show quad or dual is almost the same in games! gpu is most important.

[[email protected]]

Here is a comparison of various different CPU's. Also here is another good CPU comparison website.

From all of the previous customers that i have talked with that are using Autocad, Maya, and other 3D animation programs they have all went with a quad core processor.

[bargegod]

i would get the quad WHEN they offer the q9550 on here, but for now the e6850 or e8400 c2d would be a good choice for gaming. laterz...

[kpauls]

The measure of the clock speed is addition of all the cores on the CPU and their respecitve speed of operation. Thus a 3GHz dual-core has two 1.5GHz cores in it.

This is wrong. All cores operate at the same internal frequency. There is a potential of extra overhead from a quad-core system but all of these the ones that are not impossibly small to measure the real measurable issues will be hardware or software bugs.

Software makers are still struggling with how to effectively use multi-core systems to their maximum. Up to this year the majority of games have been single-threaded, but now Crysis, HL2, UT3, and all of Id's offerings will benefit from multiple cores.


Please read the following articles and benchmarks:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html
http://www.cpu3d.com/index.php?optio...mid=16&limit=1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-quad,1720.html

[RaderCad]

This is wrong. All cores operate at the same internal frequency. There is a potential of extra overhead from a quad-core system but all of these the ones that are not impossibly small to measure the real measurable issues will be hardware or software bugs.

Hmm... Well, maybe all cores do operate at the same internal frequency, but that frequency is far less than the over all rated frequency of the CPU. I may have just made a bogus statement about all dual and quad cores, as I am running an AMD dual core on our throw-away lappy and it may be different (I have had experience with other past marketing propaganda.) OK, here is the explanation.

I clock down about 20% due to ambient heat and drop the voltage to the CPU accordingly, but both my core speeds are the same: 799 MHz (Fan Speed and Right Mark CPU Utility.) This adds up to a whopping 1.59 GHz which is right about 20% under the rated 1.9 GHz that the chip is rated at. So in a sense you are right, both cores do operate at the same frequency. However! Those frequencies as reported are 1/2 the rating of the dual core CPU. As Fan Speed and Right Mark CPU Utility both report the same speed of the individual cores, I tend to go with what I am seeing in front of my eyes.

As a note, I will run the previously mentioned utilities on my new lappy when I get it. And! As it has an Intel chip in it I am curious to see what the speeds are in the individual cores. I will post a report on the forum as to what I find out. Interestingly enough there is not much information on clock speed of chip vs. clock speed of individual cores on the internet. Must be a big secret.

By the way; by under-clocking, lowering the voltage to the CPU, and cranking on the fan all the way, I can run this lappy safely in about 100 degrees F in 20 to 30 percent humidity. This is a raise in the maximum ambient temperature operation of about 3 degrees C. The problem child in this arrangement is the Hard Drive as it's maximum temperature of operation is rated at 55 degrees C. The bus never goes much over 55 degrees C, and the CPU has yet to reach 60 degrees C. I am sure that when we pick up our laptop cooler(s) this will change even more.

I would like to have someone with a quad core see what MHz or GHz the individual cores are running at. The above mentioned utilities are free and they are a great way to under-clock or over-clock your rig. Why slow down your chip and not reduce the voltage to the chip at the same time? The Speed Fan utility is just to keep the fan on high all the time. Sager has the fans speed control linked to an Fn - number key setup so you would not the Speed Fan utility.

[bargegod]

if its an intel and it is a dual core 3.0 ghz, the it will run 2 core at 3.0 ghz EACH. if its an amd and it says dual core 3.0ghz, it will run 2 cores at 1.5ghz each. they add the two core to get the total 3.0. at least thats the way my old hp was with a turion64X2 processor it had. if intel advertised like that i would have 6ghz. lmao. dont i wish...

[RaderCad]

Like I said....

if its an intel and it is a dual core 3.0 ghz, the it will run 2 core at 3.0 ghz EACH. if its an amd and it says dual core 3.0ghz, it will run 2 cores at 1.5ghz each. they add the two core to get the total 3.0. at least thats the way my old hp was with a turion64X2 processor it had. if intel advertised like that i would have 6ghz. lmao. dont i wish...

Thanks for the clarification bargegod. That is why I had the disclaimer about AMD and past propaganda. Having been burned once before etc. I will post results when I get my new lappy. Too bad about AMD having to resort to tricks etc... Hopefully the results of the Intel CPU will be different from the AMD Propaganda Machine.

[kpauls2]

if its an intel and it is a dual core 3.0 ghz, the it will run 2 core at 3.0 ghz EACH. if its an amd and it says dual core 3.0ghz, it will run 2 cores at 1.5ghz each. they add the two core to get the total 3.0. at least thats the way my old hp was with a turion64X2 processor it had. if intel advertised like that i would have 6ghz. lmao. dont i wish...

I really do need to see some literature explaining this "fact". There is no reason that AMD would ever need to interlace the locks on their separate cores. They have a similar fab process (65nm down to 45nm) to Intel so it is not possible that there are electrothermal reasons for them to "split" their clocks.

I am having a hard time locating any article discussing this marketing technique you speak of. I would be interested in where you learned this "fact".

If you have an AMD system (tho it sounds like you think they are inferior) take a CPU-Z screenshot, make sure your system is at FULL LOAD, I recommend the prime number calculator that's the standard benchmark at notebookreview.com

I used Eclipse compiling somewhere under 1 million lines of code which put me at full load:


One final possibility is that you're referring to Hyperthreading or Superthreading in a CPU, which is explained here:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...hreading.ars/3

Threaded cpu's will more or less behave the way you describe: each "thread" in a hyperthreaded Intel cpu will consume a portion of the total available processing power. However the means of achieving hyperthreading is thru register renaming / i.e. using a tiny portion of extra memory rather than producing an extra core which they let sit idle for 1/2 its potential clocks. In any CPU with physically separate real cores will use all cores on the same synchronous clock rate. In the case of hyperthreading those cores may be virtualized into separate logical CPU's so that their resources may be divided up more efficiently.

As you can tell from my link, hyperthreading is some moderately old technology.

[bargegod]

i got the "facts" from running pcwizard2008 and seeing the results on the screen. although there COULD have been false info that the program was giving me. lol as for inferiority...HECK YEAH bud, INTEL makes a heck of a better processor...IMO. not that AMD is poor or anyhthing. they do the flip floppin time and time again. ones on top for a while then the other superceeds. always been like that between the 2 companies, u know that. same goes for Nvidia and ATI, as Nvidia is on top right now...IMO. laterz....

[bargegod]

here is showing 2 cores running at slightly different speeds. my dual core cpu is rated at 3.0ghz. if i still had my crappy turionX64 id run a screen shot showing how a 1.6ghz turion processor would show it running at around 800mhz on each core. like the one i use to have... thats what i was talking about. maybe u misunderstood what i had said.

[bargegod]

also you can see that my cores in that shot are at around 2/3 the marketing frequency due to speedstep. 1994/1995mhz outa 3000mhz. if i was doing something graphic intensive it would boost to around 2995mhz.