That's where multithreaded applications come in. When a program can tap into multiple cores on a single CPU, it's called a multithreaded application. Games are actually a great example of how multithreaded software can benefit. It's easy to understand that when you're playing a game, the graphics processing goes out to the 3D chip and the sound effects go through an audio chip, but what about artificial intelligence?
Or physics calculations? Or dynamic scenery generation that creates new environments on the fly? Now what about doing all of those things at once? That's where a multicore chip can give you a benefit. The same goes for any application that involves running more than one process--applying multiple photo filters, encoding audio and video onto a DVD, the list goes on.
Many popular applications such as Photoshop and iTunes already support multiple processing threads. You can also expect that more and more programs will ship with multithreaded code. Apple's Mac Pro, however, presents a different story. Our Apple test bed a different system than the one we reviewed back in August has two dual-core Xeon chips, each running at 3. On some of our apps--iTunes and Photoshop in particular--differences between running the programs on Windows XP and Apple OS X likely impact performance, but it's worth noting that even with a slower hard drive, the Mac Pro outpaced the Core 2 Extreme QX chip on a number of tests, likely due to its clock speed advantage.
It seems to us that the performance takeaway is that for Windows users who can afford it, the Core 2 Extreme QX is the way to go for the fastest PC today. As our single-core CineBench scores show, you might run into some apps that benefit more from raw clock speed than having multiple cores, but in general, we haven't seen a faster desktop chip. But professionals who have the luxury to choose among platforms are probably better off sticking with a Mac Pro, all other things being equal.
We imagine that due to its partnership with Intel, Apple will be updating the CPUs in its high-end desktop in the near future, so it's not hard to fathom a Mac Pro with a single quad-core chip or perhaps two quad-core chips, so just because the current two dual-core Xeon design isn't quite a true "quad-core CPU," Mac loyalists shouldn't feel like they're limiting themselves.
But say you wanted to build your own quad-core PC. You won't be able to purchase the Core 2 Extreme QX until November 14, and on that date, you'll also have to decide between building one on your own and buying one from Dell, Gateway, Velocity Micro, or any of the other typically high-end PC vendors.
If you do go it alone, you'll need an Intel XBX2-based motherboard. As the company did with the original Core 2 Duo chips, we expect that Nvidia will have a compatible motherboard chipset for sale as well, but as of November 1, it hadn't announced anything. Neither Intel's nor Nvidia's previous Core 2 Duo-supporting chipsets are compatible with the Core 2 Extreme QX, so if you recently purchased such a motherboard, you'll need to upgrade.
You also need to consider power management. That number is an outer-limit rating, meaning that fan and heat makers should design their parts to dissipate the attendant heat of a watt TDP part but that in most cases, it's not going to get that hot. We suspect that Intel might be accommodating for overclocking here, as well. The new built-in digital thermometer also seems particularly overclocking friendly.
The sample motherboard and fan we received didn't support the new thermometer, but Intel informed us that production boards will ship with that feature fully enabled. It's also worth noting that mainstream vendor Gateway is selling its new Core 2 Extreme QXequipped FXXL desktop factory-overclocked, and the overclocked parts are under warrantee. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab International shipping and import charges paid to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc.
Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping is paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab. Related sponsored items. Parts only Parts only Parts only. Seller Pre-owned Pre-owned Pre-owned. Report item - opens in a new window or tab.
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics. For parts or not working: An item that does not function as intended and is not fully operational. Read more about the condition For parts or not working: An item that does not function as intended and is not fully operational.
This includes items that are defective in ways that render them difficult to use, items that require service or repair, or items missing essential components. See all condition definitions opens in a new window or tab. Intel Core i7.
Shipping and handling. This item will ship to Germany , but the seller has not specified shipping options. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request a shipping method to your location. Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: Worldwide. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. There are 1 items available.
Just get 2 cores. Hmm, well the quad core is 20 dollars cheaper so its not really a price issue just wanted to know how much a difference it'll be. Since a quad core would be better for the long run i think i'll grab one now since i can get a pretty decent one at a resonable price. I'd go Q, cos its cheaper! If you want to overclock, then the core2duo's do that in spades, which will boost performance way above the quads, as they don't OC as well.
Click to expand Go for the Quad Core Q Invest now!!! First of all processors get older quicker than daily newspapers. So since you are investing better invest for the future. Go for the quad core and rest in the future. Don't worry about its actual use,application are on their way to make full user of this powerful processor. Isn't it likely that we'll be at the next generation of quad core processors before the software catches up that can utilize it?
If you believe that to be the case, then the Q really isn't future-proof at all. It would hinder you at the present, and the new C2Ds should outperform it. I did away with my quad because 45 nm processors dropping soon, I want one! I would go with the C2D for all the reasons people have already posted. By the time that software catches up with the Quad-Cores, we'll be at least a generation past where we are now with hardware.
0コメント