How is it you can still buy dual core pcs at bestbuy?

[yoda313]

I was surprised to see they are still selling dual core pcs at bestbuy. What gives? With six cores out now I would have thought quad cores would be minimum starter pcs now.

And these aren't cheap either. Some are over 500.00.

What gives? Are these a different generation of dual cores with more power? I have a dual core amd 2.7ghz processor but it is several years old now. Would these newer dual cores be more efficient or what?

[aedipuss]

faster fsb but that's about it. still not near a quad, but there are still plenty of single threaded apps on which they will run as fast on any computer with the about the same clock speed. for the average joe, not encoding video or manipulating large pictures or doing mathematical modeling a dual core is probably fine.

[yoda313]

Thanks aedipuss.

I'm just surprised they haven't phased them out already pushing the older quad cores. I figured they'd want to make room for speedier quads and the new sixes.

[RabidDog]

Both CPU companys are bringing out even more Dual cores even now. I think dual core is pretty much the baseline now, I wouldnt mind a nice six pack myself.. dual cores don't really cut it when encoding HD video ..runtimes of 12 and fourteen hours are just too long.

[yoda313]

I wouldnt mind a nice six pack myself..

I like that nickname for them However I don't think I see amd or intel making an add campaign around that phrase

[rallynavvie]

We still replenish with dual core workstations at work. Even though quad cores are the same price from our OEM we'd have to do hardware validation in order to make sure the different machines work with our software.

[ranchhand]

They have their place; I just (6 months ago) did a newbuild for my wife who is cemented to XP, used a dual core AMD running at 3.0, matched up all FSBs to 800 with 2 gigs RAM, the thing smokes. Office, her various work programs, everything. For a CPU that cost $65??! (from Newegg, not BB of course). More than powerful enough for the "average Joe", as aedipuss said.

[jagabo]

Market segmentation and branding.

[lordsmurf]

Cheaper.
More cores isn't necessarily better or faster.

[budz]

AMD has some dual cores that can unlock additional cores using the right motherboard. I've strayed to AMD at the moment since they offer the best bang for the buck. Dunno why Intel hasn't dropped their prices on some of their Wolfdale dual core cpu's. I'm content with my Intel cpu's but AMD does have a edge if you're on a budget. Just my 2 cents!

[jagabo]

Dunno why Intel hasn't dropped their prices on some of their Wolfdale dual core cpu's.

Intel will lower prices when AMD's prices start cutting into their bottom line.

[lordsmurf]

You can't directly compare, as accounting reflects more than CPUs.

[jagabo]

The point is that Intel is good at setting prices to maximize its profits. It responds to AMD's pricing when it needs to.

[ROBERT BLACK]

AMD has some dual cores that can unlock additional cores using the right motherboard.

First time I've heard this, do you have any articles to support which motherboards could unlock the cores? Thanks.

[jagabo]

AMD has some dual cores that can unlock additional cores using the right motherboard.

First time I've heard this, do you have any articles to support which motherboards could unlock the cores?

That's pretty old news.

The problem is you don't know if those additional cores are disabled because AMD needed more "low core" parts that quarter or because the other cores are bad. For example, when AMD first started making four core CPUs most of them had one or more bad cores. The short term solution was to disable the bad core and sell three core CPUs. Later, as the defect rate went down, there was still a large market for three core CPUs. So, not only were chips with one bad core converted into three core CPUs, many cores with four good cores were too.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/04/13/amd-removed-core-unlocking/1

[Bullworth]

I have an AMD dual-core 2.8 and for most purposes if works fine for me. Now that I'm getting into HD encoding it is really making me want to upgrade. My question is how much faster would a quad-core be? Processor design of course is a big factor but how about the ability of the application, like the encoder, to take advantage of all the cores?

[yoda313]

So, not only were chips with one bad core converted into three core CPUs, many cores with four good cores were too.

Yep you can still buy 3 core amds at Bestbuy. They were in this weeks ad that I was commenting about.

Thanks for all the insight everyone.

[sum_guy]

Do most people really need a 6 core processor to use e-mail and facebook? probably not. Gamers will upgrade when they can no longer max out the graphics and details, but that market segment is getting smaller thanks to the consoles.

[budz]

AMD has some dual cores that can unlock additional cores using the right motherboard.

First time I've heard this, do you have any articles to support which motherboards could unlock the cores? Thanks.

You can check out overclock.net forums regarding the AMD dual cores that can unlock other cores. Some have even unlocked a single core Sempron cpu.

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/

http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/

[budz]

Do most people really need a 6 core processor to use e-mail and facebook? probably not. Gamers will upgrade when they can no longer max out the graphics and details, but that market segment is getting smaller thanks to the consoles.

For those who do a lot of video encoding the 6 cores will be useful.

[lordsmurf]

Not really. A lot of software still can't see past two cores.
As I've pointed out before, sometimes the clock speed per core is more important than the number of cores.

MainConcept References makes good use of multi cores.
So can TMPGEnc Plus, old as it is.
DVD Shrink can too, but that's not really encoding. Just a program that comes to mind.

I really can't think of anything else.

[jagabo]

MainConcept References makes good use of multi cores.
So can TMPGEnc Plus, old as it is.

In TMPGEnc Plus, when you select Options -> Environmental Settings -> CPU... Logical Processors is never higher than 2 in my experience. I think that setting is specifically for the MPEG encoder. It may use more threads for reading the source and filtering. For straight encoding it doesn't scale much past 2 cores.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/194778-VideoHelp-com-Video-Benchmarking?p=1994953&v...=1#post1994953

Do you know some way of changing that setting?

I really can't think of anything else.

x264 is well multithreaded.

[RabidDog]

You'd be best off buying a multicore now becoz more software (in the future), including Games, will be Multi-thread capable.
re the AMD unlocking.. its wise to only buy whats gtd.. AMD have said they are delaying the release of some of their newer (thuban) unlockable chips, perhaps for better binning and/or allowing the hype to build up. Meaning a lower portion of the "cheap" chips will unlock extra cores.
Also Dual core is lower for a power efficient machine.. saving Batt Life.

Four or More FTW!

[lordsmurf]

In TMPGEnc Plus, when you select Options -> Environmental Settings -> CPU... Logical Processors is never higher than 2 in my experience. .... For straight encoding it doesn't scale much past 2 cores..

Yeah, you're right. I double checked.

[TBoneit]

Yoda what you are forgetting is that the normal computer user won't even hit the wall with a 2.8Ghz single core Pentium 4.

I'm sitting here typing this at work on a IBM Intellistation with 1GB memory, 36Gb 10,000 rpm SCSI hard drive, Pentium 4 3.2Ghz and a FX5200 video card. It is plenty fast for searching the internet, downloading drivers for computers I'm working on etc.

At home I do use a i7 930 for video work. I also use a single core cheapo laptop for bill paying and online banking and Tax time only. No surfing or email on it. I want it to stay clean since I do financial stuff on it. It cost me $329 + tax with Win7, 3Gb, 120Gb, DVDRW & 15.6" new. It's more than fast enough.

Here on this forum we get users that work with video so speed counts. In the rest of the real world it isn't that important.

Cheers

Not to mention a low power dual core uses less energy and will save on the electric bill.

[Bullworth]

Do most people really need a 6 core processor to use e-mail and facebook? probably not. Gamers will upgrade when they can no longer max out the graphics and details, but that market segment is getting smaller thanks to the consoles.

In my case at least, that's quite true. Until the 360 and the PS3 I would stick to the PC as my main gaming platform but now that the graphics are getting to be almost on par with the PC ( as long as you're not too much of a stickler about it, yes I know a PC card/monitor can still output much higher res than 1080). For strategy games I still don't see the console being a viable platform.

Why drop $600 or more to upgrade your PC every 2-3 years when you can get a current console for less? Especially now that Sony and MS are opting to extend the lifespan of their consoles instead of coming out with a new one every 4-5 years when they have barely made their investment back, if at all?

Well, I'm getting very off-topic here. Sure, multi-cores are great for people who are into processor intensive apps like encoding or rendering but for the average Joe who only uses their PC for surfing, email and office work they won't notice much of a difference, and if the app isn't designed to take advantage of multiple cores then it's kind of a waste for now at least. For them a dual-core works just fine. Heck, my dad still has a PC with an AMD Sempron and he's perfectly happy with that. H just does a lot of office work. He also has a newer quad-core he bought but barely uses it, and says he can't see much of a difference....and he hates Windows 7

[yoda313]

Yoda what you are forgetting is that the normal computer user won't even hit the wall with a 2.8Ghz single core Pentium 4.

Here on this forum we get users that work with video so speed counts. In the rest of the real world it isn't that important.

Yeah you are right about that. I still have a p4 xp single core that I use for surfing and am on it right now.

I guess I'm just surprised that the chip makers haven't put the "forced obscelescence" that is so common in the fast moving tech world.

Originally Posted by sum_guy
Do most people really need a 6 core processor to use e-mail and facebook? probably not. Gamers will upgrade when they can no longer max out the graphics and details, but that market segment is getting smaller thanks to the consoles.
In my case at least, that's quite true. Until the 360 and the PS3 I would stick to the PC as my main gaming platform but now that the graphics are getting to be almost on par with the PC ( as long as you're not too much of a stickler about it, yes I know a PC card/monitor can still output much higher res than 1080). For strategy games I still don't see the console being a viable platform.

Yep I agree there too.

The only thing is there are still some games that are more suited to pc like flight sims (true flight sims) and mmo and super graphic hogs like crysis (though c2 is headed to the consoles).

I do have all three current gen consoles and haven't had a reason to change my graphics card since I just buy a game for any of the 3 systems. They all look great (well the WII sans hd of course but it is what it is).