quad dual tri lost

[DVD_NDN]

yeah I know, it sounds REALLY straightforward right? except I look at it, and I am not getting it.
I hear about "2X dual core" and about "quad core" and I dont get it.

I mean as I understand it (I know its off) dual channel processors handle date through *gasp* two channels... but after that I am lost.

I am looking at building a new sytem... its LONG overdo (you guys would laugh if you saw what I was running, frankly its a gift that its been going so long without problems).

I would appreciate personal opinions and a... once over? of dual core, double dual core... quad core... suggestions anything.
at all.

I'm looking to do mostly multimedia... not so much gaming, but video processing...
so yeah.

tips guys? anything?

[redwudz]

I don't know about the 'channel' part, but there are one core, two core, three core, and four core processors that are common at present. All the cores are on one processor module. They are more or less independent of each other, but they share memory and other control chips on the module.

Depending on the application, more cores can encode faster. Divx and other codecs can use more than one core to speed up the processing. More than one core is also useful for multitasking where you can run more than one program or task and not suffer too much speed loss with either. There are also motherboards that can use two processor modules for eight core processing.

I would recommend a four core or 'quad' processor most times for video. The faster the cores, the faster it will encode.

For video, usually 2GB of RAM is sufficient. And lots and lots of hard drive space.

[budz]

Get a Quad Core for video encoding:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, $209.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

Although I chose the newer Intel Core 2 Duo Wolfdale E8400 over the Quad Core because there aren't many programs that utilize 4 cores. The temps on the Wolfdale processors are very low even when overclocking it using a aftermarket heatsink fan vs the stock intel hsf. Read the reviews on the internet to help you decided which processor fits your needs.

[DVD_NDN]

very nice. And fast. thank you on both counts.
I remain curious however... I mean... I'm not trying to... slight anyone who may have done this but - would not a mother board with two modules, both four core... eight core total like you said - wouldnt that be rather... ridiculous?
I mean... right now I am still using an Athelon 3000+.... it sounds like a really dramatic jump... does anyone know at what point it begins to become... innefective?

maybe Im choosing my words poorly.... but in my head I cant seem to get passed the idea that each additional core doesnt truly double power.. or whatever, but increased ability maybe... 100% then 80%... 60 and so on... no?

What of video cards? I'm (still) using a 256 card... nvidea.. gforce 2 I think? its old anyway... but would a new more powerful card improve performance with encoding and such even more?

[DVD_NDN]

ooh theres another consideration... see how uninformed I am?
not all programs can use the quad core... I hadnt considered that...

[Ethlred]

Dual channel is for memory. It requires a motherboard that supports it and two sticks of ram of the exact same type and model, preferably sold as a pair for the job. It doubles the data rate by allowing the memory manager to grab data from both sticks twice on each clock cycle. For instance a 200 frontside bus gets you 400 memory by grabbing data on the rise and the fall of each clock cycle from a single stick, even if you have two sticks that aren't compatible or are in the wrong slots. By grabbing from two sticks via a dual channel bus you can reach 800.

I hope I got that right. I can't afford new hardware and haven't been reading up on this stuff much lately. Its so depressing reading about all the neat stuff I can't buy.

[DVD_NDN]

lol. well thanks for the help.... I cant really afford it either, but I really think its time to treat myself with something. I blew my vacation days, so time for toys. take some sacrifice... but its what it takes...

thing that gets me bent is that I dont know whats what anymore... and even before, I barely had a clue. I'd rather not be taken to the cleaners in a shop... but I dont want crap either... so Ive come here to the people who have helped me time and time again...

so that explains memory... though I'm still a little dismayed with the idea that programs cant fully use quad core potential....

[Ethlred]

maybe Im choosing my words poorly.... but in my head I cant seem to get passed the idea that each additional core doesnt truly double power.. or whatever, but increased ability maybe... 100% then 80%... 60 and so on... no?

In many cases that is true. And thats for multi-threaded apps. Many applications are not multi-threaded. However x264 does scale quite well. Pretty much a full and effective load on each processor according to what I read on Doom9. In most applications you won't get that good a result. Still it sure should help with multi-tasking. If nothing else a quad core could have one core running the OS, another decoding MPG2 in a frame server, a third encoding in a single threaded app and with forth you can be watching the last video you encoded. Of course you had better have a lot of hard drives for that. Otherwise you will get a bottleneck at the drives.

[DVD_NDN]

well currently two physical drives. a 500GB and 250GB. the 5 is partitioned to allow the OS to sit in its own little world.
I was thinking of getting of of those terabyte jobbies.
yes. I know this is expensive stuff... I was going to get one part per paycheck.
you know... earn it.
I would transfer my 500 over... if I could given its kinda old... I hear about serial ATA and something else.. incompatability... and its like 'ok yeah so I'll just upgrade all new'...

[redwudz]

Even if your program can't use all four cores, then they are free for other processes. Multitasking. So you can't really go wrong with four cores.

And eight cores on a motherboard can encode H.264, Divx and Xvid very fast. Take a look at this thread for a speed test of a 8 core computer: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic347859.html#1826402 Then compare Soopafresh's results with the others in the thread.

Parallel processing can link many computers together and you can have hundreds of cores at work. The basis of many of the newest supercomputers.

For more info on dual channel RAM, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-channel_architecture

[budz]

A 256mb PCI-EXPRESS Video card is enough since you don't game. Getting a high powered video card will not matter when doing video encoding. Heck, I bought all of my PCI-EXPRESS 128mb Video cards from EBAY.

I'd say buy what you can afford at this time. I bought a cheap Intel Core 2 Duo Allendale E2160 processor knowing that the Gigabyte mobo I was using would be able to utilize a Wolfdale processor later when the prices of the E8400 would drop. In other words buy a motherboard that you know will be able to use a faster processor down the road then you can buy it later at a cheaper price. Because new processors come out every 6 months or so therefore Intel drops their prices usually in April and sometime in the fall.

I'd suggest getting a SATA II 80GB or 160GB Hard drive just for your operating system. Use 500GB for storage purposes/video encoding. If that 500GB is a ide hard drive buy a external enclosure for it and use as a external hard drive. Or buy a PCI CONTROLLER CARD & hook up those 500GB & 250GB hard drives to it. Newer motherboards these days only have ONE IDE CONNECTION. There can be anywhere from 4-6 SATA connections. Use the ONE IDE CONNECTION for a dvd burner. Or you can buy a SATA DVD BURNER but depending on the SATA chipset of the mobo will determine whether or not it will work correctly. Intel SATA controller chipset ICH7/8/9 will work with SATA dvd burners. NVIDIA chipsets will only work if using the latest drivers from the NVIDIA website. VIA chipsets will not work at all.

Buy a motherboard with either a INTEL or NVIDIA chipset. I would not recommend any mobo with the VIA chipsets. Buy a good quality motherboard. Feel overwhelmed yet!

Here's my suggestions for motherboard, hard drives, ddr2 ram, dvd burner and processor:

Intel Wolfdale E8400 processor, $189.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

You could buy a QUAD Q6600 for $30.00 more if you want.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R motherboard, $119.99 (after rebate $99.99)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128086

Western Digital SATA II 80gb Hard drive, $39.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822135106

Seagate SATA II 500gb Hard drive, $84.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

GSkill 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 800 (PC2-6400) Ram, $44.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098

Pioneer 115D IDE Dvd Burner, $29.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827129018

or Pioneer 215D SATA Dvd Burner, $30.99 (Currently OUT OF STOCK)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827129020

If you wanna overclock the processor buy a aftermarket heatsink fan.

Enzotech Extreme-X or Thermalright True (lapping the cpu and the True provides lower temps from what I've read) are good for overclocking. Stock Intel heatsink fan has 4 push pins that you insert into the motherboard. Although I prefer using hsf's that are bolted to the mobo. Just my 2 cents!

[rallynavvie]

I remain curious however... I mean... I'm not trying to... slight anyone who may have done this but - would not a mother board with two modules, both four core... eight core total like you said - wouldnt that be rather... ridiculous?
I mean... right now I am still using an Athelon 3000+.... it sounds like a really dramatic jump... does anyone know at what point it begins to become... innefective?

I guess I'm being ridiculous then

You're absolutely right regarding the "return on investment" when you go for multi-cores. Since most applications out there these days still don't support multi-threading (using more than one processor or core) there is not much gain at all going to a dual- or quad-core chip. You will get some added benefit of background tasks (like virus scanning or Windows updating) running on a separate core and leaving one free for whatever it is you're doing at the moment. However even then that background task is using your hard drive and that slows you down if both tasks are trying to access the same drive. Even applications that are multi-threaded don't see 4x the performance on a quad-core over the comparable single core, but you do still see nearly that depending on the application and the specific system. I'd say at least 3-3.5x more performance from a quad when using multi-threaded applications on a quad-core.

So what do I use my 8-core system for? Aside from the occasional video farming (mass encoding projects sent down from my #2 workstation) I am using it for testing virtual machines (or VMs). Essentially a VM is an encapsulated version of another computer running on my computer while I'm running Vista. For instance I have several test VMs on it now running Ubuntu linux, Windows 2000, Windows NT, and even Mac OSX. Each are in their own windows in Vista so I can control all of them at once if I wanted to. Each of these VMs get assigned one or more cores from a processor to use for their own, they also get a spot of memory for their use. There are a variety of uses for this which would take ages to explain but I'm sure you'll hear more about VMs in the coming years.

[jagabo]

I'm still a little dismayed with the idea that programs cant fully use quad core potential....

You and much of the rest of the world. Especially Intel and AMD who who hit a brick wall on clock speeds but still need to convince everyone they need a new computer every few years.

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/communities/multicore

[DVD_NDN]

so then, in order to maximize efficiency and speed... I should be looking at getting a smaller hard drive with more rps for the OS.... one or two large drives... I think 7200rps was what they were.
The motherboards then... what of them? I see so many options... what should I 'really' be looking for in a board?

[budz]

so then, in order to maximize efficiency and speed... I should be looking at getting a smaller hard drive with more rps for the OS.... one or two large drives... I think 7200rps was what they were.
The motherboards then... what of them? I see so many options... what should I 'really' be looking for in a board?

Look for a motherboard where you can upgrade the processor to a faster one at a later time. Yes using a smaller hard drive for the operating system is good then buy one or two larger hds. SATA Hard drives are the way to go now. Remember I mentioned newer motherboards these days only have 1 IDE CONNECTION. SATA is the way to go for hard drives.

[DarrellS]

All your major codecs use four cores. DivX, XviD and H264.

Also, if you plan on doing HD then you'll want a video card that will handle HD. I was on a budget so I settled for the Radeon HD2600XT for $99. It has 512MB GDDR3 memory, 830Mhz engine clock and 1.86Ghz memory clock.

I also chose the Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P (since it had Firewire, E-Sata and 2 PCI-E 16 slots), 2GB of DDR2 1066 memory and the Q6600 processor. I have an 80GB WD boot drive, two 500GB Seagates and a 750GB Seagate.

PC Club had a 36GB 10,000rpm Seagate Cheetah for $66 but it's out of stock.

[redwudz]

the 5 is partitioned to allow the OS to sit in its own little world.

Something you should be aware of. JMO, but partitioning the boot drive doesn't gain you much except maybe a easier time defragging because of the smaller size of the partition. That's why many of us suggest using a separate small boot drive as an alternative.

The other partition on that boot drive is still using the same controller channel as the boot partition. And any time the OS accesses the boot, it affects the speed and performance of the other partition. It's a bit similar to having two folders on the same drive. Not very efficient at times.

If you do have to partition in that way, use the second partition for storage, not for encoding, capturing, or other hard drive intensive tasks.

A 10K or 15K RPM boot drive will speed up your boot a few percent, if you really think that's important. But 7200 RPM SATA drives are quite fast at present.

Again, JMO, and others may have different ones.

[jagabo]

All your major codecs use four cores. DivX, XviD and H264.

But many don't scale well beyond 2 cores. Xvid codec v1.1.3, linked to from this site, is still single threaded. You need one of the experimental 1.2 releases to get multithreading. The h.264 codecs are an exception -- they scale very well.

[DarrellS]

You may want to pick up a couple of small drives in case one goes out. Small drives are getting harder and harder to find. Most retailers don't have anything under 160GB. Newegg has a couple of 40GB drives, a handfull of 80GB drives and a few 10,000 and even 15,000 rpm drives if you're willing to pay for them. The 36GB WD Raptor is down to $90 and the 40GB 7200rpm WD is $38.

[DarrellS]

But many don't scale well beyond 2 cores. Xvid codec v1.1.3, linked to from this site, is still single threaded. You need one of the experimental 1.2 releases to get multithreading.

I should've stated that in my post. I'm using xvid-1.2.-127-25022006.

[jagabo]

Many of the 10K and 15K RPM drives are pretty noisy and hot. The latest WD Velociraptor drives (which are actually 2.5" drives in 3.5" packaging) are getting good reviews and are cool and quiet:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136011
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/HDD-SATA-VelociRaptor,1914.html
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3291&p=1

[edDV]

so then, in order to maximize efficiency and speed... I should be looking at getting a smaller hard drive with more rps for the OS.... one or two large drives... I think 7200rps was what they were.
The motherboards then... what of them? I see so many options... what should I 'really' be looking for in a board?

List the apps you run.

The generic "video processing" machine will have 2-4 cores (speed optional vs. $)
2GB memory (matched dual channel preferred)
Video card 7600GT or 8600GT (more for games only)
Small drive for OS
One to many large SATA 7200RPM drives for projects with additional external drives via eSATA (fast) or USB2 (slow).

Fairly simple these days. Add cores for speed or add drives for projects.

[RLT69]

I am using it for testing virtual machines (or VMs). Essentially a VM is an encapsulated version of another computer running on my computer while I'm running Vista. For instance I have several test VMs on it now running Ubuntu linux, Windows 2000, Windows NT, and even Mac OSX.

Question about Mac OSX in your VM: What version of OS X are you using and did you get printing to work?

[DarrellS]

If you wanna overclock the processor buy a aftermarket heatsink fan.

I stopped overclocking my Q6600 on the Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P cause the computer kept crashing and resetting it to 1.8Ghz so I set it to stock 2.4Ghz and haven't had problems with it crashing since. I think it's the G.Skill memory because the icons in my folders take a while to show up when I open them and when I close a folder then all the icons on my desktop refresh. Not sure what else would cause this.

[edDV]

If you wanna overclock the processor buy a aftermarket heatsink fan.

I stopped overclocking my Q6600 on the Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P cause the computer kept crashing and resetting it to 1.8Ghz so I set it to stock 2.4Ghz and haven't had problems with it crashing since. I think it's the G.Skill memory because the icons in my folders take a while to show up when I open them and when I close a folder then all the icons on my desktop refresh. Not sure what else would cause this.

You are lucky that CPU+mobo chipset lived to see another day.

[DarrellS]

You are lucky that CPU+mobo chipset lived to see another day.

When I first installed the Gigabyte board with the Q6600 cpu, it showed up at 1.8Ghz. I don't know how to get it to read it correctly by default. If I set the BIOS to default settings, it shows up as 1.8Ghz. I had to use the instructions from G.Skill to get the Gigabyte to run the cpu at the correct speed by changing the settings in BIOS.

[Megahurts]

My Q6600 idles at 1.6Ghz but when encoding a file it jumps to 2.4Ghz.

The multiplier changes from x6.0 to x9.0

[budz]

If you wanna overclock the processor buy a aftermarket heatsink fan.

I stopped overclocking my Q6600 on the Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P cause the computer kept crashing and resetting it to 1.8Ghz so I set it to stock 2.4Ghz and haven't had problems with it crashing since. I think it's the G.Skill memory because the icons in my folders take a while to show up when I open them and when I close a folder then all the icons on my desktop refresh. Not sure what else would cause this.

Whatever settings you had for that overclock probably wasn't stable which is why it kept crashing and that the cpu speed was reset. You'd have to use OCCT, PRIME 95 or ORTHOS to see if the settings you have would be stable. I've been learning slowly about overclocking using GIGABYTE P35 motherboards. Check out EXTREME SYSTEMS & OVERCLOCKER.NET for more info on overclocking your GIGABYTE P35 mobo's. I'm at work right now so I can't provide the links for you. If you're interested I'll PM you the links later.

[poisondeathray]

If you wanna overclock the processor buy a aftermarket heatsink fan.

I stopped overclocking my Q6600 on the Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P cause the computer kept crashing and resetting it to 1.8Ghz so I set it to stock 2.4Ghz and haven't had problems with it crashing since. I think it's the G.Skill memory because the icons in my folders take a while to show up when I open them and when I close a folder then all the icons on my desktop refresh. Not sure what else would cause this.

Run Memtest64+ to check your memory

Check your CPU temps with RealTemp or CoreTemp

[poisondeathray]

My Q6600 idles at 1.6Ghz but when encoding a file it jumps to 2.4Ghz.

The multiplier changes from x6.0 to x9.0

You have left SpeedStep enabled (default). If you are satisfied with stock configuration that's fine, but if you overclock it, most people disable Speedstep, CPU TM, C1E - it tends to be more stable