Depends what the bottleneck is. If it's something that's using a lot of CPU cycles and is multithreaded (meaning the software is written to it can take advantage of multiple cores) then it should be great. But if you're doing something like video editing and working with massive file sizes then you also have to consider your I/O bandwidth.
Doesn't matter how beefy your CPU is or how many you have if they are waiting for you to load a couple TBs from a remote disk. --------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundtion.org> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Steve Tomporowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > That's actually a good reason for going quad is to be able to get a > lot running at the same time and still be snappy. Which brings to > mind what a quad core would do for my music production. Generally you > get limited in the number of software synths running. If you were > running a VST host like Cubase, would the extra cores allow you to > load up on the synths? Interesting question. > > Steve > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > You're right, for the most part nothing common really uses quad cores. > > Supreme Commander is the only game I've played recently that does that I > can > > think of. > > > > I went with quad because at the time it was essentially the same price as > > the dual core and I multitask a lot with some heavy duty programs. I'm > > happy. > > > > --------------------------- > > Brian Weeden > > Technical Consultant > > Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundtion.org> > > +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada > > +1 (202) 683-8534 US > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Steve Tomporowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > >> Thanks guys for a couple of configurations to look at. My previous > >> upgrade to a different computer I went with a 6850 over the Q6600, > >> mainly because not much runs on Quad. With normal gaming (UT3) what > >> would I expect from Quad? Anything? > >> > >> Also, are Nvidia chipsets that bad now? > >> > >> I know the processor/board of choice these days is Intel, does > >> anything AMD offer worth anything? > >> > >> Thanks...Steve > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > I upgraded a couple months ago to a Q6600 and an Abit IX38 Quad GT > mobo > >> and > >> > I'm very happy. I had the whole struggle between quad and dual core > and > >> > opted for the quad. The motheboard is one of the most stable ones I > have > >> > ever had. > >> > > >> > Unlike the two 780G mobos I've had in my HTPC, both of which have been > >> > giving me nothing but problems. > >> > > >> > --------- > >> > Brian > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM, James Boswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> E8500 > >> >> Asus P5Q mainboard > >> >> 4GB of DDR2-800 > >> >> > >> >> That should just about cover it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:21, Steve Tomporowski wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I am looking to upgrade the processor/motherboard on my 'oldest' > >> >>> system. It's a Neo 4 Platinum with an Athlon X2 3800+. I'm not > >> >>> looking for the bleeding edge, but for something that'll give me a > >> >>> substantial increase in speed for games. I've got an Nvidia 280 > right > >> >>> now, so that's set. > >> >>> > >> >>> What's hot now? > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks....Steve > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
