Quad core or Dual core for the long-run?

[karmasalad]

I'm debating whether the added expense and heat output of a Q6600 Quad Core would be worth it over an E6750 Dual Core.

I'm a web developer, and during peak times, I tend to have open all of the following at the same time:

- Photoshop
- Fireworks
- Dreamweaver
- Firefox, IE7, IE6, Safari, Opera

Photoshop is likely the most processor intensive application that I use. I don't game. I do some video encoding every now and then but not that often. I also occasionally run PHP/mySQL servers on my machine for dev work.

I would like this PC to last for at least three years. I'm currently using a 4 year old P4 Northwood that tends to bog down during peak usage.

Over the course of the system's lifespan, would I benefit from getting a Quad core over a Dual core?

[bonestonne]

well, most apps can't even touch 4 cores. while Photoshop does support multi-processor computers, i'm not sure if it'll use as many as 4.

on my computer, i have CS2 [not yet CS3, and i'm debating if i even need it] and i have to say, CS2 runs pretty well on a dual core, it sure beats my old P4 1.4Ghz. its hard to say if you'll really want a Q6600 right now, because penryn will be out jan/feb with much more powerful quads than are out now.

i'd suggest a dual core, and you're really running stuff that intensely, a E6850, might be better, while an E6750 is pretty fast as is. at least 2gb of RAM, as less would just be starving that system. specifically for Dreamweaver, 3-4GB would be optimal.

my sister has a P4 Northwood 2.5ghz processor, and its pretty good, but she doesn't game with it yet, so i can't say much about peak usage with it.

most apps barely use 2 cores, so i think a quad is just for personal satisfaction right now, but there are exceptions, Nick for example benefits from a quad, but i don't see it being much of a help here. the PHP/mySQL is a deciding factor though, a quad would help that.

its pretty much down to preference and how much you're really going to put it under load. an E6750 would have the faster bus, at the same time, a quad has two more cores.

[nick705]

I was very sceptical about the real-world advantages of quads at first, but I must admit I've changed my mind somewhat after messing around with them a bit. There are already a fair few apps that can take advantage of them, and obviously there will be more and more as time goes on. Video encoding is a no-brainer, Photoshop (when running complex filters) to a lesser extent, but the benefits pop up in surprising places - for example, I was replaygaining a bunch of FLAC lossless audio files using the latest build of foobar2000, and after setting the thread priority to 1, it maxed out all four cores, decoding the files at around 600x (!) realtime. Maybe not something most people do very often, but it shows the general way things are going.

If you're planning on keeping the system for three years or more, I'm pretty sure those extra cores will end up being more valuable than, say, a 25% higher clock/bus speed (assuming you choose to leave it at stock).

The heat problems are largely overstated IMHO - even the current top-end AMD duals have a higher TDP than a G0 Q6600, and if you've got decent general airflow it's really nothing to worry about. Obviously an efficient heatsink will earn its keep if you work the CPU hard and want to keep fan noise down, but that goes for pretty much any situation.

As for the higher price, well, it's not really a significant amount in the context of a system as a whole, especially one designed to last several years, and for a highly-paid web developer it would be a small drop in the ocean. You can always write it off against tax anyway...

[karmasalad]

Will a quad core CPU allow me to multitask more effectively without bogging the system down?

Say, for instance, I want to encode a video in the background and work in Photoshop/Dreamweaver at the same time. Would a quad core provide me with noticeably better responsiveness?

Pure performance isn't necessarily my goal. I'm looking for the best value. I've always targeted CPU purchases at < $200 because I consider that to be the sweet spot. However, if the Q6600 will allow me to multitask more effectively and provide me with a longer-lasting system, then I can justify its 40% cost increase over the E6750.

I've no interest in waiting for Penryn. It will take awhile for them to reach affordable prices, and there's always better stuff around the corner. I need a new system now because my current one just isn't cutting it for work anymore. Plus, I think component prices today are fantastic.

[merlin]

With the 3 year goal and your running multiple applications, it's clear, quad. Dual would make sense on a 1-1.5 year timespan. Quad is really not that pricey and it's worth the extra $100 in this case.

[nick705]

Will a quad core CPU allow me to multitask more effectively without bogging the system down?

Say, for instance, I want to encode a video in the background and work in Photoshop/Dreamweaver at the same time. Would a quad core provide me with noticeably better responsiveness?

I would think so - there's a (rare) multitasking test here which might be interesting. They're using a QX6850 as opposed to a Q6600, but a slightly lower clock speed wouldn't have altered the outcome much (and if you feel the need, OCing a Q6600 to 3GHz is simple on a P35 board in any case).

I've no interest in waiting for Penryn. It will take awhile for them to reach affordable prices, and there's always better stuff around the corner. I need a new system now because my current one just isn't cutting it for work anymore. Plus, I think component prices today are fantastic.

Yes, they are - regardless of Penryn, if you need a PC right now, the Q6600 is phenomenal bang for the buck (so is the E6750 for that matter).

[smilingcrow]

Will a quad core CPU allow me to multitask more effectively without bogging the system down?
Say, for instance, I want to encode a video in the background and work in Photoshop/Dreamweaver at the same time. Would a quad core provide me with noticeably better responsiveness?

Yes. You can assign two or three cores to the video decoding and the rest will be free for Photoshop. Or set the decoder to the lowest thread priority and allow it to have all 4 cores.

Get the best of both worlds and run a Q6600 at 3GHz. I tried this recently and whilst encoding H.264 video the cores hit 38C over ambient using a silent cooling setup; Ninja + 120mm fan at 600 RPM in a P182 with a Nexus case fan at ~550 RPM.

[BillyBuerger]

Will a quad core CPU allow me to multitask more effectively without bogging the system down?

Well, i can encode videos on my Sempron 2600+ without bogging my system down. Just set the thread priority to lowest or idle even. That way even with only one core, I can still do other stuff and only free cycles will get used for encoding. Obviously, it doesn't encode very fast. But there isn't any reason why any processing task should take over your entire computer as long as it sets it's priority appropriately or you do it manually.

The question is just how fast do you want it to be able to encode while you do other things.