Homuch of a performance increase going from dual to quad cpu?

Printable View

01-03-2009, 04:54 PM
Clovis

Homuch of a performance increase going from dual to quad cpu?

So I'm currently running an intel E6850 Dual core @ 3.00ghz, 8gigs of ram, 64bit vista and a Geforce 8600 GTS running 5 copies on WOW on dual monitors.

I upgraded the ram from 4 gigbs to 8 and saw some improvement but someone had suggested the dual core cpu may be a bottle neck.

I can keep my motherboard (which supports both 65 and 45 specs) and upgrade just the CPU to a Quad Q9400 @ 2.66ghz - http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...IN#detailspecs

So a lower speed but 4 instead of 2; what kind of performance boost do you think I'll see? A minor or a major improvement?

Thanks,

-Clov
01-03-2009, 05:32 PM
turbonapkin

The move to quad core will give you the ability to handle much higher total load for all of your clients if you spread the processes out across all four cores. You will notice a marked improvement in high load situations such as cities, battlegrounds and raids.
01-03-2009, 06:24 PM
spannah

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...
01-05-2009, 03:48 PM
king.pa

I switched from a E6600 @ 3Ghz (OC) to a Q9550 @ 2,83 Ghz (stock) and it was a giant slap on my face .... then I OC'ed up to 4 Ghz (471 x 8,5 on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P ) and It was the same huge slap again ...
then I builded a Raid0 array and again .. another f...g slap on my face .. it hurt .. but this is gooood

Edit : acording to this, you can expect 3,4 Ghz @ 400 Mhz FSB with the Q9400 ...
01-05-2009, 03:48 PM
king.pa

edit : rrrr no way to erase double posts... the delete button is non functionnal
01-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Bovidae

I love the burger flipper analogy, it's too accurate.

But roughly; dual core X 3.0 = 6 ghz of processor power. Quadcore (even a stock Q6600) is 2.4x4=9.6ghz. You can see the potential to get more burgers made.
01-05-2009, 11:39 PM
wowphreak

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'spannah',index.php?page=Thread&postID=163606#post 163606

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...

But If if they only ordered 5 burgers it aint gonna make a difference :P
But if the guy making the patties cutting the tomatoes/lettuce can only make enough for 4 a minute...

the way to check whether or not yer cpu is the bottle neck is to check the task manager if both cores are pegged constantly then yes.
01-07-2009, 01:02 AM
Sajuuk

You forget they slice the tomatoes and lettuce in the morning before making the hamburgers.

(I work at Wendy's. I flip the burgers. Rawr!)
01-07-2009, 02:21 PM
Hor

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'spannah',index.php?page=Thread&postID=163606#post 163606

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
01-07-2009, 02:35 PM
Owltoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by king.pa',index.php?page=Thread&postID=164104#post1 64104]I switched from a E6600 @ 3Ghz (OC) to a Q9550 @ 2,83 Ghz (stock) and it was a giant slap on my face .... then I OC'ed up to 4 Ghz ([url='http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=205132

471 x 8,5 on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P[/url] ) and It was the same huge slap again ...
then I builded a Raid0 array and again .. another f...g slap on my face .. it hurt .. but this is gooood

Edit : acording to this, you can expect 3,4 Ghz @ 400 Mhz FSB with the Q9400 ...

I'm not sure the context you're using giant slap in your face. Was it good? Was it an upgrade? Or was is a slap in your face as in money wasted and not the performance you'd expect? Very confusing...
01-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Talamarr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Owltoid',index.php?page=Thread&postID=164906#post1 64906][quote='king.pa',index.php?page=Thread&postID=16410 4#post164104]I switched from a E6600 @ 3Ghz (OC) to a Q9550 @ 2,83 Ghz (stock) and it was a giant slap on my face .... then I OC'ed up to 4 Ghz ([url='http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=205132

471 x 8,5 on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P[/url] ) and It was the same huge slap again ...
then I builded a Raid0 array and again .. another f...g slap on my face .. it hurt .. but this is gooood

Edit : acording to this, you can expect 3,4 Ghz @ 400 Mhz FSB with the Q9400 ...

I'm not sure the context you're using giant slap in your face. Was it good? Was it an upgrade? Or was is a slap in your face as in money wasted and not the performance you'd expect? Very confusing...[/quote]

HAHA glad I wasn't the only one confused. Is this a good slap, like what pimps do or you just got caught cheating slap?
01-07-2009, 06:33 PM
oogally

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=164897#post1648 97

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Steve Martin phony French accent: "I wood liek too buy e ambeurgeur!!!"
01-07-2009, 06:54 PM
Terraelf

I had a fast dual core to begin with. I went to same speed quad core. It didn't make a lick of difference. Before I made the change, I was at 90% utilization on both of my processors. Now I am at 45-50% on all four processors. The big difference for me was when I went from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB, which included an upgrade to 64 bit Vista. I did this because I was consistently staying topped at 100% RAM utilization. Now I am running at peak at 60% RAM utilization.

So basically... the answer to the question of would a faster CPU help me is the same as asking is your CPU staying pegged at 100% utilization at all times?
The answer to the question of would more memory help me is the same as are you consistently using 90% or more RAM at all times with regularly hitting 100%?
The answer to the question of would a better video card help me is are you getting frame rates of 60 in all your sessions? If yes, then no new card. If no, then yes a new card would be better, but the gain may be minimal depending upon the specifics.
01-07-2009, 07:20 PM
elsegundo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Terraelf',index.php?page=Thread&postID=164998#pos t164998

I had a fast dual core to begin with. I went to same speed quad core. It didn't make a lick of difference. Before I made the change, I was at 90% utilization on both of my processors. Now I am at 45-50% on all four processors. The big difference for me was when I went from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB, which included an upgrade to 64 bit Vista. I did this because I was consistently staying topped at 100% RAM utilization. Now I am running at peak at 60% RAM utilization.

So basically... the answer to the question of would a faster CPU help me is the same as asking is your CPU staying pegged at 100% utilization at all times?
The answer to the question of would more memory help me is the same as are you consistently using 90% or more RAM at all times with regularly hitting 100%?
The answer to the question of would a better video card help me is are you getting frame rates of 60 in all your sessions? If yes, then no new card. If no, then yes a new card would be better, but the gain may be minimal depending upon the specifics.

you went dual core to quad core first, then upgraded ram from 4gigs to 8.

the OP has already gone 4 gigs to 8gigs. its a little different. this tells me he doesnt have a Memory bottleneck as much as he does a CPU bottleneck. of course, adding ram to your system would have made vista running on a quad core much faster. but that's your system, with a different bottleneck, if you will.
01-07-2009, 09:02 PM
JasonB87

For me going from dual core with 2 gigs to quad core with 8 gigs, I saw a huge improvement in performance. Now I can't really attribute what upgrade caused the performance increase but my clients load faster now and I experienced about a 10fps increase. Only bottle neck right now is my graphics and hard drive.
01-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Terraelf

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'elsegundo',index.php?page=Thread&postID=165002#po st165002

you went dual core to quad core first, then upgraded ram from 4gigs to 8.

the OP has already gone 4 gigs to 8gigs. its a little different. this tells me he doesnt have a Memory bottleneck as much as he does a CPU bottleneck. of course, adding ram to your system would have made vista running on a quad core much faster. but that's your system, with a different bottleneck, if you will.

Actually I went to 8 GB before I went to Quad Core. I know my original post doesn't make that clear. My point is that to know if a CPU upgrade will help, you need to know if you're pegging your CPU when you're at peak utilization. If you're not, then a CPU upgrade won't help. In order to know this, you have to be able to see your CPU utilization while playing. I use my gaming keyboard (http://techgasm.files.wordpress.com/...board-2007.jpg) to tell me that. Memory upgrade helps if you are maxing your memory utilization or if the system is having to go to the hard drive for virtual memory (If you have hard drive seeks for it going to the page file, absolutely upgrade RAM). I'm trying to arm whoever reads the thread with how to determine whether a particular type of upgrade will help and that was the point of my post above. You seem to be making an assumption based upon information not given when you saw he has a processor bottleneck.
01-15-2009, 11:17 AM
Noodlez

Hi!
I run a E8550 Duo Core 3.16 Ghz (oc'd to 3.33)
9800 GTX (oc'd)
A GigabyteGA-EP45-UDP3P Mobo
4G or Ram
XP pro 64-bit
I'm thinking of going to 8G ram, as my CPUs generally run 45-75%...of course I haven't yet been to Shatt or Dalaran M-boxing (just started)
I do want to dual-monitor, though.

How does SLI affect m-boxing?
01-15-2009, 01:30 PM
ciscokid454

you could just go with an I7 and 12gb of ram, and not need any upgrade for a very long time....
.02
01-15-2009, 02:19 PM
-silencer-

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'ciscokid454',index.php?page=Thread&postID=167417# post167417

you could just go with an I7 and 12gb of ram, and not need any upgrade for a very long time....
.02

Q9550 = $250-ish?

i7 920 + new 1366 motherboard + 12GB DDR3 memory = $900-ish minimum.

You're not getting 3-4x the performance from a i7 920 over a Q9550 (or better yet, a less expensive Q6600), so if he's already got the 45nm motherboard & 8GB of ram, why should he throw so much money at a problem that could be fixed just by moving from 2 to 4 cores?
01-15-2009, 03:37 PM
Terraelf

Quote:

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=167442#post167442

...why should he throw so much money at a problem that could be fixed just by moving from 2 to 4 cores?

Except I'm not seeing a processor problem.. he says 45-75% processor utilization. I anticipate moving to more RAM will be needed. How many sessions do you run? I'm betting since you said you have 4 GB of ram, you're prolly capping it so a RAM upgrade will probably help a lot.

As for the questions asked about SLI, if you're using more than one monitor and multiple sessions on the same computer, SLI probably won't be for you.