Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-CoreQ6600

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware' started by Matt, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    interesting problem:

    - Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)

    - Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)

    Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
    correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
    mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:

    "A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
    double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
    the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
    loss
    of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
    memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
    many cores and threads)."

    Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
    fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
    quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?

    Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    there's a clear consensus about which to buy!

    Kind Regards,

    Matt
     
    Matt, Jan 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    In article <>,
    Matt <> wrote:
    >Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    >interesting problem:
    >
    >- Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    >- Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    >Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
    >correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    >completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
    >mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
    >
    >"A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
    >double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
    >the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
    >loss
    >of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
    >memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
    >many cores and threads)."
    >
    >Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
    >fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
    >quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
    >
    >Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    >there's a clear consensus about which to buy!


    I had the same decision to make, and I went with the Q6600. At the very
    least Crysis detects and uses the 4 cores. SetiBOINC also runs very nicely
    using 4 cores.

    Regards, Patrick.
     
    Patrick Vervoorn, Jan 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Matt

    John Weiss Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "Matt" <> wrote...
    > Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an

    interesting problem:

    - Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)

    - Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)


    Right now it's a coin toss, and depends a lot on your personal usage.

    As Patrick pointed out, if you join any of the distributed computing projects,
    the quad wins, because they have SMP clients that will fully use all 4 cores.
    Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu) is my favorite DC project, but there
    are a couple other worthy ones out there.

    For single-threaded apps, though, the higher clock speed of the 6850 wins. Once
    you offload background apps like antivirus, firewall, etc to another core, your
    foreground app can take full advantage of the clock speed of the remaining core.

    If you're a gamer, more of them are coming out that are multi-threaded, but I
    don't know how many of them will take advantage of more than 2 cores.

    I went for the 6850. If I decide a quad will work better in the future, when
    the clock speed is up and the price down, I can upgrade with a simple CPU swap.
     
    John Weiss, Jan 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Matt

    Brian Cryer Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    >interesting problem:
    >
    >- Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    >- Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    >Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
    >correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    >completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
    >mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
    >
    >"A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
    >double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
    >the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
    >loss
    >of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
    >memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
    >many cores and threads)."
    >
    >Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
    >fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
    >quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
    >
    >Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    >there's a clear consensus about which to buy!


    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html seems to provide an
    interesting view on this - just one that stood out when I did a google just
    now.

    Most of the time my pc (single core) is idle, and waiting for me to do
    something. I do run some cpu intensive applications where I'm left waiting
    for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest most
    applications can't even take advantage of dual core. Its only those
    applications that are inherently multi-threaded (or which can be made so)
    like databases, webservers, some games, that will be able to truly take
    advantage of the move from two to four cores. Whilst the number of
    applications that will be able to make use of multiple cores will inevitably
    increase, is it something that you need?

    Despite all this, my plans are for my next pc to be quad core, and given the
    choice that's what I'd go for even if the clock speed is slower. Whatever
    you do be sure to chock it full of as much RAM as you can, ie 4GB if you are
    using a 32bit OS.

    Hope this is useful.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Jan 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Matt

    Paul Guest

    Matt wrote:
    > Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
    > interesting problem:
    >
    > - Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    > - Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    > Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
    > correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
    > completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
    > mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
    >
    > "A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
    > double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
    > the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
    > loss
    > of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
    > memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
    > many cores and threads)."
    >
    > Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
    > fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
    > quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
    >
    > Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
    > there's a clear consensus about which to buy!
    >
    > Kind Regards,
    >
    > Matt


    Is the decision easier to make, if you overclock the Q6600 to 3GHz ?
    The G0 stepping seems to overclock pretty well.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jan 3, 2008
    #5
  6. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs.Quad-Core Q6600

    > All depends on what you're doing, I suspect. I'd take the dual core
    > because most of what I do isn't cpu intensive.
    >


    Thanks for the replies guys.

    Most of what I do is work or play games on my PC, so there are times
    when it is idle. The thing is I'm upgrading because I want my PC to
    perform well at the times when it isn't idle.

    I'm also thinking about the future. Four or five years ago when I
    bought my XP2000+ CPU it could cope with anything I threw at it, but
    now it even struggles when I'm multi-tasking with lots of web browser
    tabs, e-mail client etc. running. So getting a CPU that will perform
    well now just now, but in the future is paramount.

    Multithreaded applications may be scarce at the moment, but in say 2
    years time won't every single application I use be ulitising every
    available core my CPU has?

    Kind Regards,

    Matt
     
    Matt, Jan 3, 2008
    #6
  7. Matt

    John Weiss Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "Matt" <> wrote...
    >
    > Multithreaded applications may be scarce at the moment, but in say 2
    > years time won't every single application I use be ulitising every
    > available core my CPU has?


    Are you going to spend the $$ to upgrade all the software to the multithreaded
    versions?

    Will you still be using the same machine in 2 years? Will there be a Q6800 at 3
    or 3.4 GHz available?

    Since the price is the same, decide on what will be more useful to you NOW and
    in the near future.
     
    John Weiss, Jan 3, 2008
    #7
  8. Matt

    Gypsy Baron Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
    -SNIP-
    > I had the same decision to make, and I went with the Q6600. At the very
    > least Crysis detects and uses the 4 cores. SetiBOINC also runs very nicely
    > using 4 cores.
    >
    > Regards, Patrick.



    I have a Q6600 G0 stepping and it easily overclocks to >3,0 GHZ.
    Mine is set at 3.25GHZ now and is limited by my memory\FSB frequency
    I believe. At 3.25 Ghz it is stable and temperatures never get
    anywhere near the upper limits.

    Paul
     
    Gypsy Baron, Jan 3, 2008
    #8
  9. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs.Quad-Core Q6600

    > Are you going to spend the $$ to upgrade all the software to the multithreaded
    > versions?


    Given I can get software on student licences, in all likelihood yes
    whe my budget allows.

    > Will you still be using the same machine in 2 years?


    Definitely.

    > Will there be a Q6800 at 3 or 3.4 GHz available?


    Good point, but that will require further expense.

    > Since the price is the same, decide on what will be more useful to you NOW and
    > in the near future.


    Now is clearly the E6850, as I'm not keen on overclocking due to the
    noise consequences of having loads of massive fans around my case;
    even though the Q6600 has the potential to reach 3GHz itself. It just
    depends how quickly multi-threaded applications (and will all multi-
    threaded support quad as well as dual core, or will that come later?)
    are introduced.

    Kind Regards,

    Matt
     
    Matt, Jan 3, 2008
    #9
  10. Matt

    kony Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:21:57 -0800, "John Weiss"
    <> wrote:

    >"Matt" <> wrote...
    >> Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an

    >interesting problem:
    >
    >- Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    >- Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    >
    >Right now it's a coin toss, and depends a lot on your personal usage.
    >
    >As Patrick pointed out, if you join any of the distributed computing projects,
    >the quad wins, because they have SMP clients that will fully use all 4 cores.
    >Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu) is my favorite DC project, but there
    >are a couple other worthy ones out there.
    >
    >For single-threaded apps, though, the higher clock speed of the 6850 wins. Once
    >you offload background apps like antivirus, firewall, etc to another core, your
    >foreground app can take full advantage of the clock speed of the remaining core.


    Even a single core clocked at 3GHz would beat the quad at
    2.4GHz, as antivirus, firewall and most "etc" things only
    use a percent or two of processing time, even less when
    running at lower priority in parallel with the forground
    app.


    >
    >If you're a gamer, more of them are coming out that are multi-threaded, but I
    >don't know how many of them will take advantage of more than 2 cores.


    Only now are a few taking good advantage of 2 cores. On
    average a single core at 3GHz is faster than a quad at
    2.4GHz... we can certainly find examples of games that _do_
    take advantage of 2 cores, seldom more, but these are
    noteworthy in being exceptions rather than the rule.
    Looking forward it depends on how long one were to game with
    the same system, keeping in mind that after a certain point
    the system is relatively slow compared to (then) modern
    systems and might need upgraded again for best benefit.


    >
    >I went for the 6850. If I decide a quad will work better in the future, when
    >the clock speed is up and the price down, I can upgrade with a simple CPU swap.
    >


    It was a better choice... keeping in mind the mitigating
    factor if one is an overclocker, that they might be able to
    o'c the quad more significantly (I mean higher % since it
    starts at lower speed), except that significant overclocking
    of quad cores, IF one is making use of them for demanding
    processing, creates quite a power and thermal load the
    system PSU and cooling have to deal with, as well as the
    heatsink noise. I remember a few years ago it seemed
    (kids?) were willing to have systems that sounded like
    hair-dryers just to get high overclock but today reducing
    noise seems the status quo even among overclockers.
     
    kony, Jan 3, 2008
    #10
  11. Matt

    JLC Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "John Weiss" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Matt" <> wrote...
    >> Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an

    > interesting problem:
    >
    > - Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
    >
    > - Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
    >
    >
    > Right now it's a coin toss, and depends a lot on your personal usage.
    >
    > As Patrick pointed out, if you join any of the distributed computing
    > projects, the quad wins, because they have SMP clients that will fully use
    > all 4 cores. Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu) is my favorite DC
    > project, but there are a couple other worthy ones out there.
    >
    > For single-threaded apps, though, the higher clock speed of the 6850 wins.
    > Once you offload background apps like antivirus, firewall, etc to another
    > core, your foreground app can take full advantage of the clock speed of
    > the remaining core.
    >
    > If you're a gamer, more of them are coming out that are multi-threaded,
    > but I don't know how many of them will take advantage of more than 2
    > cores.
    >
    > I went for the 6850. If I decide a quad will work better in the future,
    > when the clock speed is up and the price down, I can upgrade with a simple
    > CPU swap.
    >

    I also installed a E6850 last month. I had a E6600 and just wanted to have a
    3GHz set of chips without having to overclock. It's true that when running
    synthetic benchmarks and some hard core real world apps the quad cores score
    higher. But for gaming (which is pretty much what I do with my PC) There's
    still not that many games that make good use of two cores let alone 4. As
    for all the guys I've heard talking about how Crysis makes use of a quad
    IMOH I think that they're
    misinformed. It's true that at some point in the games development Crytex
    said it was going to optimized the game for quad cores, but I also read that
    this was dropped in the end. When I bought my CPU I was trying to get the
    best GPU&CPU combo for Crysis (and other new games as well!) and I found
    this http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html to be very
    interesting. As you can clearly see the game is much more dependent on the
    GPU then the CPU. For me going from the 2.4GHz to 3Ghz in Crysis did
    nothing. I ran the in game BM and got the exact same score. 41FPS avg with
    all settings set to High no AA and 8xAF with V sync on. If I turned V sync
    off I got the same score.
    My GPU is a XFX 8800GT XXX which comes with it's core clocked at 670 and the
    shaders clocked a little higher then standard.
    I do enjoy my E6850. I do notice that apps run faster, but as far as gaming
    goes the load times are about the only thing I really notice being faster.
    But Like I said I just wanted to have a 3GHz CPU!
    JLC
     
    JLC, Jan 4, 2008
    #11
  12. Matt

    Bob Fry Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    >>>>> "M" == Matt <> writes:

    M> Will all applications for Windows eventually become
    M> multi-threaded and fully utilise a quad core setup?

    Sure. About the time Windows itself becomes stable and bug-free.

    What sort of apps are you running? At the moment, off-hand I think
    only very specialized parallelized, shared-memory numerical apps will
    truly take advantage of multiple cores. Or if you are running several
    apps at a time that use cpu then multiple cores will help. Otherwise
    I'd go for the faster clock rate.
    --
    The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out
    and does not cry it out, is not a patriot, but a traitor.
    ~ Mark Twain
     
    Bob Fry, Jan 4, 2008
    #12
  13. Matt

    Guest Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "JLC" <jc@nospam> wrote in message news:blush:...
    > this was dropped in the end. When I bought my CPU I was trying to get the
    > best GPU&CPU combo for Crysis (and other new games as well!) and I found
    > this http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html to be very
    > interesting. As you can clearly see the game is much more dependent on the
    > GPU then the CPU.


    Gamespot's review is astonishingly inadequate. All we know is,
    many current generation cpus/video cards are enough to run
    Crysis at 1024x768 Medium quality, but no combo is enough
    to run it at 1600x1200 High quality.

    How about 1024x768 High? Very High? Or 1280x1024,
    which is the standard/native resolution many, many gamers
    run at? We just aren't told by Gamespot's review. STUPID!
     
    Guest, Jan 4, 2008
    #13
  14. Matt

    Guest Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    <> wrote in message news:O3ffj.2906$...
    > Gamespot's review is astonishingly inadequate. All we know is,
    > many current generation cpus/video cards are enough to run
    > Crysis at 1024x768 Medium quality, but no combo is enough
    > to run it at 1600x1200 High quality.
    >
    > How about 1024x768 High? Very High? Or 1280x1024,
    > which is the standard/native resolution many, many gamers
    > run at? We just aren't told by Gamespot's review. STUPID!


    Oh wait, never mind:

    http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html
     
    Guest, Jan 4, 2008
    #14
  15. Matt

    Ken Maltby Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "Bob Fry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>>> "M" == Matt <> writes:

    >
    > M> Will all applications for Windows eventually become
    > M> multi-threaded and fully utilise a quad core setup?
    >
    > Sure. About the time Windows itself becomes stable and bug-free.
    >
    > What sort of apps are you running? At the moment, off-hand I think
    > only very specialized parallelized, shared-memory numerical apps will
    > truly take advantage of multiple cores. Or if you are running several
    > apps at a time that use cpu then multiple cores will help. Otherwise
    > I'd go for the faster clock rate.
    > --
    > The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out
    > and does not cry it out, is not a patriot, but a traitor.
    > ~ Mark Twain


    One area that well often benefit from some form of
    distributed processing is, video processing. There
    are many who wouldn't think of creating a "render
    farm" but would be glad if they could have access
    to some of the benefits of such a setup. A Quad-
    core approach may just match the scale and needs
    of the home video Editor, at this time.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, Jan 4, 2008
    #15
  16. Matt

    Mr.E Solved! Guest

    wrote:
    > "JLC" <jc@nospam> wrote in message news:blush:...
    >> this was dropped in the end. When I bought my CPU I was trying to get the
    >> best GPU&CPU combo for Crysis (and other new games as well!) and I found
    >> this http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html to be very
    >> interesting. As you can clearly see the game is much more dependent on the
    >> GPU then the CPU.

    >
    > Gamespot's review is astonishingly inadequate. All we know is,
    > many current generation cpus/video cards are enough to run
    > Crysis at 1024x768 Medium quality, but no combo is enough
    > to run it at 1600x1200 High quality.
    >
    > How about 1024x768 High? Very High? Or 1280x1024,
    > which is the standard/native resolution many, many gamers
    > run at? We just aren't told by Gamespot's review. STUPID!
    >
    >


    Sadly, no rig yet runs Crysis at 1600x1200 with high IQ and sustained
    FPS that we have come to expect.

    But we still have reviews which hem and haw and measure low resolutions
    and minimal IQ settings, as if to try and trick us into thinking we are
    going to get a "next-gen" experience.

    FarCry ran well enough at low resolutions with the 6800GT it was bundled
    with, even better with the 7800GT that came out the year after, today
    you can run two copies of FarCry on a dual core, 8800GT PC simultaneously.

    So, we patiently wait on the next batch of hardware (which will likely
    be two 8800GTs on one board) to see if Crysis will be playable at
    1600x1200. Farcry was a exciting game and I'm sure Crysis (FarCry2) will
    be worth the wait.
     
    Mr.E Solved!, Jan 4, 2008
    #16
  17. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs.Quad-Core Q6600

    > What sort of apps are you running? At the moment, off-hand I think
    > only very specialized parallelized, shared-memory numerical apps will
    > truly take advantage of multiple cores. Or if you are running several
    > apps at a time that use cpu then multiple cores will help. Otherwise
    > I'd go for the faster clock rate.


    I'm definitely running several apps at once, which is what makes this
    decision tricky :(

    Kind Regards,

    Matt
     
    Matt, Jan 4, 2008
    #17
  18. Matt

    Bob Fry Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    >>>>> "M" == Matt <> writes:
    M> I'm definitely running several apps at once, which is what
    M> makes this decision tricky :(

    Only if your apps *use the cpu actively* (say 30% or greater). At the
    moment my machine has--let me check--76 processes, but I'm using only
    about 5-10% total cpu time (on a dual-core AMD).
    --
    A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but can't afford an air force.
    ~ William Blum
     
    Bob Fry, Jan 4, 2008
    #18
  19. Matt

    Bob Fry Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    >>>>> "KM" == Ken Maltby <> writes:

    KM> One area that well often benefit from some form of
    KM> distributed processing is, video processing.

    One form of distributed processing used for many years is--using a
    graphics card. For the home user, even video processing is better
    handled using a good graphics card. Graphics processors are simply
    very specialized vectorized processors, far more efficient than trying
    to do the same thing with a general purpose cpu.

    --
    "Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on
    it?"
    -Mark Twain
     
    Bob Fry, Jan 4, 2008
    #19
  20. Matt

    Ken Maltby Guest

    Re: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600

    "Bob Fry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>>> "KM" == Ken Maltby <> writes:

    >
    > KM> One area that well often benefit from some form of
    > KM> distributed processing is, video processing.
    >
    > One form of distributed processing used for many years is--using a
    > graphics card. For the home user, even video processing is better
    > handled using a good graphics card. Graphics processors are simply
    > very specialized vectorized processors, far more efficient than trying
    > to do the same thing with a general purpose cpu.
    >


    The video processing that I was referring to is not something
    accomplished by the GPU of the normal video card. Except
    for special hardware encoder cards ( Like Matrox's Real Time
    cards) used during the editing and encoding of video; the software
    editing programs rendering and encoding is done using the CPU or
    CPUs when more than one is available. The time this adds to the
    process of editing and authoring DVDs has always been a great
    aggravation, and improvements in this area are very sought after.
    The traditional approach, of those with the budget, has included
    creation of a render farm, made up of many computers linked
    together and all working on parts of the rendering or encoding
    of the video.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, Jan 4, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    847
  2. Goadude
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    483
    Rod Speed
    Nov 15, 2006
  3. tbone

    Intel Core 2 Duo vs Dual-Core Xeon; x64 OS

    tbone, Sep 13, 2007, in forum: Computer Hardware
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    262
  4. DevilsPGD

    Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad - Stock heatsink/fan

    DevilsPGD, Oct 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Hardware
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,539
  5. Brian Cryer

    Re: Quad/Dual Core Duo Questions

    Brian Cryer, Jan 21, 2008, in forum: Computer Hardware
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    155
    Alex Mizrahi
    Jan 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page