How does Q9000 and other quad core processors perform in this case compared to P9700

Hello everyone,

I would like to seek your opinion on the following situation. I will use my laptop along with 1 or 2 external monitors. Sometimes I would like to have a trading software such as mega trader on one monitor, watching movies, reading news or chatting and listen to music in other monitor as the same time. So I would like to know that under this circumstance, would a quad core with low clock such as Q9000 can outperform P9700?

I really appreciate if you could share some info with me.

Cheers,

 

I've been told on an other thread that on such tasks a quad core would outstand any dual core, no matter what frequency it has. But it might be wrong.

 

I don't think any of those programs utilize multi core or require much CPU power, hence it wouldn't really make a difference.

 

ok but since he uses a lot of different tasks, plus 2 screens, i thought that quad could perform better no?

 

None of those tasks are very CPU intensive. I listen to winamp, run MSN, skype, foxit (PDF), word, powerpoint, firefox w/ multiple windows most of the time and my relatively slow dual core can handle it no problem.

 

well you're right... now that i think about it i do all this... on a single 2.4 ghz core...XD but anyway bakc on his topic^^

 

So, could you guys give me an example of some intensive multitasks where a quad core processor such as Q9000 outperforms P9700?

 

Crysis, or running 4 eve onlines at the same time each on seperate cores, the duo core would most likely sieze up.

Q9000 is more futureproof i believe as well, more programs are looking into the multicore coding and so on, i know where i stand

But for your tasks, p9700 would do fine.

 

Can you actually have the option to give each core in the 4 cores to do separate thing manually? What I mean is, let say you have 4 cores: A, B, C, and D. Can you make core A to use solely for watching movies, core B only for chatting and surfing website, core C for listening to music, and core D for playing games? Sorry if this sounds dumb.

 

Yeah man sure

Eve on core 0 (10%)

Film on Core 2 (4%)

MSN on Core 3 (2%)

Video encoding (single thread) on core 4 (25%)

If you want, i wont guess any more but get you a proper preview

 

@catacylsm: Thanks for your answer. But I don't really get that. Sum all cores you listed, it ends up with only 41%? Where is the other 59%? Could you please provide more details?

 

Thats just it hehe, you only rarely use all the power of cores anyway for every day apps, so it idles nice and cool, if i was running say, 4 eve onlines for instance, that would make the cpu run.

I shall attempt to demonstrate, give me a sec.

***********Update**************



Here is a preview of what i am doing now

Core 1 is being used for OS activity on my laptop screen

Core 2 is installing MSN next to task manager which is monitoring

Core 3 is extracting 2.4gb of EVE online from a RAR archive

Core 4 is on my monitor to the right of me watching Terminator 3

The rest of the CPU usage is idle just waiting to be used really.

Below you can see how i assign apps to a CPU by using task manager to set the afinity, VLCplayer is currently set to Core 3 as i watch away The rest of the apps have finnished.



I hope this has helped you a bit.

 

@catacylsm: Thank you so much for helping me.

@all: if you have the P9700, could you please show me the breakdown of how much each core uses to handle tasks similar to what catacylsm does his breakdown. I really appreciate if you could help me.

 

I was already playing a DVD, so I set that to CPU 0. For a tougher test, I started Firefox and opened a high-def MLB baseball broadcast via mlb.tv (which uses Flash).

For the DVD, resource monitor shows avg CPU usage of 4-6% for Media Center (8-12% of one core). The flash video used 10% (20% of one core) with the window minimized. With the firefox window maximized, it showed 23% (46%) the moment I restored the resource monitor window.

Don't have anything to unRAR at the moment, so I can give you info for apples-apples comparison. Maybe you'll get some use of the info, anyway...

 

hi minhiub
all cpu are based on calculations and on the world holds what is faster is better
so cpu more calculations better appraise
so look here
there is that P9700 without any score dunno why
and those Q9xxx are on wrong positions so think that they are on top

 

Quad cores = power sucker = beurk !!!!

 

Combination of the table being too old / CPU being too new.

 

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your inputs. I am told very often that P9700 outperforms Q9000 but I could not find any source that has comparison between these two. So if you have one, could you please share with me?

 

What are you told the P9700 outperforms the Q9000 in?? Btw just look at P9600 reviews, the difference is miniscule btw them. But as I said before, for your tasks, get the cheapest CPU. You won't stress either of the CPUs, so both will perform the same in the tasks you are using it for.

 

Get Q9000. 16W heat diff from P9700 is worth it.

 

yes get the Q9000

 

I read it from xoticpc forum. From what I remember, they said that P9700 outperforms Q9000 in most of today's applications and games. That is why I am so confused.

 

Hi everyone,

Since there are many different opinions, I would like to have a poll to ask you which one would you pick between P97000 and Q9000 to use for this next and probably next year as well.

Thanks,

 

A little feature comparison.

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=40480,42599,

 

You can also compare the performance on the PASSMARK website.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

 

Thank you so much.

 

You already had a thread on this topic, so they are now merged. Multiple posting is not allowed per forum rules.

 

My only quibble with that page is that it only shows you the number of samples and mean result. I want to see the range.

My P9700 scored a 2545, which puts it higher than a T9900 or E8600 desktop CPU. So I'm not sure how accurate it really is. There has to be something else "contaminating" passmark's cpu bench. Maybe the experienced benchmarkers around here know the answer...

 

Something's not right. The T9900 is ranked 75, while a X9100 is ranked below it at 90? Hell, a P9700 at 81 is better than a Core 2 Extreme.

And moving over to video card benchmarks, the GTX 260m at 61 is ranked lower than a 8800m GT at place 60?

 

Thanks a lot. I did not know this, will not do it again.

 

Yes, it confused me even more after I read that link.

@all: please vote so that I could make my decision. Thanks so much in advance.

 

It sounds like more and more people choosing Q9000 as this moment. If you can, please vote!

 

More votes, please!

 

None of these tasks are very CPU intensive either. They're actually more memory intensive... especially with the memory leak I'm getting in Firefox 3.5(.1).

The benefits of a quad are of two kinds... minimally noticeable or REALLY noticeable.

In in minimal category: Games. As newer and newer games come out, more and more will move to multi-core (above dual). An old example is Supreme Commander, which at the time of it's release, allowed quad cores to beat many of the faster dual cores available at the time. Another game, in a different genre: GTAIV. Or at least, so I've heard that it supports multi-core. I say these are minimal, because the performance difference isn't usually "staggering" and that you'd need to actually compare it to a dual core side by side.

In the "really" noticeable category: Heavy duty multi-tasking. Have you tried to play Rainbow Six Vegas or Unreal Tournament 3 (both make use of more than two cores, due to Epic's UE3 engine), while watching a tv show? Add a video encoding while you're at it... and even some other miscellaneous tasks, like Bit-torrent. Of course to really accomplish that, you definitely need two monitors. In this case, you also have to have a sufficiently powerful GPU (8800 GTS was good enough in this desktop). Trying to play a recent game like those two and watching video on a dual isn't going to give you a good experience in either.

On a side note is a piece of advice: you NEVER want to hit 100% on ALL cores at the same time. The reason is simple, the computer will come to a crawl, and that's never pretty. Regardless of how many cores you have, which ever core the "system" is on, needs to stay below 95%, preferably below 90% (even if all the other cores are 100%). At 90%, the core with the system is still fairly quick... but it is starting to slow down. At about 95%, you will start to notice massive lag in just about anything, be it graphics or even mouse/keyboard lag (things happening seconds AFTER it should've). At 100% (assuming the "system" has no other core to rely on)... the whole computer will pause for longer periods of time... and if you have one or two crappy programs running, now would be the time for the computer to just crash.

Depending on the trading software(s) (if you have client side scripts to go with it, aka auto-trades and whatnot).. you might actually be better off with a quad. But if your trading software only consistent of it showing numbers and you clicking trade or not... it's kind of either way. You'll see a slight (VERY slight) benefit from quad just from simultaneous movies+winamp. But, seeing as the trading might be the most important "task"... you can set affinities (that's how to limit tasks to specific cores), basically, set the trading software to one core ALL by itself (just like how catacylsm had it listed). Because you don't want ANYTHING to lag the trading software at all (where a split second could potentially make or break you in day trading). But, if the trading software is relatively simple, you can use a dual core (one for trade, one for everything else)... but if the trading software is more complex, if it uses multiple threads, go quad. But, the difficulty is finding which threads handle stock retrieval/display and the sending of trade attempts. Because you want to minimize the potential CPU lag on those threads (isolate them to one core, each if necessary).

 

Thanks for your inputs. Based on what you said above, the quad-core has a better change to maintain all the core below 90%, which in the long run will be better, right?

Also, based on what you said about games and other applications, the quad-core even with the low clock seems like the way to go for now, since more and more applications support quad core and the fact that I will likely run multi-tasks on my laptop. So, I would like to know your opinion on this, which one will you choose?

 

Quad core.

 

Faster dual core will outperform the normal tasks than a slower quad core.

 

No, you won't notice a difference in normal tasks because neither CPU will be stressed enough.

 

Have you seen this site? Looks like the highest rated Core 2 Duo at 3.06 GHZ comes in at 78th place while the Q9000 quad comes in at 59. This site also has video, system and hard drive charts.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

The site was already mentioned but there was no discussion for it yet. It made me so confused. However, the sample for P9700 was really limited compared with that of Q9000. Still, not sure if this is true.

 

I mentioned it before -- in another thread, I think. Take that site with a large grain of salt. My P9700 benched 2545. Is it faster than a T9900? I rather doubt it.

 

I think one of the reason is that they use very few samples to test duo core processors such as P9700 and T9900 while for Q9000 they tested with so many samples. However, it is just my 2 cents. If someone has any experience with the size above or know about the process they use to test each processor on their list, please comment.

 

Well, unless you decide to be like me... I once ran a few too many instances of video encoding trying to compress all the TV shows I had recorded that week (but didn't work on them until my hdd filled up). You're not likely to max out all the cores anyway. But yes, a quad has less chance to max out compared to a dual core.

In terms of performance in games and other apps, it really depends on if the programs are properly setup for single, dual or multi-core. A single threaded app will show a small/decent improvement in a dual core system, simply because it can use one core all for itself, while the system and everything else can use the other core, unless the single core is significantly faster than the dual core. That same single threaded app will only get a smaller, if not tiny benefit from a quad (compared to a dual core). A program designed specifically for dual core will get similar advantages when moving to tri core, and again, minimal in quad (over tri core).

But if an app is setup as "multi-core"... meaning it is dynamic, and will take up as many as it needs... it will benefit from "the more, the merrier" number of cores.

While it's true that the dual cores are faster at a given price range than a quad... a quad simply allows you to do more at a time. " Yes, you get 5 more frames per second playing that game on a dual core that's 200 MHz faster than my quad... but I'm playing the game and encoding a video too. "

The last desktop I built (Mar '07) actually started with a slow dual core (e4300), but the rest of the parts were "higher" in preparation for a faster quad... which, ironically, my nephew ended up winning at 2007 Comic-con (he stuck to his AMD system and donated the cpu to me, a QX6700). I had made my decision to go quad, but didn't have the money after blowing a chunk of my budget on a 8800 GTS (which was just before the prices came down!!! grr). I didn't expect to go quad that soon. I would've gone with a quad core at the time of my laptop purchase (Jan '09)... but the only options with quad cores were too expensive for my tastes. Now that the prices have come down a little, I'm looking and HOPING I can pop one into my G50Vt-A2.

My vote... quad.

 

My vote again

Quad > Dual in all aspects

anything that really needs a ton of cpu power is probably quad+ optimized while all those other tasks that are single/dual threaded dont need enough cpu power anyways for the faster dual to do any better than the slower quad.

 

I love how these people are throwing out rants about how the quad will be superior when you're playing games and encoding video at the same time.

I cannot possibly fathom anyone out there that has a single system (a notebook) that is honestly trying to professionally encode videos while playing a game. Encoding is something that most people would pause while they're gaming.

The OP doesn't seem to be doing anything that requires the processing power of either a p9700 or q9000.

Maybe I'm too old school, and still think that my coppermine pentium III and my AMD "t-bird" are adequate enough for what most people are doing these days.

 

Just because you don't do it doesn't mean others don't.

 

Can you tell me if 5 more frames difference are significant?

Also, based on 3DMark06 benchmarks' score, the Q9000 is 10,038 while the P9700 is 10,397. The difference is only 3%, can anyone please tell me whether this is a big difference at all?