when under the same task and condition, how faster quad-core will win over dual core?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMKS

I think that the quad-core is only beneficient (in SPI; in other, multi-threaded, aplications it is obvious that it is a lot faster), because SPI is running on 1st and 3rd core, so the cache is 2x4MB vs 2x[4MB/2] in C2D. There is no other reason, am I right? ;)

---

I think mostly, yes. Plus a small benefit from no need for background OS or system tray threads to interrupt. Windows may not be smart enough to consistently put the most demanding 2 threads on different dies though. Note the Super PI 1M difference is ~12%, but the Super PI 32M diff is only ~3%. Not very consistent. :hm:

Just a question, coolaler, are you using Windows XP or Win2k? I heard that Win XP can't handle more than 2 physical core, is that true?

No. XP handles up to 2 physical CPU chips (sockets); it doesn't care about the number of cores in them, or the number of dies embedded in each socketed chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdrifter

Just a question, coolaler, are you using Windows XP or Win2k? I heard that Win XP can't handle more than 2 physical core, is that true?

---

some test at WIN SEVER 2003
and tmpeg,3d06,superpime,chess,at the WIN XP SP2

Excellent comparison!
Your effort is muchly appreciated. :)

pretty cool side by side comparison, thanks coolaler :toast:

Great job coolaler!

You'll see benefit in good multithreaded apps. Windows, linux, osx are all heavily multithreaded. Vegas video, 3d studio and several other encoders scale well. Game's will become more and more multithreaded now that the capability to take advantage of them is available.

So is this single chip equivalent to a pair of woodcrests stuck together?

Great Test's Coolaler. Many Thx for the comparison. :toast:

Coolaler is on rampage! :D
Great work, exactly what I'd ask from a reviewer :)
Nicely done ( as always ).

P.S. We're you using the WinRAR v3.61 ?
Because it's the only version that supports SMP ( Multi-Processor )

11.PPT(11.5mb) Transfer to PDF(2.24mb) & SPI32M ran same time

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/C2D3.gif

start transfer
C2D@3.6Ghz

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/C2D1.gif

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/C2D2.gif

C2D@3.6Ghz 2m25S Transfer finish

C2Q@3.6Ghz

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/C2Q1.gif

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/C2Q2.gif

C2Q@3.6Ghz 2minutes Transfer finish
C2Q faster than C2D 35s
ps:me and shamino in the picture:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Coolaler is on rampage! :D
Great work, exactly what I'd ask from a reviewer :)
Nicely done ( as always ).

P.S. We're you using the WinRAR v3.61 ?
Because it's the only version that supports SMP ( Multi-Processor )

---

u r right:D
i mean 3.61:toast:

wow that's fkn sweet! i wish i had one... anyone wanna donate one? ;)

:eek: I never thought I'd see the day... a useful review on XS!

Very thorough and informative article, nice work Coolaler.:cool:

C2Q@3.6G
WINRARA3.4 (unsupport SMP)
342mb documents need 3m29s finish

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...2Q/C2QRAR2.gif

WINRARA3.61 (support SMP)
task manager show 83%

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR1.gif

342mb documents just need 1m44s finish,save 1m45s

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR2.gif

thx for these nice and detailed tests, these quad-core chips seem to be my next aim:D

c大这么早就起来做测试，真是辛苦了;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coolaler

C2Q@3.6G
WINRARA3.4 (unsupport SMP)
342mb documents need 3m29s finish

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...2Q/C2QRAR2.gif

WINRARA3.61 (support SMP)
task manager show 83%

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR1.gif

342mb documents just need 1m44s finish,save 1m45s

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR2.gif

---

C2D@3.6G
WINRARA3.61 (support SMP)
task manager show 95%

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR3.gif

342mb documents just need 2m11s finish,save 1m18s

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...VSC2Q/RAR4.gif

(WINRAR3.4)3m29s

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...2Q/C2QRAR2.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnergyStaR

thx for these nice and detailed tests, these quad-core chips seem to be my next aim:D

c大这么早就起来做测试，真是辛苦了;)

---

感謝:toast:

wow, so many pix.. nice thanx coolaler!

now where r the dudes that said quad-core not worth it :slapass:

Quote:

---

platform1
M/B ：ASUS P5B Deluxe
MEM ：G.SKILL 2GB Dual Channel
HDD ：Seagate 250g SATAII 16Mb Cache
VGA CARD ：winfast 6200TC
POWER: Zippy 600WG1
OS ：WIN SEVER 2003
CPU COOLER：Tower 120
CPU ：Intel Core 2 Duo Conroe E6600 S6 4mb cache

platform2
M/B ：ASUS P5B Deluxe
MEM ：ChannelG.SKILL 2GB + XTREEM 2GB Dual Dual Channel
HDD ：Seagate 250g SATAII 16Mb Cache
VGA CARD ：6600GT
POWER: Zippy 850WG1
OS ：WIN SEVER 2003
CPU COOLER：Tower 120
CPU ：Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 S7 ES 8mb cac

---

no offense, but wouldnt 2GB RAM for conroe vs 2GB RAM for kentsfield be a better comparison. such the the only difference between system the 2 is CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickH

Note the Super PI 1M difference is ~12%, but the Super PI 32M diff is only ~3%. Not very consistent. :hm:

---

This is exactly the difference between 2MB and 4MB cache. I can get ~14,5s @ 4GHz E6400. On E6600 @ 3,85GHz the score is ~13,1s.
In 16M (I don't know the scores in 32M) the difference is smaller.
Example (my E6400 vs E6600):
1M E6400 vs E6600, I have no chance at all ;).
16M E6400 vs E6600 (the same computer as above, now he has Crucial AE @ >1200 and he can get ~5m55s, but this was on GeIL), now the clock difference is more beneficient than larger cache.