Help: Build PC? Quad vs Dual Core?

[jwinslow]

The basic ballpark is:

Q6600 or high end Dual core
3 gig RAM
500g HD
Lightscribe (no blu ray needed)

+

24" LCD (Quality with accurate color reproduction)



1) Cost-wise, am I better building this myself, or ordering pre-made (obviously the LCD might have to be separate)?

Most of my current hardware is very outdated, and I'll need everything (including Vista) outside of a 500w PSU I could reuse if necessary. LCD, optical all need to be replaced.


2) What value will I get out of a quad-core processor as an avid photoshop user? Also, say I'm doing a batch process (some type of photo editing, rotating, etc)... would I see a benefit from a quad core in multitasking in photoshop or firefox at the same time?

And is the performance increase substantial enough to warrant the increased cost?


3) What kind of TV watching would I get out of this computer? It would merely be used as a backup. Would I be better off just running an HDMI or component output from the TV room right to an LCD monitor? I will have HDTV this fall.

That PC seems to have the specs I need, I'd just have to wait for their next $400 off sales (they had two later on in 2007).

 

[scott91575]

The basic ballpark is:

Q6600 or high end Dual core
3 gig RAM
500g HD
Lightscribe (no blu ray needed)

+

24" LCD (Quality with accurate color reproduction)



1) Cost-wise, am I better building this myself, or ordering pre-made (obviously the LCD might have to be separate)?

Most of my current hardware is very outdated, and I'll need everything (including Vista) outside of a 500w PSU I could reuse if necessary. LCD, optical all need to be replaced.


2) What value will I get out of a quad-core processor as an avid photoshop user? Also, say I'm doing a batch process (some type of photo editing, rotating, etc)... would I see a benefit from a quad core in multitasking in photoshop or firefox at the same time?

And is the performance increase substantial enough to warrant the increased cost?


3) What kind of TV watching would I get out of this computer? It would merely be used as a backup. Would I be better off just running an HDMI or component output from the TV room right to an LCD monitor?

That PC seems to have the specs I need, I'd just have to wait for their next $400 off sales (they had two later on in 2007).

Well, the new Yorkfields are out, so you may want to look at them (although the Q6600 can be had for less). If you want a Yorkfield, you will get better performance, less energy usage, and run cooler. Although stay away form the Q9300, and the Q9450 will cost $130 more than the Q6600. So that is up to you.

The comparable dual cores are the E8400 and E8500. Very good alternatives, and they will use less energy and run cooler than the Q6600 (part of the 45nm penryn family).


1) Building it yourself is always cheaper, but there are risks. The only thing that even comes close are the system builders you see on ebay. Even then they will be about 15-20% more expensive. As for the major companies, I built a computer for about 40% less.

2) Multitasking will always be better on a quad core. Yet for programs that do not take advantage of quad cores, they do not help at all. Most applications over the next year will begin to take advantage of quad cores, but right now it's hit and miss. Quad core is more future proof, but for most applications right now the higher clock speeds you get with dual cores leads to better performance (unless you like to run more than one application at once, and then quad core begins to really help).

3) If you get a tuner card for tv it will be just as good as any other tv. I have a mobile tv tuner that is also a DVR. Works great, and it cost $100 (I use it on my 3 year old laptop, so any new computer with a card will work great). I haven't looked into a PCI slot verson, but I am sure they are much cheaper and you can do that yourself too. Of course if you can run a cable right to the tv, what is the point? The only plus is the built in DVR and schedule.

Hope this helps. Let me know if anything is not clear.

BTW....the best LCD's out right now are made by Dell. I have a Samsung and at the time it was close to the Dell. Works good, but I hear the Dells kick some ass now.

edit: looked closer at that HP. Not bad, but that base price does not include the tv tuner. That is extra, and about $80 for the base one.

 

[scott91575]

BTW...here is that HP pieced out if you were to do it on your own (using mostly Newegg)...

Motherboard - $75 (guess on this one...there are tons)
Processor (Q9300) - $275 (can be had cheaper, and the Q6600 is just as good for less)
Power Supply (450W) - $50
Video Card (8500GT...which sucks) - $40
Memory (3GB DDR2 800MHz) - $65
Hard Drive (500 GB) - $80
DVD Burner - $20
Computer Case (tons again) - $35 (this can vary alot)
Windows Vista - $100

So that is $750 for the same computer, or a 25% discount (the discount increases the more expensive you get). It will also be more modular, you can pick whatever you want, and you can also overclock for better performance. All parts are warrantied better (some lifetime), but there is no warranty on your build skills. If you fry something or break it, no warranty there.

For comparison, here is a system on ebay by a reputable system builder for $800...

Intel Quad Core 3.2GHz OC Family Gaming System w/8800GT - eBay (item 310055424107 end time Jun-10-08 12:35:06 PDT)

You need to add Windows and another hard drive to get what you want (so about $980), but it would blow the doors off the HP. It's also pre-overclocked so you don't have to worry about screwing with that (initially). Think of it this way, that Q6600 is overclocked above any of the dual cores and you also get 4 cores. Best of both worlds. Of course you can do the same if you build it yourself, and yes, dual cores can be overclocked higher.

Since you are not buying a high end computer you may look at a system builder. They do not cost that much more than build it yourself. I built my own for some fun and learning, and also since that 10-15% difference at the high end does make a bigger cost difference. You will still need to learn how to overclock since sometimes the computer after a hard lock goes back to stock. Yet that is easy to learn, you know it's warrantied for an overclock, and you will not have to build anything.

 

[Taosman]

Have you talked to BrutusMaximus? He builds PCs all the time.

 

[jwinslow]

Thanks for all of the feedback scott. Four years ago I was more into hardware and building/upgrading my own, but have not kept up with the times. Appreciate the feedback from someone more in tune.

That base config for the HP isn't good at all (I was just showing the config I'd want), but occasionally they have some nice packages for 6-700. This is the type of package I'd want to return, in terms of money off (here).

Well, the new Yorkfields are out, so you may want to look at them (although the Q6600 can be had for less). If you want a Yorkfield, you will get better performance, less energy usage, and run cooler. Although stay away form the Q9300, and the Q9450 will cost $130 more than the Q6600. So that is up to you.

Did they just come out? IOW, has the trickle down price effect already taken place with the Q6600's?

The only things which must be replaced soon are the LCD and dvd drive, so I can delay ordering for now.

BTW....the best LCD's out right now are made by Dell. I have a Samsung and at the time it was close to the Dell. Works good, but I hear the Dells kick some ass now.

Thanks, I need to find a dell store/kiosk to view these up close. I really didn't love the Samsung's I saw at Best Buy, but that may have been a 'feed' issue.

 

[Muck]

AnandTech comparison test:

---The speedup from going to four cores isn't as great in Photoshop as in the 3D rendering tests, but it's still significant (and worth it if you spend a lot of time in Photoshop). The AMD/Intel breakdown remains the same as we have seen in all of our other tests.

digitlife comparison:

---It's the second test, where quad-core processors "broke loose". On the average, four cores are 30% as fast as two cores! You may object that the ideal advantage must reach 100%... But let's be realists: even 30% is a very good result these days, it's quite rare.



Tom's Hardware:

(Note that the red bars on the Tom's chart are overclocked CPUs)

The comparisons are a bit older but they should give a rough idea of the performance difference on Quad vs Dual core setups at various clock speeds.

 

[jwinslow]

Thanks Muck. A lot of the results I found were inconclusive or too early before the software could truly take advantage of the new technology. I may hold out and look for a deal on the 9300 in that case, being in no hurry.

 

[Muck]

Thanks Muck. A lot of the results I found were inconclusive or too early before the software could truly take advantage of the new technology. I may hold out and look for a deal on the 9300 in that case, being in no hurry.

I'd definitely say if everything else is equal go with a quad core. Adobe is one of the better developers when it comes to keeping up with multithreaded support and the dual core setups that will outperform the quads right now do so via faster clock speeds. They're better choices for gaming but don't have the growth potential that the quads will.

 

[scott91575]

Thanks for all of the feedback scott. Four years ago I was more into hardware and building/upgrading my own, but have not kept up with the times. Appreciate the feedback from someone more in tune.

That base config for the HP isn't good at all (I was just showing the config I'd want), but occasionally they have some nice packages for 6-700. This is the type of package I'd want to return, in terms of money off (here).
Did they just come out? IOW, has the trickle down price effect already taken place with the Q6600's?

The only things which must be replaced soon are the LCD and dvd drive, so I can delay ordering for now.
Thanks, I need to find a dell store/kiosk to view these up close. I really didn't love the Samsung's I saw at Best Buy, but that may have been a 'feed' issue.

The Yorkfields came out about two months ago. The Q9300 is part of the Yorkfield family (it's the 45nm Penryn quad cores). The Q6600 is a better overclocker than the Q9300, and can be had for about $70 less (yes, the prices have already dropped). Yet the Q9300 will run cooler and use less power, but in performance they are about equal (small difference in stock clock speeds, but the Q6600 has more cache). The Q9450 was the true jump in performance.

In the end, the Q9300 is good if you don't overclock and will run you $70 more. The Q6600 will be better if you do overclock. Of course it will cost more in the long run due to the higher power requirements.

 

[Deety]

Build this :p

 

[BrutusMaximus]

I honestly dont have much experience with the quad cores yet, mainly because up til now the price difference didnt justify the performance increase in my book. Mainly because I havent found much to push the dual cores yet. Of course if you have the money to do it, I see no reason to not go quad.

 

[Buckeneye]

Mainly because I havent found much to push the dual cores yet.

??? Still stuck on photoshop are we?

 

[BrutusMaximus]

Heh, no I meant that I havent found a use to go beyond a dual core yet. Personally anyway. Course as the prices continue to drop, it will become more of a "my balls are bigger than yours" thing :)

 

[Buckeneye]

Heh, no I meant that I havent found a use to go beyond a dual core yet. Personally anyway. Course as the prices continue to drop, it will become more of a "my balls are bigger than yours" thing :)

ehh, been like that for me at least in some respects.