Need hardware upgrade advice - should I go dual core or quad core?

[BlueRose]

I have a AMD system Skt 939 with a 3500 single core CPU and 2GB memory on XP 32 bit.  While its good for everything else I do, on returning to TG after a few years away, and getting the latest versions, its now not really powerful enuf to render an image with lots of detail and cloud stuffs and atmosphere.  I have tried with an image I made and some downloaded clouds and after 7 hrs rendering it had barely covered one corner

So am thinking about upgrading.  I see that the new versions of TG have capability of handling multiple cores.

Should I upgrade to an Intel E8400 dual core CPU or a Quadcore Q6600 instead.  Will probably put in 4GB memory and load up the /3GB switch.

Im not terribly technical, and Im struggling to understand is a faster clock speed dual core option better or worse than a slower clock speed quad core option?

Help?

[Oshyan]

Given a reasonable price equivalence I'd say 4 cores is generally going to be better than 2, even with the difference in per-core speed taken into account. Most apps, including TG2, do get less efficient with more cores/threads, but 4 is still a good number, especially with plenty of memory (and the /3GB switch).

I'd say TG2 probably loses about 30% efficiency at 4 cores. If you have 4 cores at 2.4Ghz you have a theoretical total of 9.6Ghz, minus 30% for lost efficiency you still have about 6.7Ghz. The 3.0Ghz dual core has a theoretical 6Ghz, and there's probably 5-10% lost efficiency there too. So the quad will probably be slightly better.

*However* each additional thread does use more memory so if you're working on seriously demanding scenes at high resolution it may be better to render with fewer cores at higher clock speed since you may need the memory that would be otherwise taken up by additional core render buffers. Ok so maybe I've just talked myself out of the quad core, hehe. Either one will be a good option and will ultimately render at similar speed, with the quad probably being a bit faster in most "average" cases. If you have other apps that take advantage of multiple cores the quad may ultimately be better for your overall needs.

- Oshyan

[ZStar]

One of my life philosophies is, if you have a tool, you can choose not to use it.  If you need a tool and don't have it, you're... in deep trouble.      If you can afford the four cores, as Oshyan said, you can probably make use of them under some if not all circumstances.  Worst case, you can be rendering on two or three cores and doing something less demanding on the other(s).  Are you familiar with the Affinity option for limiting which cores an application will run on?  Although, I'm not sure that would be necessary with the new version of TG if you set Max Threads less than your total core count... Any thoughts Oshyan?

[Oshyan]

Theoretically if you set the max threads to less than your available cores, you should have available processing power equivalent to the remaining unused cores. Looking in the Task Manager you would probably see each CPU active to some degree, setting affinity just ensures that one or more entire and specific cores are unutilized.

- Oshyan

[neuspadrin]

If you're planning on putting 4 gigs of ram into that baby, I'd highly suggest going 64 bit instead of using the /3gb switch.  The /3gb switch allows programs to use memory over the 2gig mark... but if windows can't see that memory you cant really use it. The reason that I suggest this is that when windows loads ram, you wont see all your 4 gigs (most likely).  A chunk of that will not load due to the way the ram is loaded, video ram is loaded before that.  So I have a 1 gig video card, that 1 gig of video ram is loaded first.  Along with some other stuff windows 32bit showed my 4 gigs of ram at a glorious 2.7 gigs if i remember correctly.  I havn't run into any compatibility issues with 64 bit except with very very VERY old programs.  Everything else runs fine 32 bit wise even on 64bit. 

So if your paying for the ram, I'd say go with the 64bit upgrade too to get your moneys worth on ram.  If you're running vista I know you can pay Microsoft like 5 bucks and they will send you a 64bit cd, and your 32bit cd key works for the 64bit too.  Though some people don't see as much of their 4 gigs not show up, it depends on some other factors with the computer and its hardware.  Some only see ~ 200 mb or so not register (vs my 1.3gigs).

Also I'm loving my quad core.  When doing some rendering I often have set the new one to use only 3 cores so that the remaining 1 is left to me to use the operating system as normal (as not many of my programs really use much of the processor except terragen, so one core does almost everything i could want to do while waiting on renders).

[mhleo]

Hello! I am new to TG2, but already addicted apart from the rendering time... Has anyone had experience with PC cluster or parallel rendering system? I know that in sciences academia this is used, would TG2 work in such a system? Has anyone of you used it? Thks, mhleo

[Xpleet]

Bluerose,

I recommend you the Q6700.


Q6700 recently prizedropped from 400 to 220 (220 before was q6600 prize)

The q6700 is slightly higher clocked and is excellent for overclocking.

I'm running mine Q6700(2,66) now @ 3,2 stable on stock cooler 


Your decision would be one of the new 45nm generation or 65nm. I'm still a bit sceptic about the overclockability of the new 45ers.

[nikita]

The times when clock speed was a good indicator of power are past. Todays multi core systems have much lower clocking than the last single core cpus but are still much faster.
I suggest using a benchmark to compare hardware components. You can find some at thg: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors/3d-studio-max-9,369.html
I read the new Q9***s consume much less power btw.

[BlueRose]

Attached is the quote for the options Im looking at - in case the prices are shocking, Im in NZ.

I was considering the E8400 cos its the new proc out with 6mb cache (does that make a different to TG) and its only $50 more to go to Quad core, so no dramas there.

Im hearing the comments about going to 64bit to get the memory availability, Im just not sure if everything I have is 64 bit compatible - tho I spose you dont know til you find out the hard way - I only have the one puter and prefer it to be as stable as poss.

I forgot to mention Ive also got a 7300 GS(?) 128 MB nvidia graphics card, but I dont game, so I dont have a need for more than that, just wanted a reasonable card with potential for dual monitors if I wanted it later (or when I get a bigger house and have room for two LOL).

So the impression Im getting is 50/50 hi end Dual core or entry Quad, but consider going to 64 bit windows? I read in another thread that TG isnt fully 64 bit, just enuf to utilise the extra memory capacity?  If I change to 64 bit OS, can I still run 32 bit programs at the same time as running TG?  Seeing as Im fairly sure all my other software is only 32 bit.

[neuspadrin]

Those prices seem very high, you could shave a couple hundred bucks off using www.newegg.com.

But yes, with 64bit you can run 32bit programs just fine.  It used to be somewhat of an issue when 64 bit first came out, but these days I haven't had a single problem except with some very old programs that run a little iffy (but hell, I got roller coaster tycoon installed on it, the original ).  64bit now just means that you can run 32 bit programs fine, its just they can't take full advantage of the abilities of 64bit unless you get a 64bit binary that does.  So 32bit programs can't go over the 32bit limitations of ram; however, a 64bit program can use almost all of it that you put in there.  When I built my new computer few months ago, i bout 4gigs of ram, and I plan on buying 4 more probably this summer, so I just went 64bit (especially since when I loaded into 32bit windows I only had 2.7 gigs of ram).

Though, with 64bit you might need to look into different antivirus/firewalls for a 64bit computer (i use kaspersky internet suite and love it).

[rcallicotte]

NewEgg is the bomb.  I agree with neuspadrin.

[Oshyan]

Newegg's value wouldn't really apply in New Zealand.

If you can get good prices on the Q6700 it may indeed be the best deal as Xpleet suggested. However if the price is much higher than the Q6600 then go for that. I doubt you are considering overclocking if you're not a system builder yourself so the "stock" clock speed is what matters. And yes, clock speed is not all that matters anymore, but if you're considering 2 CPU's of the same architecture/family (i.e. Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad), then the clock speed can be compared directly, providing you also taken into account the additional cores (which I tried to do in my example calculations above).

- Oshyan

[neon22]

Yes NewEgg and NZ - hmm not really...

I am sure that 1 month from now all this will be wrong.
but for 6700 vs 9300 this link is a good discussion.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/250041-28-9300-6700

If you're going to overclock then then its 6600/6700.
If you just want a hassle free system then the 9300 uses less power.
YMMV

[neuspadrin]

Oh sorry, I must've skipped over that first line, sorry.  Yeh that kinda sucks... I live off NewEgg for hardware. Well, besides the prices I still suggest 64bit quad core . 

[buchvecny]

meh i would say get 45NM quad. People say you cant oveclock Q9300 much because of 7.5 multiplier. Well i think its bullshit, to get good overclock from 65NM you need some HARD ASS cooling to go over 3.2ghz. Q9300 can  get 3.2GHZ with default cooling.