Upgrading from Core 2 Duo to Core 2 Quad...noticeable performance improvement?

Page 1 of 3 (47 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 46 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:03 AM

First, let me make clear that I am not disappointed in any way with Logos 4 performance.  I am a first-time Logos user and recently purchased the "Bible Study" base package.  My download took a little over an hour and the index took less than 10 minutes.  Passage guide speed is more than adequate and certainly acceptable (in other words, I wouldn't be suffering if it stayed at this speed,) but I know it could be faster.  My current system:

Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0GHz) on P43 chipset motherboard

8GB RAM (DDR2-800)

GeForce 7600GT

Intel X25-G2 80GB Solid State Drive

Windows 7 64-bit

Due largely to the SSD, I've become spoiled by everything being near instantaneous, which is why I'm looking for the weakest link in the system to make Passage Guide faster.  I can replace the 3GHz Core 2 Duo with a 3GHz Core 2 Quad without having to replace any other components (if I went to an i5 or i7 then I have to replace the motherboard and possibly RAM.)  I'm wondering if anyone has experience on an identically configured Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad?  Would there be a noticeable performance improvement between the two?  Enough to justify a ~$300 upgrade?

Posts 3659
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 10:59 AM

YMMV, but with your setup there are only 2 areas where other threads suggest you might see faster performance. As you may already have noted, L4 will use every bit of power you give it.

The Quad would help some. Only you could guage whether it's enough for $300, but many of us feel that a $300 hit would be better put toward the next system--with i5 or i7.

The other area is the graphics card. Logos uses a new Windows graphics environment, & it seems to be very sensitive to the power of the graphics card. I'm not familiar with yours. But unless it's a gaming level card (fast, capable, & lots of on-board memory), you might also look at that as an area for a speed boost.

Others will chime in with the tech details, but this will be the gist.

Blessings!

 

Grace & Peace,
Bill


Asus GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
Samsung S9+, 64GB
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 323
Doug | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:13 PM

BillS:

The Quad would help some. Only you could guage whether it's enough for $300, but many of us feel that a $300 hit would be better put toward the next system--with i5 or i7.

The other area is the graphics card. Logos uses a new Windows graphics environment, & it seems to be very sensitive to the power of the graphics card. I'm not familiar with yours. But unless it's a gaming level card (fast, capable, & lots of on-board memory), you might also look at that as an area for a speed boost.

I can vouch for both of these suggestions.  Of course, to go the way of the i7, you'll have to have a new motherboard with the P55 chipset.  But if you can swing it, it would be a great improvement.  The i7 has hyperthreading that'll get you a 20% performance boost over the i5.  Also, with the new core management/turbo feature, the i5 and i7 will both give you another 20% boost over the core-2 quad.  It's worth considering. 

The graphics card should probably be at least the 9500 series.  The 9800 would be better.  Also, I noticed that you have an 80GB hard drive.  I'm guessing that's an IDE drive.  You'll get a very noticable improvement by moving to SATA 3 Gbps drives. 

I just built a system like the one I've described this week.  With 8GB of very fast ddr3, L4 sails on it.  A system like this would last you a few years without having to upgrade angain.

Posts 1646
SteveF | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 1:03 PM

Doug:
Also, I noticed that you have an 80GB hard drive.  I'm guessing that's an IDE drive.

No, he says it is Solid State.

Intel X25-G2 80GB Solid State Drive

I don't think it gets much better than that!

Regards

Steve


Regards, SteveF

Posts 323
Doug | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 6:41 PM

SteveF:

Doug:
Also, I noticed that you have an 80GB hard drive.  I'm guessing that's an IDE drive.

No, he says it is Solid State.

Intel X25-G2 80GB Solid State Drive

I don't think it gets much better than that!

Regards

Steve


I missed that.  Thanks for the correction.

Posts 20
Stephen Egge | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 2:30 PM

I too have an intel SSD 160 gb but just use it for the boot up files and other programs that don't seem to like not being on the C: Drive.

My D: drive is a striped (RAID 0) Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb ... so two of these actually equal 2 TB ... but the point is ... that this is CHEAP in comparison to the intel SSD drive and ALMOST as fast. So if you have a good SATA II connection and your MB supports RAID ... then you can have speed and HD space for "relatively" little cost.

(I'm running an intel i-7 870 processor on an intel DP55KG intel mb, 8 gig of DDR3 ram, and win 7 64 bit and it is nice to have things run quickly and smoothly (for a change) )

Steve

Posts 24851
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 2:47 PM

A graphics card upgrade would go further than a quad core in terms of value for money. For normal operation of L4 3.0 GHz is good enough and it wouldn't use the 4 cores unless you are indexing. So if you want a real improvement you need a quad core faster than 3 GHz

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 323
Doug | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 4:15 PM

Dave Hooton:

A graphics card upgrade would go further than a quad core in terms of value for money. For normal operation of L4 3.0 GHz is good enough and it wouldn't use the 4 cores unless you are indexing. So if you want a real improvement you need a quad core faster than 3 GHz

Have to disagree there.  A good graphics card does go a long way in this program and I'm not disagreeing with the advise to get a good one.  But to say that L4 doesn't use all four cores is a misstatement.  There are times when it uses all eight cores of my i7 just to redraw screens or for updating many linked panels.  I say eight cores because the i7 has hyperthreading, so Windows sees eight cores.  Trust me, after using L4 on a dual core for the first three weeks and then moving to the i7, it is a great improvement.  By the way, my i7 is the 860 model.  It runs at 2.8GHz and it flies.

Also, the i7 has a core-managed turbo charging option.  If it is only using 50% of the four cores, it'll shut two of them down.  That reduces the heat output so it will turn up the clock speed until it gets back to that same heat output.  If it's using 25% of all four cores, it'll shut three of them down and clock up to 3.4 GHz.  Windows still sees two cores because of hyperthreading and the clock speed is increased which makes the thing run much faster under lighter loads.  It's a brilliant technology. 

Posts 390
Alain Maashe | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 5:09 PM

GHz do not mean much. my Core i7  2.80 GHz (passmark CPU score of 5579 but currently overclocked to 3.4 GHz with a passmark CPU score of 7225) or the Core i7 902 @ 2.67 GHZ (passmark CPU score of 5451)  are much faster than everything AMD has to offer including the phenom ii x4 965 @ 3.4 GHz. (Passmark CPU score of 4223 ). Same thing goes many of Intel's previous offerings with higher GHz but less overall computing power.

What matters is the architecture that is used and factors like cache, memory controller, and so on.

In other to compare apples to apples when it comes to GHz, one must have the same CPU architecture.

However, I agree that a Quad core is not needed to run Logos 4 (as you said only tasks like indexing might benefit) and a more powerful dual core might be more helpful than a less powerful quad core (especially with older generations of dual and quad cores).

 

There is nothing in Logos' own system requirements that indicates that one needs a powerful 3D graphic card (as opposed to merely a good Direct X9 supporting WDDM 1.0 or higher driver with at least 512 MB of memory).

The requirements for graphics cards some are giving here are for gaming, image and video processing, the last time I checked, Logos 4 is primarily 2D thus needing memory more than anything else. The Geforce 9800 (recommended by someone else) is more than overkill, it would be a waste of money

 

Alain

 

Posts 98
Henry Finkle | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 6:11 PM

Can anyone maybe give an example of something that L4 might do to tax the cpu? This is just so I can test my own system.

When I use mine I haven't seen the cpu really being taxed unless it's indexing (I have a E8400). Right now I see more slowdowns with HD activity then cpu calculations. I also have slowdowns with graphics sometimes (not often) but I think it's more a video card thing (I only have 256mb on it). In the past when I had display problems it was never fully fixed with a better cpu unless I put in a better video card.

 

 

Posts 322
Ralph Mauch | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 17 2010 7:28 PM

Henry Finkle:
I also have slowdowns with graphics sometimes (not often) but I think it's more a video card thing (I only have 256mb on it).

I had bought a new computer for the special person in my life, and tried loading L4 on it to see if it makes a difference. It has a AMD Phenom™ II X4 810* quad-core processor,  8GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB Serial ATA hard drive (7200 rpm) ATI Radeon HD 4200 graphics which Features 256MB integrated shared graphics memory . At first I noticed that it was very fast with searches, but noticed that changes in my layouts at times did put some stress on my working with L4. Yup, probably should have gone with atleast a 1 gig graphic card. While working on this system is a lot better then my Pentium, I decided that for a replacement on my old cumputer I would get the i7 920 with 9 GB DDR3, and an 1.8 gig graphics card. I'll let you know in a week how that worksBig Smile While the new stuff is rated better, and probably cranks out more horses, the new Window 7, and Logos4 will do a lot better with the newer graphic cards!

 

Posts 24851
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 12:53 AM

Doug:
But to say that L4 doesn't use all four cores is a misstatement.  There are times when it uses all eight cores of my i7 just to redraw screens or for updating many linked panels. 

I guess that my usage doesn't impress much load on the second core of my Core 2 Duo, except when indexing! So that is a most interesting observation. My next notebook computer will definitely be quad core, but I'll wait a while in Oz for the situation to settle down for Win 7 64-bit and quad core.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 24851
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 1:07 AM

Alain Maashe:
In other to compare apples to apples when it comes to GHz, one must have the same CPU architecture.

Yes, that was the caveat I left out!

Alain Maashe:
There is nothing in Logos' own system requirements that indicates that one needs a powerful 3D graphic card (as opposed to merely a good Direct X9 supporting WDDM 1.0 or higher driver with at least 512 MB of memory).

I normally don't go much on graphics cards as an option for performance but the Aero feature of Vista and windows 7 has upped the ante for graphics cards. My 5 year old desktop running a single core Athlon XP at 2.1 GHz + a DX9 64 MB graphics card was improved with extra memory and then loaded Win 7 faster with a new 512 MB (AGP!) graphics card. This was a budget $AUD120 card, not a gaming card, but the desktop now  runs L4 quite satisfactorily.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 323
Doug | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 6:05 AM

Dave Hooton:
I guess that my usage doesn't impress much load on the second core of my Core 2 Duo, except when indexing! So that is a most interesting observation. My next notebook computer will definitely be quad core, but I'll wait a while in Oz for the situation to settle down for Win 7 64-bit and quad core.

I'm not saying that it taxes my system either; just that it does use all of the cores.  L4 is definietely designed to take advantage of threading to as many cores as your machine runs.  I can run L4 acceptably on my dual-core laptop too.  But if I start getting too many resources linked together, then the system starts taking a hit.  That doesn't happen on my i7.

Posts 323
Doug | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 6:08 AM

Dave Hooton:
I normally don't go much on graphics cards as an option for performance but the Aero feature of Vista and windows 7 has upped the ante for graphics cards. My 5 year old desktop running a single core Athlon XP at 2.1 GHz + a DX9 64 MB graphics card was improved with extra memory and then loaded Win 7 faster with a new 512 MB (AGP!) graphics card. This was a budget $AUD120 card, not a gaming card, but the desktop now  runs L4 quite satisfactorily.

Agreed.  And L4 is built on the Windows Presentation Foundation platform which is one of the reasons it works better with a really good graphics card.  I'm using two monitors on my desktop and have a 9500 series graphics card with 1 gig of ddr2.  That's an older card that I had to put in my new computer because the new card I ordered was defective.  Hopefully, by the end of the week I'll have a 9800 series card with a gig of ddr3.  I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of difference that will make.

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 3:25 PM

Wow, lots of replies over the weekend.  Thanks for all the input.  I guess I should have been a little more specific on what I am (and am not) seeing.

First the things I don't have a problem with:

I don't have any performance issues related to video.  Draw speed is plenty fast, etc.  I know the 7600GT is a couple of years old and "only" has 512MB of onboard RAM, but screen draw and aero performance are more than snappy (read instantaneous) on my 2 monitors (17" widescreen @ 1280x768 and 15" @ 1024x768).  I don't see any benefit to upgrading to a 9xxx series or better at this point.

Logos 4 launch speed is fine.  I haven't bothered to actually time it, but it doesn't take more than 5-10 seconds to hit the home page after launch.  It "feels" like a long time just because everything else launches instantaneously due to the SSD...but I can certainly live with 5-10 seconds.  As an aside, I didn't mention it since it's not really relevant to the discussion, but in addition to the 80GB SSD that Windows and all my programs reside on, I also have a 7200RPM 1.5TB drive for mass storage.  It is primarily used for my photos (photography is a hobby of mine), music, and audio & video Bible commentaries (mostly Chuck Missler.)

I don't have many resources (<300) so indexing speed is also more than acceptable (<10 minutes).  Also, I was playing around during the indexing and didn't notice any appreciable slowdown...so no problems there.  I haven't checked processor usage during indexing, but it is largely irrelevant anyway since I'm not having any performance issues in this area.

Finally, while I appreciate all the suggestions to put the money toward an i7 upgrade, I just replaced my motherboard a few months ago due to some bizarre problems with my old one and also upgraded from 4 to 8GB of RAM at the same time...so I'm not exactly itching to replace those again so soon for a 20-40% performance improvement over a Core 2 Quad.  If I do anything, I'd rather replace just my processor at the moment (if the benefit is there) and then look at a more significant upgrade 18-24 months from now when I can maybe get an 8-core "Sandy Bridge" or whatever else is coming down the pipe (I'm in the IT field, but haven't had as much time lately as I usually do to keep up on Intel's roadmap.)  I can get a 3GHz Core 2 Quad for ~$300 whereas replacing the motherboard, RAM, and processor...and probably video card if I'm going to spring for the rest...would run $600+.

So, that leads me to the complaint that I DO have (if you can even call it a complaint, since it's not something I can't live with.)  When I punch in a passage or topic, it takes me to the default layout pretty much instantly.  The Bible pane and default commentary pane display immediately, but most of the passage guide sections have their "progress bars" going for about 20-30 seconds before their content displays.  During that 20-30 seconds, task manager shows that both cores pegged at 100%.  THAT is the main reason that I assumed that going from a dual-core to a same speed quad-core would bring an appreciable difference in this area.

So, with my clarifications out of the way...thoughts?

Thanks again for all the input and discussion!

Posts 24
Garry Glaub | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 4:02 PM

I just upgraded from Logos 3 Gold to Logos 4 Gold on my laptop.  My laptop is not new, eight years old.  It is INTEL CPU T2300 @ 1.66 Ghz, 1 GB RAM.  Needless to say, every aspect of the computer is moving slowly today.  I decided to upgrade and ordered a new laptop, but sadly, after seeing this forum, it looks like my computer will still be too slow.  What do you think?

Here are the new specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo T6600, 2.2GHz, 800Mhz, 2M L2 Cache

RAM 4GB, DDR3, 1066MHz, 2 DIMM

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD

Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English

Posts 24851
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 5:07 PM

Ronald S Keyston Jr:

So, that leads me to the complaint that I DO have (if you can even call it a complaint, since it's not something I can't live with.)  When I punch in a passage or topic, it takes me to the default layout pretty much instantly.  The Bible pane and default commentary pane display immediately, but most of the passage guide sections have their "progress bars" going for about 20-30 seconds before their content displays.  During that 20-30 seconds, task manager shows that both cores pegged at 100%.  THAT is the main reason that I assumed that going from a dual-core to a same speed quad-core would bring an appreciable difference in this area.

So, with my clarifications out of the way...thoughts?

I don't think Passage Guide is worth $300! With the standard PG on my laptop (see below) I get c. 30 second times. My customised Passage Guide takes about 15 seconds because I don't need the graphical sections that take the extra time. If I want to see one of those sections then I use the Add button.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 24851
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 5:20 PM

GarryGlaub:
it looks like my computer will still be too slow.  What do you think?

My Core 2 duo  2.0 GHz runs L4 quite well, which means that it is 3 years old and is doing OK!

A new 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo is not going to be much different and will not be adequate for the long term. Quad core is definitely the way to go, and if you are on a budget then look for a Core 2 Quad faster than 2.2 GHz rather than the newer Core i5/i7.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 24
Garry Glaub | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 18 2010 5:27 PM

Unfortunately, I ordered the computer yesterday, and Dell won't allow any changes!  I had no idea that upgrading to LOGOS 4 would create all this mess, as my computer did a great job with Logos 3, and having attended a Morris Proctor seminar, had everything set up to do my studying.  It was a huge financial step to buy a new laptop, and from what you said, it won't be good enough to make much of a difference.  Man, do you have to be wealthy to use this software? Sad

Page 1 of 3 (47 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS