Quad core vs dual core...????

[littleswede]

I have a dual core 6700 at the moment, I'm considering upgrading to a quad core.... is it worth it ?? will I notice any difference if so which one...

thanks...

p.s i don't do a lot of o/c I just like my games running on the highest settings with out lag etc!!!!

[=ACID RAIN=]

If you run new games that take advantage of any core it can find, then yes it'll help :)

[littleswede]

thanks.....but are there any games that utalise a quad core at the moment??? does anyone know if the 3dmark score improves a little or a lot..??

[th3]

Now when the 45nm chips are so close, no way. Its 2 to 3 months till 45nm availability, more performance per clock, much lower power consumption, better overclockability. I regret i didnt get a quad in July, now its too late, Yorkfield make Kentsfield look like a Pentium D and Conroe a Prescott P4.

Im usually not a fan of the waiting-game, its true that something better will always show up, but honestly, isnt this a lot better than expected from Yorkfield?? :
3.78 watts idle power:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page13.html

88 watts lower load power (average system consumption during PCMark05):
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_115c.html

[Surfrider77]

You can get the first 45nm in about 1 week if you have the cash for the Extreme Edition Quad (QX9650). :D

[th3]

You can get the first 45nm in about 1 week if you have the cash for the Extreme Edition Quad (QX9650). :D
I wish i could. The low MP of the Q9450 might be very limiting for OC, im not too exited about that little fact... Lucky for me anyway, im going away for a few months, will spend first half of the winter under tropical skies, will be back around the time of 45nm general availability. Bought a one way ticket, if 45nm is late i can be late also :D

[ALiEN2953]

thanks.....but are there any games that utalise a quad core at the moment??? does anyone know if the 3dmark score improves a little or a lot..??

Crysis and supreme commander a few others as well.

3dmark i have no idea.

[Alacritan]

Unreal Tournament 3 is the biggest title out there right now that can utilize 4 cores.

Considering that the first few games that make use of multicore processors are coming out now, you can bet that over the next several months, there will be more and more reason to buy a quad core. By this time next year, you'll definitely want to have a quadcore.

[littleswede]

I've decided to wait until after xmas, I think there will be a price drop then of the new cpu's coming out this month...

[aja]

in your sig - 64GB raptors?

Umm, 74GB maybe?

[Elluzion]

Yeah for gaming definetly go quad core. Its your choice if you wanna wait for the 45nm chips or not. I am stuck in the same dilhema lol... why does intel do this...

[aja]

I've decided to wait until after xmas, I think there will be a price drop then of the new cpu's coming out this month...

Thats a good idea. Rather wait to get the new chips, or the (by then) cheaper current ones !

[Elluzion]

^Hey are the new quads and all that gnna be released Jan 1? or what?

And the price of the Current Quads isn't going to drop much I heard. Dnt remember where I heard it though..

[Evilsizer]

^Hey are the new quads and all that gnna be released Jan 1? or what?

And the price of the Current Quads isn't going to drop much I heard. Dnt remember where I heard it though..

i read its jan 8th, i could be wrong i would love for it to be jan 1st.

while some games might be able to use quads, they cant use them fully. from what i have read say you are runnning a quad. some things like computer AI and path finding are moved to the 2 extra cores. still the majority of the game is running on the other 2, i dont see how 2 smaller sub programs running on the 2 extra cores helps. no dought quads it going to be the future of pc gaming/computing.

Others may not share my thoughts on this. i see no need for a quad till Q3/Q4-08. intel releases Socket B and then we will have more games being able to use quads better then current games. there was a UT3 demo done showing that Quads only gain about 10-15fsp over a dual. if you oc the dual though then you can get that same boost as if you had a quad. now i know they will say just oc the quad. what if that quad doesnt oc to the same level as the dual core. say the quad tapes out at 3.6ghz while that dual core reaches say 4ghz. i am prolly one of the few here nabbing the new dual core jan. then moving to a quad at the end of 08, i might move up sooner that is if they oc better. simply cause majority of intels cores will be going to quads. which means they will be better binned then the dual's. simply cause intel has no new Extreme dual core coming out, its all about the quads.

[aja]

^Hey are the new quads and all that gnna be released Jan 1? or what?

And the price of the Current Quads isn't going to drop much I heard. Dnt remember where I heard it though..

I was thinking that a price cut should happen much later, like march or april...

As for the release date - I have stopped holding my breath. I have heard everything from Jan 1 to late April.....

Who knows! haha...

Maybe someone has heard a more "official" release date?

[aja]

i read its jan 8th, i could be wrong i would love for it to be jan 1st.

while some games might be able to use quads, they cant use them fully. from what i have read say you are runnning a quad. some things like computer AI and path finding are moved to the 2 extra cores. still the majority of the game is running on the other 2, i dont see how 2 smaller sub programs running on the 2 extra cores helps. no dought quads it going to be the future of pc gaming/computing.

Others may not share my thoughts on this. i see no need for a quad till Q3/Q4-08. intel releases Socket B and then we will have more games being able to use quads better then current games. there was a UT3 demo done showing that Quads only gain about 10-15fsp over a dual. if you oc the dual though then you can get that same boost as if you had a quad. now i know they will say just oc the quad. what if that quad doesnt oc to the same level as the dual core. say the quad tapes out at 3.6ghz while that dual core reaches say 4ghz. i am prolly one of the few here nabbing the new dual core jan. then moving to a quad at the end of 08, i might move up sooner that is if they oc better. simply cause majority of intels cores will be going to quads. which means they will be better binned then the dual's. simply cause intel has no new Extreme dual core coming out, its all about the quads.

Thanks for the info!

This is the first time I have heard about the socket B. Should be very interesting.

(sorry, didn't see your post when I posted above, my window wasn't refreshed as I was on the phone)

[Alacritan]

aja, Evilsizer's post has quite a lot of FUD in it. You can postpone your hardware purchases indefinitely because there's always something new just six months away. Sure, Socket B will support the Nehalem chips that have an integrated memory controller like Athlon64's (though not till Q3 2008 at the earliest). And it'll support DDR3 up to 1600, though some motherboards support it already, if unofficially according to Intel. But then after that there will be a die shrink, a new chipset, with support for newer hardware and the cycle just keeps going. You'll be perpetually waiting for the right time to buy.

There's nothing wrong with buying a Q6600 now. The Q9300, it's replacement, won't be out for another couple months. Unless you want to wait until some time in January, there's no reason not to buy now. Is a 10% higher max clockspeed worth waiting two months for?

[Evilsizer]

aja, Evilsizer's post has quite a lot of FUD in it.

wow your just on the attack this morning arent you? seems someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

3rd paragraph, is IMO, i think i stated that clearly at the begining of it.

as for the rest its not fud.....

[th3]

Is a 10% higher max clockspeed worth waiting two months for?
10% higher clock, 6-7% higher performance per clock, and all that at how much lower temps? Yes its worth waiting for.

[oakstave]

There isn't a good current argument for quads...

There are many future arguments for going quad.

[WildMonkey]

the big advantage for games will be that one cpu will be able to handle specialized tasks like environment physics, etc... So it will actually take off some of the strain from your vid card and will produce smoother game play.

So yes it is worth it. Is it worth it now? No. You have like 2-3 games that currently do this. I would wait unless your pc breaks down or something.

[Elluzion]

Yeah Evilsizer is making me think that I should wait on a quad core. I am building my pc soon and am not sure what to do. The new e8500 looks pretty awesome. I don't "need" a quad core. I will be gaming, but nothing like video editing and all of that.

I might wait till naehelm comes out to get a quad and a new mobo/ddr3 ram.

what do you guys think is really worth it?
Quad core, or dual core for a year then upgrade?? What shall I do lol???

[AlabamaCajun]

I wish i could. The low MP of the Q9450 might be very limiting for OC, im not too exited about that little fact... Lucky for me anyway, im going away for a few months, will spend first half of the winter under tropical skies, will be back around the time of 45nm general availability. Bought a one way ticket, if 45nm is late i can be late also :D

Love It :ROLF: Goes off to the tropics until a new chip comes out, what a life :thup:

[RangerXLT8]

There are quad cores available for like 260.00. Unless you have a very tight budget, get a quad.

3DMark06 and PCmark05 utilized Quad cores as well as about all the new games coming out in the near future.

[theblt]

Read it:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html

Evilsizer's post is filled with a bit of FUD. If you're comparing the Q6600 vs E6850 at stock speeds, the E6850 will generally outperform the Q6600. But, when overclocking and proper utilization the E6850 is no match. Games coming out in the near future will utilize cores more effectively (Crysis), and should improve framerates considerably.

[Elluzion]

^Yeah true. Quad core it is...

[Evilsizer]

Read it:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html

Evilsizer's post is filled with a bit of FUD. If you're comparing the Q6600 vs E6850 at stock speeds, the E6850 will generally outperform the Q6600. But, when overclocking and proper utilization the E6850 is no match. Games coming out in the near future will utilize cores more effectively (Crysis), and should improve framerates considerably.

i love how you just like Alacritan, say my post is full of FUD. yet dont say which parts. then you post a review that backs up alot of what i have said about quad vs dual core. at most 3.6ghz quad vs a 3.8ghz dual core is 2fps-7fps.
:bday:
then the only game showing any big difference in fps of dual core at 3.8ghz vs quad core @3.6ghz is lost planet. yes newer games being writen for multi core will off load things like i said. supreme commander as stated in the past by the devs them selves. computer AI/path finding is off loaded to the other cores. then it speeds up the other 2 cores to allow for the higher fps they see. :bday:

so please enlighten me/us as to which part is full of fud? now.....:)

*edit*
while lost planet shows the bigest gain from a quad. you cant use that as its the only one that new with multi core in mind. still UT3 has multi core in mind yet as by a review. UT3 shows 10fps different in quad vs dual
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4
this backs up what i said in the last of my post. like i stated if the dual core can oc way past the quad then why go quad when you can get higher clocks on a dual. has to do with TDP of the cpus, but as quads are going to be binned harder then duals since no new extreme dual cores are coming out.

i see now i left out what i thought i typed in so i might have jumped the gun a bit. the middle of my post was ment in reflection of supreme commander. like i posted about above.

im still interested in which part is fud though.. since that is not what i intended.

[subverb]

Hahaha, the hostility towards evilsizer... everyone is ganging up on him!

I was in constant debate with myself about what to do with building a computer whether to wait or not. Seeing as I'm not trying to push the maximum OC or nothing I'm going to purchase everything mid-January once all the Christmas stuff is done so I can build a good chunk of it with gift cards :)

It seems given my situation is similar to some other people in the dilemma of whether to build or not, and when, I will just get whatever is the best out in January (meaning a Q6600 or a Q9450 if it's out and the reviews are good) then upgrade again the following Christmas season or earlier if something major and "must-have" comes out. I just hope prices drop some more on the Q6600 (and the 8800GT's so I can do SLI) by then if the Q9450 isn't out.

[w2richwood]

im sure quad is the way to go if you upgrade now or later it's the future face

it
rich

[Evilsizer]

Hahaha, the hostility towards evilsizer... everyone is ganging up on him!


its ok... they seem to think that i stated dual core is the be all for cpu... yet i state many times in other threads why to do what when.


if games are still being worked on for multi core what makes us think they will get it right the first time... who is to say these first run with quad core in mind are splitting up the instructions per core right. as the instructions need to spend to the gpu are still being overwhelmed with other instructions tied in with it. people seem to think that just throwing more cores at problem will fix it. how is that the case when even the fastest cpu cant compare in GFLOPs to a GPU. think im making this up... look at folding at home, per clock GPU's are so much better. with gpu's getting so far ahead GFLOP's wise how can adding another core compare.

lets break it down like this at the rate a GPU increases its GFLOP's compared to cpu's. adding one or two more cores isnt going to give enough of a GFLOP's boost to feed the GPU. what if our cpu was in fact a GPU, where instead of being a jack of all trades like a CPU is. we in fact now have a multi tiered cpu system. where your building said computer, you want it for gaming with high res,aa,af on max. where this cpu would have just set instruction set for just gaming. while it will run windows just fine it wont encode well or anything else like that. if you want a all out encoding monster then you need to look at a cpu with another instruction set. if more cores is the answer then why are we still using GPU's to do the game renderings?
*my train of thought is not always in order*

instead of this being a discussion i see this being more of a attack thread... if all they can do is attack and bully someone into what they think. what do they really know?

[Mr.Guvernment]

Crysis and supreme commander a few others as well.

3dmark i have no idea.



WHO CARES if your 3dmark improves a little bit? really. why? why spend money so you can get a little better score on something that mean NOTHING, unless your going for world records, 3dmark is useless garbage.

[theblt]

there was a UT3 demo done showing that Quads only gain about 10-15fsp over a dual. if you oc the dual though then you can get that same boost as if you had a quad. now i know they will say just oc the quad. what if that quad doesnt oc to the same level as the dual core. say the quad tapes out at 3.6ghz while that dual core reaches say 4ghz.

You say you can't just add cores to solve your problems. I agree. At the same time, you can't just add Ghz to solve problems either. We all remember the reign of the early Athlon days when architecture proved to be a much larger factor than frequencies.

On good air, you can't usually top the Q6600 out at around 3.6Ghz. On the same air, you can get about 3.85Ghz on the E6850 (as shown in the linked benchs I posted previously). Yet, the Q6600 outperforms it in every game.

Now granted, I have seen some other benchmarks that puts the E6850 slightly ahead of the Q6600 every now and then. I really think it comes down to your configuration, and that these two CPU's are extremely close to each other in performance when it comes to games right now. The reason I personally believe the Quad is a better decision is based on this:

Q6600 and E6850 are exactly the same price (though Newegg just raised the price of the quad)
When OC'd, Q6600 is >= E6850
Q6600 will help significantly in daily tasks (WinRar, encoding, etc)
More and more games are moving to support multicores (Crysis will support 4 apparantly)
Games that do properly support quad cores show much improvement
Multitasking is much improved on the Quad
G0 stepping FTW
Ladies like the quad over the dual


The Q6600 is just an overall outperformer, and will be in the near future. All types of applications show improvements, not just games. If you're really into multimedia production, the quad wins hands down. This is just research I've done, and I've done a LOT.

Apologizes for coming off a little strong before, but I looove debates.

WHO CARES if your 3dmark improves a little bit? really. why? why spend money so you can get a little better score on something that mean NOTHING, unless your going for world records, 3dmark is useless garbage.

Agreed. 3dmark is a general pointer, and a very good e-penis enlarger.

But where you say "why spend money..."
Q6600 - $284 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017)
E6850 - $279 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028)

[Elluzion]

Question about Stepping.

What is the difference between G0 and B3? What will you get outa a G0 that you wont get outa a B3?

Are the new quads the Q9450 gnna have a G0 Stepping?

Everyone raves about the G0... what is up?

[theblt]

G0 stepping is just the newer revision of the Q6600. It's more power efficient, running at lower temperatures, making it more "overclock-able" than the B3.

I don't know what stepping the new quads will have, but they've been said to overclock past 4Ghz+ as they're much more efficient in all respects.

[Evilsizer]

Question about Stepping.

What is the difference between G0 and B3? What will you get outa a G0 that you wont get outa a B3?

Are the new quads the Q9450 gnna have a G0 Stepping?

Everyone raves about the G0... what is up?

stepping changes happen so often when intel tweaks the dies or process. to lower TDP and get a increase in work done. B3 stepping is 105tdp vs 95 for the G0. also with stepping changes comes better ocing as shown going from B3 to G0. almost ever quad sold now is a G0, the 1333fsb duals are G0 steppings.

You say you can't just add cores to solve your problems. I agree. At the same time, you can't just add Ghz to solve problems either. We all remember the reign of the early Athlon days when architecture proved to be a much larger factor than frequencies.

On good air, you can't usually top the Q6600 out at around 3.6Ghz. On the same air, you can get about 3.85Ghz on the E6850 (as shown in the linked benchs I posted previously). Yet, the Q6600 outperforms it in every game.

Now granted, I have seen some other benchmarks that puts the E6850 slightly ahead of the Q6600 every now and then. I really think it comes down to your configuration, and that these two CPU's are extremely close to each other in performance when it comes to games right now. The reason I personally believe the Quad is a better decision is based on this:

Q6600 and E6850 are exactly the same price (though Newegg just raised the price of the quad)
When OC'd, Q6600 is >= E6850
Q6600 will help significantly in daily tasks (WinRar, encoding, etc)
More and more games are moving to support multicores (Crysis will support 4 apparantly)
Games that do properly support quad cores show much improvement
Multitasking is much improved on the Quad
G0 stepping FTW
Ladies like the quad over the dual


The Q6600 is just an overall outperformer, and will be in the near future. All types of applications show improvements, not just games. If you're really into multimedia production, the quad wins hands down. This is just research I've done, and I've done a LOT.

Apologizes for coming off a little strong before, but I looove debates.

Agreed. 3dmark is a general pointer, and a very good e-penis enlarger.

But where you say "why spend money..."
Q6600 - $284 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017)
E6850 - $279 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028)

this goes back to my argument... a quad @3.6ghz out does a dual core @3.85ghz by 2-7fps in current games. yet the only game that looks coded correctly to show a FPS boost from a quad is Lost planet. if other games even crysis are not coded correctly for spliting up the instructions to cores to even out the load. then what good is a quad if only one game that hardly anyone might play, makes a quad worth it? the way i see if coders cant even out the loads correcly for quads when making games then why push quads? after all the OP was talking about gaming not mulitmedia apps. my whole argurment was on the basis of gaming. no dought in a/v encoding go quad. this is one of the biggest debates right now. if your buying now for gaming stick with a faster dual core. give the coders more times to work out any issues with evening the load to a quad core to truely show what they can do.

while more clocks speed might not be the answer but its a better answer then just throwing another core or 2 on a cpu. you drive up TPD much faster with more cores then a faster dual core. i mean if you relate a gpu to a cpu, the main underlaying issue is that. For a cpu to be able to keep up with GPUS, they need to adpot the same approach. in that, in the cpu instead of having a set number of ALU/FPU. they have unified "pipes" like gpus, that is imo the only way to see massive increases in work done. cause not all programs need massive amount of FPU's or ALU's. why not allow the cpu be able to determine which it needs when. no all games are cpu dependent, i think very few are.

another portion of my argument is that when are you buying... the op stated he is going to wait till afte xmas. if your waiting till then go for it, we might have another 4games out by then. that can hopfully use all for cores to allow a increase in fps. while we could debate the quad vs dual in games, the other thing we need in the picture is the GPU. if said gpu is not bottlenecked by a high speed dual core. expecting to see a fps boost by going to a quad is a false light to see. the only time i could see say going quad now is if someone is running SLI then you need the cpu power to get the most from that setup.

we have many argument for going quad for the future. the present time quad vs dual makes little difference with the exception of lostplanet. in the end if you buying now or january ish then go quad esp if you dont plan to upgrade for a year or longer. if you upgrade about every 6months then get a dual core at january and get a quad later when the difference will really be made in games. in the end this argument is about gaming not multi media apps. like i have stated in many threads and will so agian here. if your a always encodeing A/V or doing 3d renderings then go with a quad. there is no dought about it that a quad for that is going to pay off big time.

*edit*
no worries about coming off a bit strong, i know i do sometimes... i think though that some of my posts were mis-understood though as the op was talking about gaming...

[theblt]

this goes back to my argument... a quad @3.6ghz out does a dual core @3.85ghz by 2-7fps in current games. yet the only game that looks coded correctly to show a FPS boost from a quad is Lost planet.

We're finally coming to some common ground, except for this part. My argument is that if the quad is better even by 2-7FPS, and only a few games utilize the cores to their fullest, why not go with the quad if it's the same price as the dual?

I guess I see it like this in my head:
Normal Games: Q6600 >= E6850
Multi-threaded Games: Q6600 >>>> E6850
Multi-tasking: Q6600 > E6850
Price: Q6600 = E6850

if other games even crysis are not coded correctly for spliting up the instructions to cores to even out the load. then what good is a quad if only one game that hardly anyone might play, makes a quad worth it?

The final release of Crysis is supposed to be coded to split the instructions up into multiple threads, taking advantage of the quad, unlike the demo that's currently out right now.

[Evilsizer]

We're finally coming to some common ground, except for this part. My argument is that if the quad is better even by 2-7FPS, and only a few games utilize the cores to their fullest, why not go with the quad if it's the same price as the dual?

I guess I see it like this in my head:
Normal Games: Q6600 >= E6850
Multi-threaded Games: Q6600 >>>> E6850
Multi-tasking: Q6600 > E6850
Price: Q6600 = E6850

well i have being saying the same thing since the start... a small increase atm using a quad for gaming. the other back issue is if increase is that small for 2 more cores. there are other area that could match to that not even just increasing cpu speed. it could be tighter ram timings, getting a higher end gpu. the big thing is the amount of heat a quad is vs dual, 105watt vs 65watt. even if the same price a dual to some it might look like the way to go. my only problem with part of your argument is that you keep bringing in out side things. such as the multi taskings, my whole argument has been what the OP asked about dual vs quad in gaming.... im not sure where some seem to have gotten lost though.



The final release of Crysis is supposed to be coded to split the instructions up into multiple threads, taking advantage of the quad, unlike the demo that's currently out right now.yea that statement was a whole what if thing. i mean what if it take the dev a few more games to really get the instruction load balancing worked out.

on to something different we both touched on. arch type, we still have cpus with seperate ALU/FPU's. both amd and intel need to follow the GPU makers. i mean look at how much better the 8800's are vs last gen 7800/7900's. with the unified pipes. giving the cpu the ability to change to FPU or ALU will be a bigger boost then just sticking more cores on.

[theblt]

well i have being saying the same thing since the start... a small increase atm using a quad for gaming. the other back issue is if increase is that small for 2 more cores. there are other area that could match to that not even just increasing cpu speed. it could be tighter ram timings, getting a higher end gpu. the big thing is the amount of heat a quad is vs dual, 105watt vs 65watt. even if the same price a dual to some it might look like the way to go. my only problem with part of your argument is that you keep bringing in out side things. such as the multi taskings, my whole argument has been what the OP asked about dual vs quad in gaming.... im not sure where some seem to have gotten lost though.

First off, the Q6600 G0's are 95W, not 105, and irrelevant at this point as we already stated an OC'd Q6600 generally outperforms the E6850.

You still aren't making an argument to what I said. I say quads are marginally better, you agree. You say don't bring in outside factors other than what CPU is good for GAMING, yet you talk about RAM timings and GPU's.

I agree, getting an 8800GTX over a GeForce 2 is better, but what does that have to do with Duals vs. Quads? Or course, better RAM timings will increase your gaming ability, but what does that have to do with the original argument? If the Q6600 was twice the price as the E6850, hell yeah upgrade your GPU and RAM. But this isn't the case, they're the same price.

yea that statement was a whole what if thing. i mean what if it take the dev a few more games to really get the instruction load balancing worked out.

Of course it's just speculation but why would they release a game that performs worse when adding support for multi-core CPU's? Lost Planet shows immense improvement with quads and I don't see why the Crytek team would screw it up.

[Evilsizer]

First off, the Q6600 G0's are 95W, not 105, and irrelevant at this point as we already stated an OC'd Q6600 generally outperforms the E6850.

You still aren't making an argument to what I said. I say quads are marginally better, you agree. You say don't bring in outside factors other than what CPU is good for GAMING, yet you talk about RAM timings and GPU's.

I agree, getting an 8800GTX over a GeForce 2 is better, but what does that have to do with Duals vs. Quads? Or course, better RAM timings will increase your gaming ability, but what does that have to do with the original argument? If the Q6600 was twice the price as the E6850, hell yeah upgrade your GPU and RAM. But this isn't the case, they're the same price.



Of course it's just speculation but why would they release a game that performs worse when adding support for multi-core CPU's? Lost Planet shows immense improvement with quads and I don't see why the Crytek team would screw it up.

i know hte TDP for a g0 is 95 not 105 but at that time i as thinking of the b3. i was also at the time commenting on the stepping thread you were in.
i stated out side factors being multi media/ Multi-tasking: Q6600 > E6850 as you brought up. that is outside of what the op asked about. same as when you brought up quads being good for encoding apps. i already stated they are great for that. ram gpu is not out side since fps is reflected based on those other 2 and fit. after all you brought up the reviews, if we simply stuck with a 8800gt for this debate. then by all means you should know that in gaming the E6850 would not bottle neck the gpu even with maxed out settings at high res. the quad core would show no improvment in gaming. even if it did it would be max FPS. the max FPS makes such a minor difference. sorry but all this fits with my last post and i feel i am repeating over and over agian the same stuff.

im going to try one last time though, then im done since im tired of repeating my self....

1) E6850 = 4-7fps slower then Q6600.
2) E6850 = 65watt tpd vs 95watt tdp.
3) depending on the retailer both are the same price or $20 difference.
basicly is it worth the extra 30 some extra watts to get 4-7 more fps? esp even at stock the 600mhz cpu speed advantage on the dual core. shows that having more cores is not going to help depending on the game.

i keep making the same points over and over... so since i feel you dont see my points then i think im done. good chat/debate/ect.... :)

[theblt]

i know hte TDP for a g0 is 95 not 105 but at that time i as thinking of the b3. i was also at the time commenting on the stepping thread you were in.
i stated out side factors being multi media/ Multi-tasking: Q6600 > E6850 as you brought up. that is outside of what the op asked about. same as when you brought up quads being good for encoding apps. i already stated they are great for that. ram gpu is not out side since fps is reflected based on those other 2 and fit. after all you brought up the reviews, if we simply stuck with a 8800gt for this debate. then by all means you should know that in gaming the E6850 would not bottle neck the gpu even with maxed out settings at high res. the quad core would show no improvment in gaming. even if it did it would be max FPS. the max FPS makes such a minor difference. sorry but all this fits with my last post and i feel i am repeating over and over agian the same stuff.

I'm glad you're done debating as you aren't proving me wrong in any respects and it's hard to follow your responses when you put periods in the middle of sentences. I guess it could be you just have a hard time understanding me, I'm not exactly sure. I wish someone else would join the debate and confirm either of us.

Throwing cores into a processor won't improve performance, we agree on that. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying right now, for the OP, the Q6600 is a better chip for him. You can throw all the arguments out there you want, technical specs, and wattage, but you can't argue with raw performance. The current quads do have problems with their architecture, mainly being that they're just 2 Duals (as someone else eloquently put it) duct taped together. If there is any progress to be made on the quads, it's to make them a true quad. But architecture aside, TDP aside, the Q6600 outperforms. Sure it runs a little hotter, so throw a Zalman on it, big deal. I'm not talking about how future quads will perform if this architecture doesn't change, I'm not talking about whether or not 128 cores would perform over a dual; I'm simply saying Q6600 > E6850 in all respects. And being a better performer, it would be pretty stupid to buy a dual core right now when more and more games in the very near future will start splitting the instructions up to the appropriate cores. For someone like my who doesn't purchase a new computer every 6-months, I need something that's gonna last me awhile; and going dual would be stupid. Intel seems to think that Quads are going to be the future, releasing just as many quads in the 45nm spec as duals this time around.

I brought up the Multi-tasking part not to be a part of my main argument, but rather supplement it. We can all say we need the ULTIMATE GAMING CPU, but it would be ignorant to just only factor in gaming.

1) E6850 = 4-7fps slower then Q6600.
2) E6850 = 65watt tpd vs 95watt tdp.
3) depending on the retailer both are the same price or $20 difference.
basicly is it worth the extra 30 some extra watts to get 4-7 more fps? esp even at stock the 600mhz cpu speed advantage on the dual core. shows that having more cores is not going to help depending on the game.

Excuse the language, but why in the hell would I buy an E6850 if it performs worse? Even if the Q6600 only performs 4-7fps better in current games not multi-threaded, it's the same damn price. To me it makes no sense. It's like saying you'd rather take a car that gets 20MPG over a similar model that gets 23MPG. It doesn't make any sense.


whew....done. Again, will somebody else join this thread? and state their opinion?

[Evilsizer]

I'm glad you're done debating as you aren't proving me wrong in any respects and it's hard to follow your responses when you put periods in the middle of sentences. I guess it could be you just have a hard time understanding me, I'm not exactly sure. I wish someone else would join the debate and confirm either of us.

Throwing cores into a processor won't improve performance, we agree on that. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying right now, for the OP, the Q6600 is a better chip for him. You can throw all the arguments out there you want, technical specs, and wattage, but you can't argue with raw performance. The current quads do have problems with their architecture, mainly being that they're just 2 Duals (as someone else eloquently put it) duct taped together. If there is any progress to be made on the quads, it's to make them a true quad. But architecture aside, TDP aside, the Q6600 outperforms. Sure it runs a little hotter, so throw a Zalman on it, big deal. I'm not talking about how future quads will perform if this architecture doesn't change, I'm not talking about whether or not 128 cores would perform over a dual; I'm simply saying Q6600 > E6850 in all respects. And being a better performer, it would be pretty stupid to buy a dual core right now when more and more games in the very near future will start splitting the instructions up to the appropriate cores. For someone like my who doesn't purchase a new computer every 6-months, I need something that's gonna last me awhile; and going dual would be stupid. Intel seems to think that Quads are going to be the future, releasing just as many quads in the 45nm spec as duals this time around.

I brought up the Multi-tasking part not to be a part of my main argument, but rather supplement it. We can all say we need the ULTIMATE GAMING CPU, but it would be ignorant to just only factor in gaming.



Excuse the language, but why in the hell would I buy an E6850 if it performs worse? Even if the Q6600 only performs 4-7fps better in current games not multi-threaded, it's the same damn price. To me it makes no sense. It's like saying you'd rather take a car that gets 20MPG over a similar model that gets 23MPG. It doesn't make any sense.


whew....done. Again, will somebody else join this thread? and state their opinion?

part of my problem is that thing seems to make more sense in my head then when i try to type them. about the sentences i only did that cause i felt they were run on's. thats not the point though.........
*now it seems i finally gotten out what was my point. while not direct i guess i was expecting you to read between the lines.*

we both touched on the same things about long term. yet you aviod the main reasoning i said anything about dual vs quad. you point out you go long term that would = quad, if your buying now. if your more short term like me then its imo that getting a dual core with less TDP for doing almost the same work for gaming makes better sense. reguardless of the price, one is clocked at 3ghz the other is 2.4ghz. by all means the gpu in our computers could out do both in work done and its only a single core gpu. i am just tring to find away to get my thoughts across about dual vs quad.

What you brought about about long term is the difference in our thinking. that if i were to buy a cpu in janaury time frame, only to get another in 6months later. i would without a dought go dual in janaury. If i were a more long term person like you and some others, then yes i would get a quad. I guess our thinking could be broken into those that like to tinker with the new stuff every 3-6months vs someone that likes to tinker but wants it to last alot longer. now in reflection that has been the basis for all of my suggestions/comments in other threads when people ask about what to get. the majority of my suggestions though, falls in with what can you afford.

some seem to agree with what im saying/have said but dont say anything. i think very few people would have said anything in fear of being flamed. being/getting flamed is the lack of the other person ability to state their side of what they think. it seems that thinking here is forbidden in some way. do you buy a car based on what the "mob" thinks? sorry tring to spark others to post what they think, dought that will happen though.

now i can honastly say im prolly done, if you still can see the other POV to consider a dual core. then it seems this falls into a realm of either your a fan of inline 4 engines or a fan of V8's. i would say dont ever think a dual core is out for the count cause one day some thing might happen.

I could add that if AMD/INTEL choose to adpot the practice of the gpu makers. we could see dual cores or even quads with a near double in work done per cycle.

*i really debated with my self about posting this. im hoping it makes more sense now, doesnt happen often. For the most part people in the past have gotten what i meant, even if i didnt state it obviously*

:soda::soda: to someone else possibly joining!

[w2richwood]

i'm going quad after the first of the year no debate about it it's the future
Rich

[theblt]

We both made intelligent arguments. Browsing around on other forums, some of the posts generally consisted of "4x2.4Ghz = 9.6Ghz!! 2>4, GET QUADS!!".

I think someone does their research, finds what will work best for them, either the Q6600 or the E6850 will be a good solution.

I just can't wait for the new damn 45nm. Same price, (assuming) much better performance.

[Evilsizer]

We both made intelligent arguments. Browsing around on other forums, some of the posts generally consisted of "4x2.4Ghz = 9.6Ghz!! 2>4, GET QUADS!!".

I think someone does their research, finds what will work best for them, either the Q6600 or the E6850 will be a good solution.

I just can't wait for the new damn 45nm. Same price, (assuming) much better performance.

some people have stated a 10% increase for 45nm at the same clock speeds.

[orion456]

some people have stated a 10% increase for 45nm at the same clock speeds.

If your application can use the extra cache, and SSE4, then you can see up to a 70% performance gain. As usual it all depends on applications; unfortunately Hearts will not see any advantage. :soda:

[theblt]

So essentially, if I'm in the process of building a machine, I should wait until January now..

[orion456]

So essentially, if I'm in the process of building a machine, I should wait until January now..

Yep, January is looking like a good time to get a quad core. :soda:

[Evilsizer]

let me find that thread.... here we go
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=534319
the QX9650 is showing a nice big 15min drop in encoding vs QX6850. thats at the same clock/cpu fsb speeds.