q9650 OR E8600 in Q3??

[wingman99]

It boils down to how high you want it to clock, as far as games you will see next to no difference between the two chips unless your multitasking. What I mean by this is....

mirc
crysis
xfire
ventrilo/teamspeak
IE/firefox

If ya got all those open and doin stuff, I gaurantee the quad will be snappier.

Not true no, those services take up less than 1/10th of 1% of your CPU time while running.

 

[prime81]

CPU time doesn't mean jack... all that crap in the other post about CPU time means nothing, a quad multitasking is snappier. As far as gaming it won't matter most likely due to GPU bound limitations.

 

[wingman99]

CPU time doesn't mean jack... all that crap in the other post about CPU time means nothing, a quad multitasking is snappier. As far as gaming it won't matter most likely due to GPU bound limitations.

mirc
xfire
ventrilo/teamspeak
IE/firefox

Those programs don't use jack if you don't believe me run them and look at your CPU usage it will be zero.

Your right... your absolutely right, congrats.

That is what you said he was right about the crap in the other post .
This is the link http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=569804&page=3

 

[OldSkool]

Without continuing to get too far off topic and argue the age old Dual vs quad, quite simply the OP requested advice including future proofing for 2 years. I'd say go for the quad simply because games are probably going to have to do some serious catching up to the times with the Nehalem release in Q4. More multi-threaded games means the quad is going to start being more and more beneficial. I'm not siting any sources here, just pointing out trends.

That being said, I'm going to probably get an E8600 simply because I don't need four cores as much as warrants the cost at this point. I don't mind upgrading every so often and I can always swap procs later as I won't be going to Nehalem for a good long time and 45nm prices will come down later.

Edit -

Without continuing to get too far off topic and argue the age old Dual vs quad....

That is what you said he was right about the crap in the other post .
This is the link http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=569804&page=3

Nvm, too late

 

[Jaym14]

Neither, whats wrong with your E8400 @ 3.8ghz?

Nothing at all..... but overkill is fun.

 

[prime81]

mirc
xfire
ventrilo/teamspeak
IE/firefox

Those programs don't use jack if you don't believe me run them and look at your CPU usage it will be zero.



That is what you said he was right about the crap in the other post .
This is the link http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=569804&page=3

The only reason I said that is to keep from arguing the point, I provided more evidence than needed proving what I was saying.... yet again your over here arguing with a fence post on a different thread. The bottomline is for gaming it won't matter what CPU due to GPU limitations, futureproofing then yes quad, but as far as clock for clock the Q9650 is clocking as good as an E8400/E8500. I can say one thing from personal experience, tabbing in and out, sending msgs via xfire, surfing, and doing mirc while playing a game are all much more snappy on a quad than they were on my E8500.

I mean think about it if we took it back to a single core vs a dual core... same difference.

 

[wingman99]

I can say one thing from personal experience, tabbing in and out, sending msgs via xfire, surfing, and doing mirc while playing a game are all much more snappy on a quad than they were on my E8500

Did you have the same memory? I'm just trying to grasp this because my E8400 tabs in and out of games and windows internet explore and outlook express also skype and there all snappy when i added 2 gigs of memory.

Actually i do it all the time because i run a game sever in the back ground 24/7 that uses 50% of the CPU and i play games on top of that and tab everything else.

 

[prime81]

From your perspective your on a dualie, I've had numerous quads and dualies.

 

[wingman99]

From your perspective your on a dualie, I've had numerous quads and dualies.

Could you put a stop watch to Crysis or Supreme Commander or Unreal Tournament 3 and tab so i can compare.

 

[vixro]

lol. the quad will be snappier in vista through multitasking like you're describing. I could use a quad but I generally have more than 70 applications running...

Hey look at that, I'm not even gaming right now either like I usually am.. or two games

If you want my true honesty, you seem like a chronic upgrader. (I've had the bug for many years) So when you say you won't upgrade for 2 years you really mean you won't upgrade for 1 year (or less). It is for that reason I say the Dualie e8600 is going to be a better choice over the quad, mainly because I think you will be buying a quad next year whether you don't know it yet or not.

 

[Jaym14]

hahahahahahahaha........ you are wise Grasshopper!

 

[clinker42]

Hi

I dont wanna hijack his thread but my questions are similar. I have a q6600 clocked at 3 ghz, and it wont go higher. I now have two Powercolor 4870's in xfire and am wondering if i would be better off with a different chip given that all i really want is fast gaming. I play Starcraft (starcraft 2 when it comes out) and Forged alliance. From what you guys say, the games dont use the 4 cores so would i be better off getting a E8500 thats cheap at $200 and possibly getting it overclocked too say 3.8 ghz.

Trevor

 

[HDCHOPPER]

E8600

 

[clinker42]

Ok so where do you find e8600. Has it just been released as there is no shops in Australia selling it.

 

[Anubis_386]

Nah there not out yet ..

 

[Albuquerque]

CPU time doesn't mean jack... all that crap in the other post about CPU time means nothing, a quad multitasking is snappier.

What you meant to say was, it doesn't mean jack to someone who regards "hard facts" and "reproducable results" as a logical argument. The people who don't believe in all this 'science' crap are usually the ones who much prefer things that can't be quantified, qualified, tested or proven -- like "snappy" and "it feels better" and those sorts of things.

The only reason I said that is to keep from arguing the point, I provided more evidence than needed proving what I was saying....

And by evidence, you mean blatently incorrect assertions about game engines and your feelings about your PC and it's "snappiness" and your want to push all our opinions on everyone else because you've had a few quads -- scientifically reproducable and measurable results be damned.

The answer goes like this:

Dual core for gaming and pretty much any "normal" amount of multitasking anyone will do like IM + WMP + game + Skype + AV + other misc stuff like that.

Quad core for video/audio compressing, professional Adobe apps, and ridiculous things like playing two games at once

Duals overclock better, cost less, apply less stress to the motherboard, use less power and put out less heat than a quad. Which means, unless you NEED the quad, then it makes far more sense to buy the dual.

 

[prime81]

CPU time doesn't mean jack precisely because it doesn't matter, now if you really want to get it out there then yea 7 seconds split amongst 4 cores will be "snappier" than 7 seconds split on dual cores.

Were talking about the Q9650 and yes it clocks as good or better than the dualies. My QX9650 gets here today, would you like some comparisons?

 

[Albuquerque]

now if you really want to get it out there then yea 7 seconds split amongst 4 cores will be "snappier" than 7 seconds split on dual cores.

Seven seconds over the course of an entire day or more of uptime is close enough to ZERO that it really doesn't matter. That means for every second your computer was on, it spent 0.000008ths of a second performing that task.

Yes, a quad core will make a MONSTEROUS difference for that... uh... hundred-thousandth of a second of CPU time it will need. Or not. And obviously CPU time means something for the exact reason you just described.

Were talking about the Q9650 and yes it clocks as good or better than the dualies.

Depends on your motherboard, doesn't it? A wolfdale (dual core) can hit 550+ FSB on an X38 chipset with absolute stability. However, a yorkfield (quad core) has an absolute hell of a time hitting 466FSB on pretty much anything less than a 790i or P45. And while you can stretch to about 500-510FSB on the quads under a P45, that still leaves you some 40+ Mhz behind the dual in clocking capacity.

So again, for one reason or another, the dual still has better clocking abilities given equal hardware underneath.

 

[Albuquerque]

I apologize to the OP for slightly derailng this thread again, but it's nonsense like this that continues to get perpetuated over and over again without thought that drives me absolutely nuts. "Feeling" something is one thing, but if you're going to suggest it to someone who is making an expensive decision, make sure that you're being fair with distinguishing your feelings from any sort of factual or logical backing.

Quads have their place to be sure, and with the work that the OP is doing with video and photoshop, it may be in your best interest to buy the quad. But let's be honest about what they ARE better at doing versus those things where they really only achieve parity.

 

[prime81]

My Q6700 is 500 fsb stable, and I'm pretty sure my $150 mobo is cheaper than an x38 or x48 that is currently out. I've also had some nice clocking E8500/E3110s and well let's just say 550fsb is not gonna be daily stable, maybe for benching but 24/7... nah. max stability usually on an E8400/E8500/E3110 is 500fsb... even then most people who run 4ghz daily utilize 445 x 9.

Brolloks is under NDA and well it looks to be another awesome clocking quad similar to the q6600.