q9650 OR E8600 in Q3??

[Albuquerque]

My Q6700 is 500 fsb stable,

Is your Q6600 a yorkfield? Is the OP's question about a Q9650 talking about a Kentsfield?

Here's a nugget for those who don't know: A Yorkfield quad is the new 45nm architecture, denoted by the "Q9" in the name. A Kentsfield quad is the older 65nm architecture, denoted by the "Q6" in the name.

It's not difficult to find on this forum (and all over google) that Yorkfield quads have a massive FSB wall. They almost entirely STOP at ~460FSB on pretty much anything but a 790i and a P45. No, it doesn't matter the stepping -- even the QX9650's have this same problem, but at least they can circumvent it with the unlocked multiplier.

And, again, even if you had a Q6700 at 500FSB, the reality is that an E6700 would overclock better on the same hardware, cost less, put out less heat, the whole nine yards that I just described. Now if you're going to pull the whole "Well an E8600 is more expensive than a Q6700" then I'd ask you to compare processors that are in the same family. A Q6700 is old techonlogy, less cache, no SSE4 support, more power, yadda yadda yadda.

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

And by this, you understand that he tried that CPU on just about every board under the sun and couldn't get NEAR 500FSB until he went to the P45, right?

 

[prime81]

Is your Q6600 a yorkfield? Is the OP's question about a Q9650 talking about a Kentsfield?

Here's a nugget for those who don't know: A Yorkfield quad is the new 45nm architecture, denoted by the "Q9" in the name. A Kentsfield quad is the older 65nm architecture, denoted by the "Q6" in the name.

It's not difficult to find on this forum (and all over google) that Yorkfield quads have a massive FSB wall. They almost entirely STOP at ~460FSB on pretty much anything but a 790i and a P45. No, it doesn't matter the stepping -- even the QX9650's have this same problem, but at least they can circumvent it with the unlocked multiplier.

And, again, even if you had a Q6700 at 500FSB, the reality is that an E6700 would overclock better on the same hardware, cost less, put out less heat, the whole nine yards that I just described. Now if you're going to pull the whole "Well an E8600 is more expensive than a Q6700" then I'd ask you to compare processors that are in the same family. A Q6700 is old techonlogy, less cache, no SSE4 support, more power, yadda yadda yadda.


And by this, you understand that he tried that CPU on just about every board under the sun and couldn't get NEAR 500FSB until he went to the P45, right?

Well this will be the second post I've done this due to Alburquerque....

Your right dude, it doesn't matter what evidence or what I say, your gonna hear what you want to hear and and argue from now till doomsday. Therefore you win.... now go **** on someone else's thread.

 

[Albuquerque]

Well this will be the second post I've done this due to Alburquerque....

Your right dude, it doesn't matter what evidence or what I say, your gonna hear what you want to hear and and argue from now till doomsday

What evidence have you provided? You said CPU time was worthless, then you use it as an example -- and I show you exactly how it is used and why it matters.

Then you talk about how Q9650's can overclock just as well as any dual, except you fail to account for the motherboard limitations involved.

Then you talk about how Q6700's can overclock to 500FSB, but fail to account for the fact that we're not talking about Kentsfield cores, we're talking about Yorkfield cores.

This is exactly what happened last time: you threw up a few vague ideas that were either not entirely correct or weren't relevant to the subject at hand and got into a fuss when you were proven wrong over and over again.

So if the best you can do is stomp off in a huff about how your "facts" didn't stand up to logical and factual rebukes, then I'm sorry that you weren't able to better forumlate your reply. I'm not here to hate you or to tell everyone that your opinions aren't valid, but your opinions aren't fact, and trying to pass them off as such is insulting to everyone who the science behind it.

 

[prime81]

I'll say it again.... your right, your gonna hear what you want to hear, whatever I type won't matter. Now go **** on someone else's thread....

 

[Craxbax]

Gentlemen, gentlemen!

 

[BlackEdition]

yeah let's leave the bickering out of it, it isn't helping the thread starter make a decision...

 

[Brolloks]

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.

Can we sticky this so we can stop argueing the same point over and over again

 

[Albuquerque]

yeah let's leave the bickering out of it, it isn't helping the thread starter make a decision...

While I agree, I also think that we are having problems with people ignoring the science and facts behind this decision and were blurting out their favorite flavor and trying to pass off opinions as facts.

Misinformation is what's not helping the thread starter make a decision

I'd rather have someone be fully informed of the true nature of their choices (especially when the difference between those choices is a significant dollar amount) than to be mislead into believing something that isn't true after they've spent their hard-earned cash on an item that was falsely explained.

Quite a few overclocking enthusiasts on this forum are still young and don't have the money to keep buying parts when something doesn't work out the way they were told it would. I think we all owe it to these people to be fair and upfront about everything that we can be.

And if my zeal to make sure this happens is somehow considered "retarded", so be it. I'd rather err on the side of truth than to avoid conflict and allow misinformation to continue oozing through otherwise good, informative discussions.

 

[Craxbax]

And if my zeal to make sure this happens is somehow considered "retarded", so be it. I'd rather err on the side of truth than to avoid conflict and allow misinformation to continue oozing through otherwise good, informative discussions.

Naw! I was just making a funny to lighten things up a little... cause it seemed to be getting a little intense!

 

[Ashura]

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.

Can we sticky this so we can stop argueing the same point over and over again

+1 for a "Should I get a Quad- or Dual-Core?" sticky with this exact answer.

 

[vixro]

My next purchase will be a quad if I have the money for it because of 3 reasons.

I produce music, so I am consistently rendering and compressing files.

I like to multitask HEAVILY. I have 2 22" monitors and I use all of the real estate. I generally have more than 70+ applications running at once too.

I game and multitask at the same time. Not your usual run of the mill multitasking, I'm talking about 3 IRC's with live scripts running, AIM, MSN, vista Sidebar with 5 gadgets (that are constantly doing something), uTorrent (big RAM and CPU usage since I have over 100 torrents constantly running seeding), AV, Music, and whatever else fits my Fancy. I also open up 2 games from time to time. So I will have 2 cores at 60-90% on one game, and 80-100% on the 2 other cores for the second game. One on each monitor.


It is for these reasons my Dual Core just isn't enough. If I didn't render and compress audio files every week, constantly extract rars, and multitask with 2 games at once, then the dual would be just fine. It's only in the extreme situations that my 3.2ghz dual will be pegged at 100% on both cores and seem slightly sluggish.

Here's an example..:

 

[Albuquerque]

You aren't going to find me "bicker" with vix over his use of a quad, because if anyone needs one, it's gonna be him

And as I mentioned before in this thread, with all the things that the original poster intends to do on his new machine, a quad may indeed be the better choice. Video compressing? Photoshop work? Those are quad-happy things, even if you're only doing home videos. Is it worth the $200 extra pricetag? Maybe, guess it depends on how fast you want those videos out.

The home movies will be the big time sinker, and a quad will more than certainly help you there. Even Windows Movie Maker is multicore aware, and that's about the cheapest you can get for movie creator software

 

[wingman99]

My next purchase will be a quad if I have the money for it because of 3 reasons.

I produce music, so I am consistently rendering and compressing files.

I like to multitask HEAVILY. I have 2 22" monitors and I use all of the real estate. I generally have more than 70+ applications running at once too.

I game and multitask at the same time. Not your usual run of the mill multitasking, I'm talking about 3 IRC's with live scripts running, AIM, MSN, vista Sidebar with 5 gadgets (that are constantly doing something), uTorrent (big RAM and CPU usage since I have over 100 torrents constantly running seeding), AV, Music, and whatever else fits my Fancy. I also open up 2 games from time to time. So I will have 2 cores at 60-90% on one game, and 80-100% on the 2 other cores for the second game. One on each monitor.


It is for these reasons my Dual Core just isn't enough. If I didn't render and compress audio files every week, constantly extract rars, and multitask with 2 games at once, then the dual would be just fine. It's only in the extreme situations that my 3.2ghz dual will be pegged at 100% on both cores and seem slightly sluggish.

Man here is a reason for Quad, like me he still gets the job done on a Dual for now.

 

[wingman99]

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.

+1 for a "Should I get a Quad- or Dual-Core?" sticky with this exact answer.

 

[BlackEdition]

i completely agree that it is of the utmost importance to get the correct information to the people on the forums (while i am not young, i can't afford to keep buying components either!). i just think that things get a little heated, and that the tone of the discussion should remain friendly.

now, let us continue discussion!

 

[ratbuddy]

+1 for a "Should I get a Quad- or Dual-Core?" sticky with this exact answer.

Make it +3 or whatever we're up to now. The guy arguing with him just doesn't seem to understand the issue in the slightest

 

[Albuquerque]

i completely agree that it is of the utmost importance to get the correct information to the people on the forums (while i am not young, i can't afford to keep buying components either!). i just think that things get a little heated, and that the tone of the discussion should remain friendly.

now, let us continue discussion!

My apologies since I didn't help the situation i think we have this all straightened out, so let's go forward and buy some sweet sweet hardware!

 

[Shiggity]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

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.

+9001, Probably the most well written response to quad vs dual I've ever seen. Props sir.

 

[prime81]

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.

... In that case let's just go back to single core with hyperthreading... im sure multitasking those is faster on a single core that is overclocked, at least that's your logic.

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

...But wait.... nah you mean all video/audio compressing software utilize quad cores?

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.

...As of today, no duals do not overclock better, we just haven't had the motherboard BIOS options to control both physical cores on the quads. If you wanna talk less heat, let's spam Intel to make a single core 45nm CPU that can run 6 ghz. With any luck we don't even need the second core with the logic your providing, a single core at enormous speeds should be faster and more snappy than that dualie dont ya think? The past motherboards have not had TWO seperate CPU GTL Ref settings in BIOS, thus meaning you had to set the CPU GTL Ref to one setting and all 4 cores on a quad had to like it. This is not the case with the new p45 boards.

Hell I even tried pming you to straighten this topic out, and your still hammering away with nonsense.

This thread is about the Q9650, and E8600.... both 45nm both clock very well, the difference is price and performance. So if they clock equally which is better, a quad at 4ghz? or a dualie at 4ghz? In my opinion, I would vote the quad if price is no factor. If you want absolute extreme clocks such as 6ghz + then the e8600 will be better, but in reality most people only run their rigs at 4-4.2ghz. At stock speeds, the Q9650 will win in both the present and future times.

 

[blazed]

Your right about one thing, even a single core can handle multi-tasking like this:

mirc
xfire
ventrilo/teamspeak
IE/firefox

+9002 for the the sticky.