Which CPU is better for gaming?

[Albuquerque]

There are plenty of benches out there that state quads are faster per clock cycle.

Wrong.

Windows and directx will not have to change anything.. hell if you look at folding the SMP client pulls 100% on all 4 cores... and as far as I know the only thing that program does to windows is install a service.

Folding is one of the only things (any sort of distributed computing) where a quad will outperform a dual given the standard amount of clock disparity between the two.

Quads can perform distributed computing projects, encode massive media sets, and crunch databases faster than a dual.

Everything else is a tie at best, and more often, the dual will win.

That's it.

 

[Loomy]

Here is a solid comparison of the q6600 and the e6700 (Note: The e6700 is 200 MHZ faster than the q6600, so if you plan on over clocking, take that into account)

http://www.techspot.com/review/36-intel-core2-quad-q6600/

Over all, the e6700 did better in the benches, but RL testing leaned slightly in the q6600's favor.

EDIT: I believe the closing statement in the article summarizes this whole argument, "Therefore we conclude once again that for now the biggest limitation of the Q6600 is not actually in the hardware, but in the software that it powers. "

 

[prime81]

Here is actual results with an E8400 clocked to 4.2ghz vs the q6600 @ 3.6ghz....

The quad is simply stout that's all there is to it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

Most of the higher resolutions, the q6600 pulls away even at only 3.6ghz. In UT3 which is probably one of the most CPU bound games ever made, it stomps the e8400.

 

[OldSkool]

What the E8600?




That's my point from the beginning the clocks are not the same, stop mention stuff that does not exist.

Again Wrong. USING YOUR LINK! the Q6600 is at the top! God how can you be so dense???? And you are right there are no comparisons for exact clock speed, but yet YOU linked that results site.......Not me.

Edit - @ Prime, like I said before, there are a few games that will make use of the 4 cores, however if you take a look at the other charts, It's very close to the same performance, granted the Q6600 isn't clocked as high (almost a Ghz difference).

 

[Albuquerque]

Here is actual results with an E8400 clocked to 4.2ghz vs the q6600 @ 3.6ghz....

The quad is simply stout that's all there is to it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

Most of the higher resolutions, the q6600 pulls away even at only 3.6ghz. In UT3 which is probably one of the most CPU bound games ever made, it stomps the e8400.

per your own link, nearly all the tests were GPU-bound, meaning that even a 3.3Ghz E6300 was keeping up with your 3.6Ghz Q6600. That's not a very "fair" comparison to say that somehow the Quad came out on top. In fact, the only place that it really did come out on top was the two UT3 benches, which by the way, UT3 is one of the scant few games that actually does get some benefit from quad cores -- that is, if you're playing at 1024x768, and then those extra two cores net you about 15% more performance.

Oh, and we're talking about the difference between 140 and 160fps, so we aren't talking about the difference between playable and not playable...

To TomsHardware's own admission:

From the Crysis results, its apparent that CPUs don't really have a significant impact in performance but that the bottleneck still lies on GPU performance. In other words, for modern games, these two CPUs are going to be comparable with an exception of games like Supreme commander that take advantage of four cores.

 

[Neural Net]

Supreme Commander performance from Single to Dual to Quad cores - link.

What HardOCP fails to understand though is that FPS in this game is largely irrelevant - An SLI setup with 8800 GTs can handle this game at 1920x1200 with 4xAA with an average fps of 50. The difference using a dual core vs a quad is the sim speed, the speed at which the game runs, not the speed at which the game is rendered, as these are completely separate, let me explain: The sim speed on a dual core @2Ghz will dip to -4 with 2 AIs and another player over the internet, but it will still render the game at 40fps. Replace the dual core with a quad and the sim speed will stay at 0 (normal speed) and still render the game at 40fps. The AIs are offloaded onto their own individual cores instead of just having to share one with other tasks.

This is partly why for what I use my PC for, a dual core even at 4Ghz, can't come close.

 

[Kuroimaho]

The Q6700 is the best . More cores , better long term application . you name it . It is just better to go with a quad core when ever you can .

Would look fun if dual nehas with HT would beat the old 65nm Q6X line, probably by that time there will be games which benefit from more than two threads besides supreme commander.

 

[prime81]

per your own link, nearly all the tests were GPU-bound, meaning that even a 3.3Ghz E6300 was keeping up with your 3.6Ghz Q6600. That's not a very "fair" comparison to say that somehow the Quad came out on top. In fact, the only place that it really did come out on top was the two UT3 benches, which by the way, UT3 is one of the scant few games that actually does get some benefit from quad cores -- that is, if you're playing at 1024x768, and then those extra two cores net you about 15% more performance.

Oh, and we're talking about the difference between 140 and 160fps, so we aren't talking about the difference between playable and not playable...

To TomsHardware's own admission:

You mean you just admitted the E6300 is matching an E8400? I thought the quad wasn't in the same league as the E8400? UT3 isn't optimized for quadcore, google it. My whole point in posting that was to answer the main question of the thread... the E8400 is NOT better for gaming, but then again neither is the Q6600. It all comes down to what the user is going to use it for, how long they are keeping it, and if they want the ability to fold or multitask.

 

[wingman99]

Here is actual results with an E8400 clocked to 4.2ghz vs the q6600 @ 3.6ghz....

The quad is simply stout that's all there is to it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

Most of the higher resolutions, the q6600 pulls away even at only 3.6ghz. In UT3 which is probably one of the most CPU bound games ever made, it stomps the e8400.

I don't trust his test because he was using random AI bots. The more bots that die the fps goes up the more that live the fps goes down.

Quote:
Just as a note, the way I conducted the gaming tests was four runs for each setting in the Crysis benchmark program and five for UT3. For UT3 I excluded the highest result from each test as oftentimes, I found that if the bot died a lot, the FPS count would be increased significantly.

 

[wingman99]

The AIs are offloaded onto their own individual cores instead of just having to share one with other tasks.

However the AIs half to report back to core1 on the position otherwise there would be no collision also called bumping or shooting at you.

So it's only as fast as the slowest core in 2- 4 core configuration.

From what i see you get 10-20 fps with 4 cores with all the reviews i looked at.

 

[Loomy]

IMO, No one should post anything in this thread without posing evidence from here on out. The debate is getting a little too heated.

 

[Albuquerque]

You mean you just admitted the E6300 is matching an E8400? I thought the quad wasn't in the same league as the E8400?

By this inept logic, there's absolutely NO reason to buy a quad if you can get equal performance from an E6300. Thus, the quad is again, overpriced and unused.

UT3 isn't optimized for quadcore, google it.

Maybe you should follow your own advice: here's a hint of what's in that URL: Sweeney himself saying UT3 would 'scale somewhat to 4 cores', but he too still suggests a higher clocked dual core instead. How's your foot, now that you shot yourself in it?

My whole point in posting that was to answer the main question of the thread... the E8400 is NOT better for gaming, but then again neither is the Q6600. It all comes down to what the user is going to use it for

For gaming, it isn't a quad, it's a dual. For the extra cost you get an older architecture, a slower clockspeed, and more stress on the northbridge to get it up to speed, more heat and more power draw.

I don't know why you continue to try to argue this; it's as plain as day. Why would you spend more money for less speed on an older CPU core design?

 

[wingman99]

Again Wrong. USING YOUR LINK! the Q6600 is at the top! God how can you be so dense???? And you are right there are no comparisons for exact clock speed, but yet YOU linked that results site.......Not me.

Edit - @ Prime, like I said before, there are a few games that will make use of the 4 cores, however if you take a look at the other charts, It's very close to the same performance, granted the Q6600 isn't clocked as high (almost a Ghz difference).

You are are the dense one LOL you just proved my point, I did not look at the top ones, god from a dual there is only 7 fps increase that you get on equally overclocked quad playing supreme commander thanks for pointing that out.
link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-quad,1720-26.html

 

[OldSkool]

Sorry, I see the Q6600 as the best proc for that particular game, as illustrated by the chart. Maybe if I crossed my eyes, I'd see your point?

Edit - By the way, I should note, that I agree with you. A dual(in most games, but not all) certainly is better than a quad for gaming alone. There are a few games tuned for quad usage that will see better results from the quad, but very very few.

 

[Neural Net]

You are are the dense one LOL you just proved my point, I did not look at the top ones, god from a dual there is only 7 fps increase that you get on equally overclocked quad playing supreme commander thanks for pointing that out.
link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-quad,1720-26.html

That benchmark is pure rubbish, simply put they have no idea what they're doing, you can't bench the game like you would an FPS it just doesn't work that way. It's not about FPS it's about the SIM SPEED.

 

[prime81]

By this inept logic, there's absolutely NO reason to buy a quad if you can get equal performance from an E6300. Thus, the quad is again, overpriced and unused.


Maybe you should follow your own advice: here's a hint of what's in that URL: Sweeney himself saying UT3 would 'scale somewhat to 4 cores', but he too still suggests a higher clocked dual core instead. How's your foot, now that you shot yourself in it?


For gaming, it isn't a quad, it's a dual. For the extra cost you get an older architecture, a slower clockspeed, and more stress on the northbridge to get it up to speed, more heat and more power draw.

I don't know why you continue to try to argue this; it's as plain as day. Why would you spend more money for less speed on an older CPU core design?

I spent $200 on my Q6700, I spent 250 on my E8500, 250 on E3110, and 320ish on my X3350. I'm not saying anything about the quad being better, I'm just saying there are plenty of games/programs out there that make use of the quad... it's simply up to the end user to choose what they want. As far as games are concerned its more GPU bound than anything, with that in mind there really is no best cpu for gaming.

While your arguement is valid, Albuquerque you are definitely borderline on pushing your own opinion on others. I posted facts and evidence and personal knowledge from gaming, nothing more.

 

[wingman99]

Sorry, I see the Q6600 as the best proc for that particular game, as illustrated by the chart. Maybe if I crossed my eyes, I'd see your point?

Edit - By the way, I should note, that I agree with you. A dual(in most games, but not all) certainly is better than a quad for gaming alone. There are a few games tuned for quad usage that will see better results from the quad, but very very few.

Are you kidding the dual will clock allot higher than a quad and crush the little 7 FPS. Your not thinking right you have to scale the quad and dual. In the end the faster dual wins! Just like on the chart where both the quad and dual are at stock speeds, look at the chart do the math.

How many times do i have to explain this.

 

[wingman99]

That benchmark is pure rubbish, simply put they have no idea what they're doing, you can't bench the game like you would an FPS it just doesn't work that way. It's not about FPS it's about the SIM SPEED.

Show me a bench test with sim speed comparing stock clocked quad with stock clocked dual.

 

[OldSkool]

That major flaw in your thinking, is that you are assuming attainable clock speeds. If you really want an accurate comparison, you would need to clock them exactly the same and test them amongst a number of groupings to see how each perform on identical setups throughout the series. without that, any single benchmark is useless. Without a clock-for-clock comparison, you are just assuming.

Again, I do agree in most cases, lol.

 

[wingman99]

That major flaw in your thinking, is that you are assuming attainable clock speeds. If you really want an accurate comparison, you would need to clock them exactly the same and test them amongst a number of groupings to see how each perform on identical setups throughout the series. without that, any single benchmark is useless. Without a clock-for-clock comparison, you are just assuming.

Again, I do agree in most cases, lol.

Why don't you quit assuming and leave the test at stock speeds and the dual core wins.

That you can count on!!!!!!