-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Quad Cores or Dual Cores? I'm COnfused =(
- Thread starter RoastChicken
- Start date
Last edited:
The point Im trying to make, A e8400 at 3.6 playing todays games are nowhere near pushing the cpu at full tilt yet... So I'll say again, Why bother with quad core cpus for games atm?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,165
- Location
- in the arse of england.
other than greater performance in games that utilise quad core, i.e. anything made from now onwards and Vidoe editing, encoding, decoding,
oh and future proofing against bottlenecks as most new games will take full use of four cores.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
You asked and I supply:
COH:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2
As you can see a quad core offers double the framerates over the same speed dual core.Don't forget this wasn't the case when COH of heroes first came out but is something that the programmers added with a patch
And if you google coh and quad core and look at 45nm reviews where they use coh as a benchmark you will see that this is by no means a one off. There is a major boost to COH with quad cores so longs as your graphics card is high end. I must admit the other reviews only show a 50% boost in framerates with a quad (but pre GTX280 and 4870x2 days) but either way, that is a major boost in framerate.
FSX:
Quads do not increase the framerates over dual. Hence in simple reviews you will not see a quad outperforming a dual core. However, FSX uses the quad to have a much higher image quality without any reduction in the framerate.
Eg a 8500 at 3Ghz and q6600 @ 3Ghz may show the exact same framerate on a chart, however the graphics will be far superior on the quad system. This was yet again a patch and not in the original game. Don't beleive me? Look here:
http://forum.i3d.net/main/26986-sponsored-feature-microsoft-flight-simulator-x-soars.html
That is from the people who wrote FSX and INtel who helped a lot with the mutli core optimising. From memory the article goes on to say that FSX scales right up to 32 cores
Like I said though. If you are going to change cpus again within a year, get a fast dual core now. If you plan to keep for a long time (I kept my old cpu for 3 and half years) then the quad is the one to go for.
And the FS-X thing is rubbish.
I have *NEVER* maxed out my dual E6600 in FS-X. Ever.
A quad has no bearing in that game at all, 600mhz more overclock of a dual WILL however help increasing the power of the 100% loaded core.
Even on my Macbook Pro @ 2.4Ghz core 1 still doesn't do more than 10% and even that happens in FS9!
So deffo dual *** for gaming, quad for everything else.
your making the same point as i am, i agree with you, and my post was referring to someone else reg alan wake vid .
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
I would get an E8000 series.
My "you" was referring to the OP, not you. To illustrate please see the following quote:something_totally_different said:
I also dispute your claim that future games will make use of all four cores. Fortunately you are the one making a claim, I am the skeptic, therefore the onus of proof is on you.OP said:
Peace.
The company of heroes results prove otherwise. And now with 4870x2, more games are becoming cpu limited.
There are more games utilising four cores so it seems a reasonable assumption that future games will utilise them as well. It all depends on when the op is planning to upgrade again after this purchase if he is on a 2-3 year upgrade cycle like a lot of us the quad is a better bet. As has been said if he is going to upgrade next year then buying a dual now won't be a problem for him.
Disagree and so do many others. Look in the many FSX forums. Plenty of pictures showing use of all 4 cores especially when banking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
:/
Well whenever I've had two screens running i've had task manager running on one and its spiked to 50% sometimes but otherwise sits at 10%.
Edit: Plus if its using all 4 cores on a quad it should be using my 2nd core to do the work of core 3 and 4...
So if a dual @ 3.6 isnt being pushed then neither will a 3ghz quad (them game tests on the link i posted shows a 2.4 quad is within 5fps of a 3ghz dual on games not supporting quad) .. so as said before why bother going dual?
To me it makes more sense having an extra 2 cores for programmes that do/will support it as im sure there isnt many people (if any) that only use a PC for games & net browsing
Read the link i posted, a dual needs 600mhz more to match a Q6600 anyway & about 800mhz over a 45 Quad so although its only using 10% on the extra 2 cores its obviously helping
Last edited:
You mean Guru3D? Alright, here we go:
COD4: Max frame rate difference between all resolutions 1 - 3 FPS.
WoC: Approx 5 FPS between E8400 and Q6600 (E8400 infront).
Ghost Recon AW2: 1 - 3 FPS.
Stalker: 1 - 3 FPS.
Fear: 1 - 3 FPS.
ETQW: Approx 5 FPS (E8400 infront).
Crysis: 1 - 3 FPS.
Trend: The E8400 is consistently infront of the Q6600, with the clock speed, architecture tweaks and cache putting it ahead, along with lower power consumption and being easier to cool.
The architecture tweaks are obviously doing nothing, 600mhz difference seems a lot for such a small difference in fps.
Power cconsumption is not anything ive ever worried about, todays psu's can handle it fine and it isnt that big a difference. if its electric bills worrying you then dont buy a high end gaming rig (a X2 gfx or xfire/sli) plus speedstep is your answer here
A Q9300 @ 3.5 only uses 20watt over a 4.2 E8400 & the Q6600 an extra 50w @ 3.6 (thats while running intels burn which is abit ott & all the above will be within 5fps on none quad optimized games)
The interesting bit is the phenoms use even more than the above (about 40w more than Q6600)
Only thing i agree on is the dual is easier to cool
Power cconsumption is not anything ive ever worried about, todays psu's can handle it fine and it isnt that big a difference. if its electric bills worrying you then dont buy a high end gaming rig (a X2 gfx or xfire/sli) plus speedstep is your answer here
A Q9300 @ 3.5 only uses 20watt over a 4.2 E8400 & the Q6600 an extra 50w @ 3.6 (thats while running intels burn which is abit ott & all the above will be within 5fps on none quad optimized games)
The interesting bit is the phenoms use even more than the above (about 40w more than Q6600)
Only thing i agree on is the dual is easier to cool
Last edited:
The GPU (8800) is the main bottleneck above 1024 x 768 in those tests, you'll notice that the difference between the E8400 and Penryn quads is also very small.
In games EIST/C1E don't help.
The Q9300 (unlike Q9450 and above) has the same amount of cache as an E8400 (6MB) and uses the Penryn core. It is also well known how higher volts (and clocks) can significantly increase power consumption, 3.5 to 4.2 is not at all fair (and the Q9300 is quite a bit more expensive than either CPU). 50 Watt on a CPU is quite a lot (and again, you didn't mention volts).
Phenom has been higher consumption than Conroe/Penryn since release, nothing new here (it is still based on K8 after all).
So your pro for Q6600:
It might be faster in the future
My pro E8400:
Lower power consumption
Easier to cool
Consistently faster (for now)
Hmm
So your pro for Q6600:
It might be faster in the future
My pro E8400:
Lower power consumption
Easier to cool
Consistently faster (for now)
Hmm
Like i said with power consumption, if you make it a fair test and also use a penryn quad then the consumption is hardly noticable.
If someone is spending 4 figures on a gaming rig i highly doubt they'll worry about electric costs that much & most probably wont overclock meaning there consumption is only slightly different (not enough to worry about)
It isnt consistently faster either, the dual needs at least 600mhz more to get the same performance in games alone.
The only edge the dual has is it runs slightly cooler
That is the point, it isn't a fair test. The Q9300 has the same amount of cache as the E8400 (half of a regular Penryn quad) and is approx £40 more expensive than either the E8400 or Q6600 (a "proper" Penryn quad is another £100). You also didn't mention voltages to obtain those frequencies, which are very important part of power consumption.
Who said anything about 4 figures? Q6600 or E8400 series are both less than £120.
They are the same price, hello? Also the GPU is the main bottleneck in all of those tests.
You are missing the point deary.