• 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 =(

When I moved from my [email protected] to a opty 185@ 2.8, The diff in 1 or 2 games was huge, even tho both cpus were running at the same speed.. For me jumping from dual to quad isnt worth it atm,, When I jump to quad, I want to see the same performance hit like I did going from single to dual core.
 
At the end of the day, if I could garantee a 3.6 and without getting rosted alive with a q6600, Id change my e8400,, cos I think going from a e8400 to a q6600 with a slower clock speed is just daft atm. Cos most games dont fully use the 2 extra cores, so for those games your system would be downgraded.

But like I said Im only upgrading to quad when my dual cant cope anymore, then I will see a huge performance boost moving to quad, like I have done going from a [email protected] to a [email protected]. Untill then Im not intrested in quad.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...

have u linked the correct chart ?
im not seeing that at all on the page u have linked .....or am i just very drowsy and making a numpty of myself
 
memory said:
have u linked the correct chart ?
im not seeing that at all on the page u have linked .....or am i just very drowsy and making a numpty of myself
Click to expand...

Since I post my link, they have redone the benchmarks and changed them. Just to point out I am not mad! :p
 
Well they might have changed the results but sadly Greebo your still mad as a bag of spanners m8 :D. Sometimes people come on here looking for a simple answer they don't care what makes a certain component better or faster just that it is and while some of you might enjoy going right into the detail most just want the best performance regardless of why it might perform better.
 
Last edited:
Phil2008 said:
At the end of the day, if I could garantee a 3.6 and without getting rosted alive with a q6600, Id change my e8400,, cos I think going from a e8400 to a q6600 with a slower clock speed is just daft atm. Cos most games dont fully use the 2 extra cores, so for those games your system would be downgraded.
Click to expand...

Dont know were you got downgrade from?
Read the link i posted from legion and it shows a stock Q6600 pulling the same fps as a 3.3 E8400 using a 4870x2 ;)

In theory, you would only need to clock a Q6600 to 3ghz to match your 3.6 but in all honesty, if i had an E series the only upgrade i would do is to a Q9450/Q9550. If upgrading from older tech then i would definately choose the Q6600 over the E series :)
 
When all is said and done, it's better to get a quad and clock it to ~3.5ghz so you get a decent spread of performance in all applications than go for a dual core and get your extra 500mhz but lose two cores.

I doubt most people here run a PC solely for gaming, and the quads outperform the duals in a lot of the triple A titles, so where's the beef?
 
reflux said:
I doubt most people here run a PC solely for gaming, and the quads outperform the duals in a lot of the triple A titles, so where's the beef?
Click to expand...

but the quads don't outperfrom the duals in a lot of titles, in fact in hardly any, and the duals are cheaper. Hence the debate. And to keep the ghz and tech the same the yorkies start about £75 more than the wolfies, and then ramp up in cost much more quickly.

I know you can OC the cheaper Q6600, but OC's aren't guaranteed and it has less cache per core, and is more power hungry than the wolfie's.
 
But at one point it wasn't even a debate so few games or apps made use of the four cores nothing more then a dual was needed but that is changing and anyone thinking of getting a pc now that they will keep for over 12 months should buy a quad.
 
Tetras said:
My "you" was referring to the OP, not you. To illustrate please see the following quote: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.

Peace.
Click to expand...

they wont have much of a choice... beyond something major happening in the CPU industry, we are coming to an impasse. were at 45nm now, you cant really go beyond 1nm so what do you do ? more cores, faster communications between cores.
 
In regards to the title of the discussion I would say it depends on what u are using the PC for. I work in 3D design (Maya) and had an E6600 but recently upgraded to a Q6600, my render times have literally halved thanks to the quad and I did notice a few improvements on the stability of my machine.

As far as games are concerned I have noticed many improvements on that front also at the higher resolutions, hope that helps
 
There's a lot of ownership defence going on here. Quad core owners will invariably recommend quads, same for dual core owners.

If gaming is all you do and you are on a budget then go for dual - the E8600's are looking very tasty, however for a little more why not just get a quad core that offers so much more flexability?
 
Are there significant improvement in games (frames, playabilty or AI) when you go above say 3.6Ghz(just picking a number out of the air) assuming you dont have Tri or Quad graphic card?
 
What an interesting read to be honest. I mean i really don't think i'm that much closer to choosing as both sides seem to have solid arguments but definitely a good read.

I'm looking to spend around £1,000 ish on a machine not sure if that will include the screen or not yet.

My general uses once i have dual screen would be, Wrath of the Lich king on one screen, other has Opera, msn, skype, and other small utilities.

If not LK it would be COd4, spore, TF2, CSS they are the ones of the top of my head and then old games that i would run probably either with Virtual PC or have XP 32bit installed also to run them.

I mean currently the way i see it is: becuase i'm not video editing etc the dual is to go for currently, and in 2 years when games start to really use quads upgrade to a quad.

If i buy a quad now the q6600 in 2 years time will be outstripped and i doubt currently will i really get the full use seeing as i wont play games like supreme commander that uses quads currently.

Currently i was looking at if i went dual the E8500, 4GB Ram, ATI HD 4870 512mb, 500gb hard drive, Decent cooler better than the intel ones and the other bits and pieces.

I will def post up my spec beforer buying as you guys definitely seem to be some of the best to come to, and really know your stuff
 
Randell said:
which would indicate GPU limitation
Click to expand...

Which is strange considering they used a 4870x2 for benching :eek:
This has been my argument all along, all the quads & wolfdales will do 3ghz quite easily on a good cooler.

To me i see the Dual more of a set up for benchers/some gamers & Quad for the remaining gamers, encoders, multi taskers etc (for more all round performance) although if you've got the budget, the Q9450/Q9550 has to be the best buy atm ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom