Exactly. None of the programs I use will really make use of a quad core CPU, AFAIK. Add to the fact the E8400 runs cooler, is cheaper, uses less energy, overclocks better and performs better in most games, it's really a no-brainer for me.
Q6600 vs E8400 vs E8500
- Thread starter Molemanmus
- Start date
Exactly. None of the programs I use will really make use of a quad core CPU, AFAIK. Add to the fact the E8400 runs cooler, is cheaper, uses less energy, overclocks better and performs better in most games, it's really a no-brainer for me.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
[TW]Fox;12785872 said:
Hello [TW]Fox, very good question and what you have just said is very true. However, hopefully in the very near future more and more games will be multithreaded so the extra cores will be put too good use. Also, by purchasing a quad core processor, the resale value in say a years time may be slightly higher than if you had a dual core processor since by then, their will be or hopefully will be a lot more software out which will take advantage of multi cores.
Until then though, I guess if you are looking for a processor that doesn't consume too much power and doesn't output too much heat, one of the Wolfdale dual core processors is still a very attractive option. Staying on the same subject off power consumption though, when running a quad core processor, if it was to an extent that it made quite a large impact on your monthly bills then it's a very valid argument. However, I am not entirely sure that it makes enough of a difference to even worry about. I wouldn't mind hearing other people's thoughts on this....
Last edited:
I think the argument that quads are a waste for games is becomming more of a grey area... just look at the Far Cry 2 benches posted recently
if you want to future prof then a 45nm quad is certainly the way to go.. although a 45nm dual is still a good buy for the price
if you want to future prof then a 45nm quad is certainly the way to go.. although a 45nm dual is still a good buy for the price
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,497
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
I would disagree with that. The higher the clock speed is important but as already said, it does not tell you the whole story. You have to take into account does the extra speed of a dual core processor warrant enough of a performance jump to lose an extra two cores? By going by the graphs that I have already posted, it most certainly doesn't.
The only real reason to choose one of the Wolfdale dual core processors is if you aren't happy with the sort of heat and power consumption a quad core processor produces.
You posted the results of two games that are purely GPU limited. Overclocking the cpu in either game makes no difference apart from increasing the min fps. Games that are cpu limited will benefit more from a faster clocked dual core. The exception is if you have a 4870x2 . Then you need a quad core to make the most of that card. Otherwise a dual core is a far more sensible option. At least then there will only be one core doing nothing instead of three. I had a Q6600 at one point, i also had a E8500. The heat and extra power from the quad was horrendous and in games the dual seemed quicker and more responsive.
In terms of responsivness I have to say I prefer my quad setups over the duals.. I have two Q6600 machines, a E6850 and a E8400... All run the same HDD's and other than the main rig the same RAM.. have to say the Quad machines are snappier than either of the duals
Surely when there is so little in it, it has to come down to price? I would say they are all more than capable, all have potential to overclock and are all fantastic CPU's.
Buy the cheap one and put any cash saved towards beer mone
Buy the cheap one and put any cash saved towards beer mone
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
I would just get the E8400, it runs prefectly for me and i play games, web, some photoshop and it runs a lot better than my friends Q6600 thats clocked at 3.76, and mines at 4ghz. Nothing really uses 4 cores including games. Unless your planing to get a 4870x2 then you should get the E8400 and maybe use the money for a aftermarket heat sink.
From the above benches and general concenses around the web this doesn't really run true, multithreaded apps will without doubt run "better" on the quad everything else being the same. There is an argument to do with future proofing but lets be honest by the time full use of the quad is made, there will be far better chips to sink your teeth into.
The view around the web is that a 45nm dual will need an extra 200-400mhz to match the quad. At the same clocks the quad will pull slightly ahead as shown in the above benches.
Each has their advantages, there are far to many threads comparing dual to quad and im no expert, when talking of high end chips like the Q6600 and the E8XXX I don't think you will be dissapointed whatever you choose.
Happy shopping mate.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 189
- Location
- UK
I just upgraded to a Q6600, I thought about a E8400, in the end I decided to gamble with the Quad thinking they might be better suited to games in the future when the market share grows. The Q6600 has more potential, but currently it doesn't deliver in gaming and the E8400 has it pipped. On average that's how I see it anyway - maybe 5-10fps in favour of the E8400 when both heavily clocked.
Bottom line If you can afford to upgrade again within say 12-months when potentially games could utilise more threads get the E8400 if you want to squeeze a couple years or more from your processor get the Q6600. I got the Q6600 because I know people I can sell it on to when I decide to upgrade, I don't intend to keep it much more then a year or so.
Of course games may never really get much more threaded for a few years what with the Core i7 Turbo mode and the fact that the majority of gamer's will be dual-core for the foreseeable future. This would be a poor show from the game developers, if I was Intel or AMD I'd certainly want games using those neglected cores, it's good for sales.
Bottom line If you can afford to upgrade again within say 12-months when potentially games could utilise more threads get the E8400 if you want to squeeze a couple years or more from your processor get the Q6600. I got the Q6600 because I know people I can sell it on to when I decide to upgrade, I don't intend to keep it much more then a year or so.
Of course games may never really get much more threaded for a few years what with the Core i7 Turbo mode and the fact that the majority of gamer's will be dual-core for the foreseeable future. This would be a poor show from the game developers, if I was Intel or AMD I'd certainly want games using those neglected cores, it's good for sales.