• 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.

Anyone who went Quad wished they had stayed with Duo?

Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
23,012
Location
N.E England
As per title really. Do you wish you had stayed with Duo?. Do you regret your purchase because of heat or maybe because you have come to the realisation you actually havn't noticed improvements anywhere bar encoding etc and you don't actually need quad. Perhaps you now wish to go back to your high clocking cool duo's?. Just curious :p ;)
 
My mate who is a VJ has a Quad sat in his case that he takes for rendering images off 5 hard drives in London nightclubs.

He has 3 desk fans sat in a triangle around the case so that it doesnt burn out :eek:

Apart from that, they do suck a bit!!!!!! :p

edit: Awaiting my new E6750 ( Well thats if I find out it fits a 650i mobo )
 
About as convincing than being told you will survive jumping from an Aeroplane @ 3000 feet with a concrete parachute.
 
If you don't have the apps and the usage pattern that need it then it is a waste to buy one.

If you do then nothing else will match it.

I'm sure there will be a good few people around who bought one because the price came down and not because they needed it.
 
Teal said:
If you don't have the apps and the usage pattern that need it then it is a waste to buy one.

If you do then nothing else will match it.

I'm sure there will be a good few people around who bought one because the price came down and not because they needed it.

I agree sort of.

If your spending in the region of £150-200 then theirs no reason not to get a Quad Core. :)
 
Teal said:
I'm sure there will be a good few people around who bought one because the price came down and not because they needed it.

Yea this is who I was aiming the thread at really :p
 
stickroad said:
If your spending in the region of £150-200 then theirs no reason not to get a Quad Core. :)
Agreed. I don't see the point in buying an E6850 at all.
 
I'd rather have my four 3.33ghz cores than two 4ghz cores :p

And the G0 Q6600's will widen the gap even further.
 
imo I dont think that there will be any apps for the home user to take full advantage of a Quad for maybe a few years yet.

I get the feeling that Intel are trying a little 'too' hard to be one step ahead of AMD.

Either that or its the fault of the software developers who just cannot keep up with the jones'.
 
Wiggins said:
imo I dont think that there will be any apps for the home user to take full advantage of a Quad for maybe a few years yet.

Defiantly not the average Home User.

Though they will fall into the trap that shops like the people in purple shirts are now selling them and they will be like "OMG :eek: QUAD CORE :eek: HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE :eek: " :p
 
stickroad said:
Defiantly not the average Home User.

Though they will fall into the trap that shops like the people in purple shirts are now selling them and they will be like "OMG :eek: QUAD CORE :eek: HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE :eek: " :p

Thats the thing, if purple shirted people are selling them that means they could becoming more mainstream over time. If they become mainstream then companies will be more happy to build apps to use the power of the home user.

Am i right in thinking that Ghost Recon 2 is multi threaded? |It shows up using 93% CPU on task manager
 
stickroad said:
Though they will fall into the trap that shops like the people in purple shirts

OMG can you imagine a 50+ Home User callling their ( falls over laughing at quote ) "Technical Helpdesk" asking them if they need to buy 4 Motherboards because they just bought a Quad Core from them.
 
Don't see how anyone would regret going quad core for 165 quid. :confused:

4ghz 6850 is dull boring and 200 Mhz faster than my 6400 which really is not very exciting at all.

3.6ghz + quad is the way forward here.

even 3.2ghz on air with quad is great news.

would you really notice the difference over 4ghz in games?


I highly doubt it.
 
Last edited:
have to say that , most new games will use at least 2 cores, some quad, but that doesn't really mean they are needed. but the more people that have quads, the sooner they become mainstream as said, the sooner games designers will utilise them.

i would expect most/all ports from consoles to now use multicores as, both consoles(yeah i said both, suck on that Wii users, and my parents :( ) use more than one core.

meh, often with software its chicken and the egg, do you need the software or hardware first? either really, but in reality it works donkey and carrot style. programmers don't want to go through extra effort to make something work on a quad core if they can do it on a dual/single core fine. its more work for the same outcome. where as intel/amd love quad cores because, new product = more profit, simple as that. at some point you hit the crossover point where software makers just don't compete unless they are able to use multiple cores.

ps, posting from my 3.6Ghz quad core, yup, B3.
 
easyrider said:
would you really notice the difference over 4ghz in games?


I highly doubt it.

I dont even think that anything above 2.4Ghz on a core2duo will make much difference on gaming.

wiggins said:
If you can get just above minimum frame rates on max settings with stock settings ( as long as you have a spot on GPU ), you dont need anything more.

Sorry, meant to say "Mininum frame rates on max settings ( Game ) with stock settings ( CPU ), ( as long as you have a spot on GPU ), you dont need anything more.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom