3Ghz Dual or 2.4Ghz Quad?

mk17 · 22 Sep 2007 at 00:54

azteched said:
4 Cores Good, 2 Cores Bad?

lol

sargatanas · 22 Sep 2007 at 00:57

If you do multimedia work, get a quad, if you do anything but, get a dual, nuff said imo.

J.D · 22 Sep 2007 at 02:23

drunkenmaster said:
errm, if under scenario one you aren't using 100% of the core on both cores, then you have entirely no need for it to be at 3Ghz.

quad core, in every single situation, bar, none. benchmarks for cpu testing for gaming are shown in lower resolutions than the cards can handle to show a difference, once you get to the resolution your graphics card can handle at its highest quality levels while still smooth the difference between a 2.4Ghz, and a 4Ghz cpu becomes completely invisible to the naked eye in actual gaming. for anything like office work or internet surfing, in general it will all be fine on a 1Ghz cpu for now. in a couple years, you might need more power for something, in a couple years a lot of software, and most games will be able to use 4 cores, which gives the Q6600 gives you at stock9.6Ghz, and overclocked, even a poor overclock 12.8Ghz. the E6850 gives you 6Ghz at stock, and overclocked 8Ghz.

quad will last longer, be slower in basically nothing right now of any consequence, and be massively faster in the future.

Erm, get your breath back and point to me where I said anything about gaming?. You really are the master of being drunk it seems.

Also for a non overclocker the 3Ghz dual CPU would be the better choice for someone who isn't video editing/decoding/encoding or anything that stresses more than the dual core.

The faster stock speed would mean a quicker system unless loading windows will utilize the both cores at 100% for a while

.

While you're on about games. It's not something to be overly worried about. When it becomes mainstream (long time yet), then quad cores will be much cheaper. Quad cores are even cheap now :eek:

.

So as I said before. Depends on the user really

.

helmutcheese · 22 Sep 2007 at 02:32

I think I would rather be sitting at 4GHZ on my E6850 when Crysis hits, I want to bottleneck my 8800Ultra SC (700/2400) as little as possible, Im not quite there yet but 3.9GHZ is getting there.

Thats my situ and gaming.

Margaret · 22 Sep 2007 at 02:49

helmutcheese said:
I think I would rather be sitting at 4GHZ on my E6850 when Crysis hits, I want to bottleneck my 8800Ultra SC (700/2400) as little as possible, Im not quite there yet but 3.9GHZ is getting there.

Thats my situ and gaming.

Well it won't really be bottlenecked unless you're playing at 1280x1024.

weescott · 22 Sep 2007 at 02:53

Surely you want to bottleneck your GFX as much as possible so you know you are getting the most out of it? :confused:

helmutcheese · 22 Sep 2007 at 02:59

I mean the CPU is a bottleneck, no CPU can feed a modern top model GPU (been that way since about 7000's), so the faster I get my CPU the better if the games are both very CPU/GPU dependable.

And no I wont play at low res lol, but the CPU will run out of steam a lot sooner than the GPU.

Tee Hee Johnson · 22 Sep 2007 at 03:19

Not just get the quad and overclock it

helmutcheese · 22 Sep 2007 at 03:28

How many of these carbon copy thread actually are they, I know for a fact the SEARCH does work last the past few weeks.

stickroad · 22 Sep 2007 at 07:17

I would rather have a 3.6GHz Quad then a 4GHz Dual Core.

The difference between 3.6GHz is most likely unoctiable.

sid · 22 Sep 2007 at 09:37

stickroad said:
I would rather have a 3.6GHz Quad then a 4GHz Dual Core.

The difference between 3.6GHz is most likely unoctiable.

agreed,

I went for the q6600 g0 and i'm at 3.2ghz easily

Would have managed 3.7 at most on dual as i'm not a heavy overclocker.

Devious · 22 Sep 2007 at 13:31

str said:
Don't get a E2160! Get the E2180 as it's guarenteed to be the M0 stepping so rules out the chance of a 1.325v L2 stepping overclocking lemon.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10136779&postcount=622

stickroad · 22 Sep 2007 at 13:48

Quad Core. If you want a Dual Core then get the E6750. The E6850 is a waste of money considering you can get a Quad Core for the same money, regardless of the clock speed. The only case i can see people not liking the Quad Core is becuase of the power and heat output, thats fair enough.

sargatanas · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:29

stickroad said:
Quad Core. If you want a Dual Core then get the E6750. The E6850 is a waste of money considering you can get a Quad Core for the same money, regardless of the clock speed. The only case i can see people not liking the Quad Core is becuase of the power and heat output, thats fair enough.

What about, like I keep saying, if you're not actually going to use the extra 2 cores? I really don't understand paying for something you're not goind to use nearly enough to warrant the extra money, like the extra cost fromthe power it uses when overclocked.
I would use the extra 2 cores maybe once a month, when I play supreme commander. By the time I need them because of performance issues there will be far better quads out there for Q6600 money.

stickroad · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:31

sargatanas said:
What about, like I keep saying, if you're not actually going to use the extra 2 cores? I really don't understand paying for something you're not goind to use nearly enough to warrant the extra money, like the extra cost fromthe power it uses when overclocked.
I would use the extra 2 cores maybe once a month, when I play supreme commander. By the time I need them because of performance issues there will be far better quads out there for Q6600 money.

Go for the E6750 then.

The E6850 is a waste of money like i said, since you can get the a Quad for the exact same money.

sargatanas · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:38

stickroad said:
Go for the E6750 then.

The E6850 is a waste of money like I said, since you can get the a Quad for the exact same money.

I did go for the 6750 but if i had the money at the time I would have went for the 6850 because it clocks higher than the 6750 does. Its completely irrelevant if you can get a quad for the same price, if its faster at what you want it to do then its worth the money. With my 6750 at 3.7ghz I have noticed a fairly large difference over 3.2Ghz before you ask.

stickroad · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:40

sargatanas said:
I did go for the 6750 but if i had the money at the time I would have went for the 6850 because it clocks higher than the 6750 does. Its completely irrelevant if you can get a quad for the same price, if its faster at what you want it to do then its worth the money. With my 6750 at 3.7ghz I have noticed a fairly large difference over 3.2Ghz before you ask.

If you had two systems set up, a Quad Core running at 3.6GHz and a Dual Core running at 4GHz you wouldent notice the difference what so ever i bet. But then having the Quad will help in the future plus you can do other things on your system without the slow down.

Its like comparing 150FPS to 200FPS, its not even worth comparing.

sargatanas · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:41

stickroad said:
If you had two systems set up, a Quad Core running at 3.6GHz and a Dual Core running at 4GHz you wouldent notice the difference what so ever i bet.

In windows I agree but in games i would because i always have ATi Tray tools monitoring FPS. and when i get my 2nd graphics card itll bottleneck it all the less.

stickroad · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:44

sargatanas said:
In windows I agree but in games i would because i always have ATi Tray tools monitoring FPS. and when i get my 2nd graphics card itll bottleneck it all the less.

Why do you need ATI tray tool to compare, cant you notice the difference yourself? (Thus what im trying to say)

Their might be a difference in FPS but what you can actually see yourself is compltely different. (If you see what i mean)

sargatanas · 22 Sep 2007 at 15:45

stickroad said:
Why do you need ATI tray tool to compare, cant you notice the difference yourself?

What has that got to do with anything? Whether you can notice the difference or not, there is a relatively big difference there. ATi tray tools shows that.