Anyone who went Quad wished they had stayed with Duo?

[Magic Man]

I'm in the same boat as many I guess, get an E6850 or a Q6600.

Now I don't encode anything that takes too long neither do I wish to have multiple things running when I'm playing a game so to me a stock 3GHz on two cores still seems better than a stock 2.4GHz on four cores.

Yes the quad can be overclocked but then so can the duo and for the most part those extra two cores in the quad are going to remain unused whereas the extra speed of the duo would not.

None of my applications requires two cores let alone four and none makes me want more speed. The only area where more processing power is required is in gaming and, to me, until games are fully mutli-threaded then why wouldn't you want the extra speed given by two cores over the slower speed of four cores where those extra two cores may not be doing anything?

The good thing is I suppose that both these chips are so relatively cheap now compared to only a few months ago that upgrading according to usage wouldn't hurt too much if you did choose the wrong one...

 

[stickroad]

then why wouldn't you want the extra speed given by two cores over the slower speed of four cores where those extra two cores may not be doing anything?

Because 600MHZ is nothing, look at the bench marks, the E6850 vs the Q6600 the diffrence isnt even worth comparing if you ask me.

In reality a Q6600 is fast enough.

 

[FreeStream]

Because 600MHZ is nothing, look at the bench marks, the E6850 vs the Q6600 the diffrence isnt even worth comparing if you ask me.

In reality a Q6600 is fast enough.

Did the benchmarks include FS-X with the 1.1 patch?

If not then ill stick with my Duo

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Don't see how anyone would regret going quad core for 165 quid.
4ghz 6850 is dull boring and 200 Mhz faster than my 6400 which really is not very exciting at all.

Explain how a quad is more exciting I don't think CPU's are really that exciting at all but whatever turns you on easy.

3.6ghz + quad is the way forward here.

3.6Ghz for most people is unachievable at the moment because of the older hotter steppings still circulating.

even 3.2ghz on air with quad is great news.

True but even then there toasty

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

would you notice the difference with quad in a most games out today, nope. You would in a multi threaded game but these are far and few between.

Only encoders need apply for these quads until multithreaded games become the norm imho.

 

[Impy77]

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 QUAD CORE HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE "

Yeah but lurking on these boards and reading the CPU forum here, there is just as much of the OMG QUAD CORE HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE going on here as there will be in any chain store re the Q6600.

I guess the main difference is people on here might actually put it into a PC where the other components aren't the cheapest possible.....

Impy

 

[Magic Man]

Because 600MHZ is nothing, look at the bench marks, the E6850 vs the Q6600 the diffrence isnt even worth comparing if you ask me.

In reality a Q6600 is fast enough.

No chip is ever "fast enough" - if you believed that you'd still be on a 1.4GHz TBird...

If 600MHz is "nothing" then why use a 2.4GHz chip over a 1.8GHz chip?

And I assume since "600MHz is nothing" that you are not overclocking the Q6600 at all then...?

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Yeah but lurking on these boards and reading the CPU forum here, there is just as much of the OMG QUAD CORE HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE going on here as there will be in any chain store re the Q6600.

Spot on. A lot of people just bought them because of the price drops without thinking they ever actually needed one in the first place.

No chip is ever "fast enough" - if you believed that you'd still be on a 1.4GHz TBird...

If 600MHz is "nothing" then why use a 2.4GHz chip over a 1.8GHz chip?

And I assume since "600MHz is nothing" that you are not overclocking the Q6600 at all then...?

You bring up some very valid points.

 

[drunkenmaster]

in 99.9% of games you can't see the difference between 2.4Ghz and 4Ghz on a dual core, or quad core, when you're playing at high detail on a 1600x1200/1920x1200.

ps, my "old hot stepping" , is doing not so bad at 3.8Ghz, and rising. but thats just to see whats in it, i checked a couple games i played recently already, not played them, just couple levels i made notes of rough framerates, and no difference, shocking, and no difference while i was at 2.4 (ok, but not can play with new levels of detail different) and 3.2 which was no different.

for most of us, gaming is all we really do thats hard on the cpu's. frankly i tend to leave a lot of stuff downloading on newsgroups with an auto par checker and unraring app, which can obviously use some power in the background and has been noticeable, but i don't want to stop it as it saves a LOT of effort. i often leave other stuff going in background and frankly £165's not a lot if you use it pretty often for work which can be done quicker on it.


one thing though, are the new dual core chips actually doing 4GHz easily and always, or are they doing 4GHz just like E6600's would "all do 3.6Ghz on air" which is what everyone said for months just before and after the E6600 came out.

theres more heat, but more surface area, as long as you have cooling that can remove it theres no real reason you can't hit similar speeds dual or quad core. my quad isn't even running that much hotter than my e6600 at similar speeds.

 

[Vertigo]

Yeah but lurking on these boards and reading the CPU forum here, there is just as much of the OMG QUAD CORE HOW COOL IS THAT MUST BUY ONE going on here as there will be in any chain store re the Q6600.

Exactly. As I've said before, the vast majority of people going quad are doing so for bragging rights. Even if the vast majority of stuff they do won't use the extra cores and they'd get better overall performance with a higher-clocked dual-core, they just stick their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la, they don't want to hear it, they just want quad because it's "cool" and "sexy" and "the way forward" and better than their mates dual

 

[MikeTimbers]

I've been considering a quad as an upgrade from an Athlon XP simply because they're perfect for Folding@Home. Serious crunchers.

 

[555BUK]

Dual cores have only really been required for games/apps recently, and they have been about for 2-3 years. Quad will be the norm is 2 years time but for now it is largely a gimmick (unless you perform a LOT of encoding or CAD intensive work). A dual core @ 3.5GHz will beat a quad @ 3.2GHz in ~90% of todays apps. By the time you actually need it, Penryn and Barcelona will be cheaper and faster than an overclocked Q6600.

Why waste electricity you do not need?

 

[Shimmy]

Dual cores have only really been required for games/apps recently, and they have been about for 2-3 years. Quad will be the norm is 2 years time but for now it is largely a gimmick (unless you perform a LOT of encoding or CAD intensive work). A dual core @ 3.5GHz will beat a quad @ 3.2GHz in ~90% of todays apps. By the time you actually need it, Penryn and Barcelona will be cheaper and faster than an overclocked Q6600.

Why waste electricity you do not need?

That's my opinion too on the whole, hence why I decided to get a e2140 and clock it to its limit on stock cooling. Sure there are many better processors but not by a large or noticeable distance imo. But then again I've always been a VFM person.

Many people will like just to see what it the best they can do at the current moment, and I suppose if you have the surplus cash why not, if it's your hobby.

 

[Cob]

I've been considering a quad as an upgrade from an Athlon XP simply because they're perfect for Folding@Home. Serious crunchers.

They certainly go hand-in-hand

 

[easyrider]

Explain how a quad is more exciting I don't think CPU's are really that exciting at all but whatever turns you on easy.



3.6Ghz for most people is unachievable at the moment because of the older hotter steppings still circulating.




True but even then there toasty



would you notice the difference with quad in a most games out today, nope. You would in a multi threaded game but these are far and few between.

Only encoders need apply for these quads until multithreaded games become the norm imho.

Point being everyone is obsessed with temps.

"i prime and get 65c load"

FFS this means nothing.

The rest of your post is meaningless

 

[C64]

It's all about the e-penis

 

[easyrider]

It's all about the e-penis

Get a grip.

This is about contained data.


grow up

 

[Shimmy]

It's all about the e-penis

Get a grip.

Is it bad that I found that quite amusing

 

[TheSwede]

All the joking beside! lol

This thread just convinced be in which direction I will be going for my new rig.. I was debating if I would go Quad or Duo and since I am not a hardcore gamer nor do I do any CAD work or similar I have now decided I will be going for the E6750, saving me some quid [which probably will go towards a new monitor instead! ] and also will draw less energy [not much probably but everything helps! ]

So a big thank you to the OP for this thread, and for all the replays which has helped me make my decision!

Cheers
Tom

 

[easyrider]

All the joking beside! lol

This thread just convinced be in which direction I will be going for my new rig.. I was debating if I would go Quad or Duo and since I am not a hardcore gamer nor do I do any CAD work or similar I have now decided I will be going for the E6750, saving me some quid [which probably will go towards a new monitor instead! ] and also will draw less energy [not much probably but everything helps! ]

So a big thank you to the OP for this thread, and for all the replays which has helped me make my decision!

Cheers
Tom

Really?


You will save energy?

No

You will get a quad in the future and do nothing in return for your banal post

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Is it bad that I found that quite amusing

LOL. , Easyrider stop taking things so serious I think your the one that's being banal here as per usual it's a case of Easy on his high horse