Anyone who went Quad wished they had stayed with Duo?

[TheSwede]

Really?


You will save energy?

No

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

Hmm and the point with your post was exactly?!? Unless you can see in the future and know exactly what I will be doing I fail to see your point.. so yeah, maybe I wont save any energy by going Duo instead of Quad, but after reading the replays it was clear for me that I do not need a Quad and that a Duo will be just fine for me.. if you find that being a "banal" post that is entirely in your opinion to do so, but I can't see the point with your post at all..

Cheers
Tom

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Hmm and the point with your post was exactly?!? Unless you can see in the future and know exactly what I will be doing I fail to see your point.. so yeah, maybe I wont save any energy by going Duo instead of Quad, but after reading the replays it was clear for me that I do not need a Quad and that a Duo will be just fine for me.. if you find that being a "banal" post that is entirely in your opinion to do so, but I can't see the point with your post at all..

Cheers
Tom

He think's he is God and what Easy says apparantly to him must go. Just nod your head and go along with it.. .. .

 

[TheSwede]

He think's he is God and what Easy says apparantly to him must go. Just nod your head and go along with it.. .. .

Thank you Tom|Nbk [had to put the "|Nbk" in or it would look like I was talking to myself! ], I think I see what you mean.. I will try and contain my urge to argue with "God".. even if I will not be nodding my head and going along with it though!

Cheers
Tom

 

[martin9887]

I to was considering the Q6600 for my brothers new PC, After reading this thread, Im just going to get him the E6600 or similar. He only plays games, That's about the only thing he'll do that'll make it do some work.

As for myself, I don't see a point of upgrading if you already have an descent C2D chip, Maybe when 'true' quads come around but not for the the current ones.

So thanks Tom for the thread .

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Im glad this thread has made some people see the light . BTW im not some Quad hater I just think people should consider the alternatives and to whether they actually need a Quad

 

[Vanilla]

If you run folding on your PC I take it quad would be better of dual?

Not that such a thing should be high up the list, but it is still sometihng to consider.

 

[elfy]

easyrider meet highhorse, highhorse meet easyrider

although i will initially be getting a duo 21xx when quad penryns come out i'll be first in line, but i do a lot rendering in my line of work so that justifies it, plus it means i get to flog my G5 and make more money to put towards phase

 

[elfy]

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

save even more money, buy a 21xx and clock the flip out of it

 

[londonbairn]

People always focus on apps that take advantage of multi cores, what about true multitasking? A lot of apps I use (intense apps) are not multi threaded, and I notice switching between apps is faster under quad core.

It's not only CAD and encoding...there's many other areas that benefit.

 

[stoofa]

Meh - at £175 it was rude NOT to upgrade.
Do I need quad?
Most of the time no, but now and again it comes in useful.
As it happens I bought a Q6600 and then we had to buy some kit in for work, so with a little creative work I've now actually got a Q6700.
Extremely mild overclock to 3GHz.
So I've got 2x 2Core's running at 3GHz.
Add in the rest of my machine - 4GB of DDR2-1066, 640MB 8800GTS and I'm more than happy with my machine right now and I also feel I won't need to look for anything new for a while.
My next upgrade will be once the true 4 core CPU's have made their appearance and have dropped to a more sensible price.

 

[pc-modd]

Everyone is going on about do you "need" a quad core..blah..blah..blah..

But it might not just be about if you "need" it or not! Its the I "WANT" it that comes into play! If you have the money to buy it then why not?

Anybody own a new car under 3 -4 years old? well you didnt buy that becuase you "needed" it you got it because you "WANTED" it and you didnt fancy getting some cheap ass car even though it might go from a - b you still got the new more expencive one.. get my point?

Maybe be thats a bad example above but im sure it surves its purpose and quad is great for Multi-Tasking

Oh.... and about saving energy ^_^ how many people turn off there lights and turn there TV off standby.. and that 3litre care u own why not get a 2 or a 1.6 eh? lol

 

[Cir108]

The real dilemma between the E6850 vs Q6600 is not a question of quad vs duo but whether the risk of not getting a satisfactory overclocked Q6600 is worth betting on. Anyone who cannot honestly answer the question, “For the same price, would you rather have a duo or a quad with the SAME performance/speed/FSB ?”, ought to hold his breath until the emergency logic squad arrives with the oxygen.

Same price, same FSB/speed, quad or duo ? Still undecided ? So, quad is always better regardless of whether you’ll actually get to use the extra 2 cores or not [other than helping to burn more trees when more are need to convert the CO2]. Viewpoints about heat, realised potency, wimpy this or that, are expressions of the fear of one’s overclocking prowess and luck with luck being the dominant factor. Rule of thumb, if you can’t get 3.3/3.4 GHz out of a Q6600, regardless of what you’ll get out of a E6850, go for the E6850. Now, spend the next 2 month’s anguish you’ve just saved and start playing more games or encode that mountain of avi pornos that you’ve been putting on the back burner. Hasta la Vista, babie....

 

[Netvyper]

How many of the folks in the 'A dual is enough' camp, are running vista on their main or gaming rigs?

and how many in the 'Quads are where its at' are running vista?



Personally, im looking towards a quad, I use vista and If it can put my cpu at 100% load doing 'stuff' (Gaming, Movie, all the other background stuff going on) rather than benchmarking, then its not fast enough, but at the same time the price point is very important. I think for £165, a Q6600 is a worthy upgrade. However since im still using S939 & DDR1, to upgrade to it is another £300 upgrade this year, probably more than im willing to spend at the moment, I'll more than likely end up waiting for the next generation.

 

[PCZ]

Horses for courses.

For Gamers the Dual is the best choice.
Because generally you can run them at higher clock speeds.

Most games are single threaded.
Things might change in the future but right now it's clock speed that matters.
Some new games are promising to use multiple cores but there a way off yet.

Now the quad core is going to appeal more to the Video encoding folks.
It takes a long time to rip or convert video and having an app that can split the work across multiple cores saves loads of time.
Same goes for rendering, crunching numbers etc.

Bear in mind though that a Quad draws more power, and consequently has a higher thermal output.
This places greater demands on the MB, PSU and Cooling.

There is a penalty for buying a Quad without a clear need for one in that 99.99 % of the time you will be running Apps slower than a cheaper and higher clocked Dual would.
You will also need higher Quality components to run it reliably.

 

[Rojin]

People always focus on apps that take advantage of multi cores, what about true multitasking? A lot of apps I use (intense apps) are not multi threaded, and I notice switching between apps is faster under quad core.

It's not only CAD and encoding...there's many other areas that benefit.

Exactly, everyone just keeps banging on about single apps\games taking advantage of multi-cores just as they did when dual cores came out. That really isn't the point for the majority of users. Ok if you only run one thing at a time when using your computer you'll not even see an advantage of a dual core, but if like me (and surely a hell of lot of others) you actually run more than one application at a time, then multi cores are a godsend and you see the benefit every single day. I'll be getting a quad, as at the current price it would be rude not too, and I know for a fact I will personally see a benefit just as I did when I went dual core many moons ago. I don't do any video encoding either. Just normal general use but I do have a lot of things on the go at once. If apps and games do come out which take advantage, then that is just extra benefit.

 

[shokz]

Didn't have a C2D but...

I have to say, the Q6600 is quite an improvement over my old Athlon XP 2000+ Thoroughbred.

 

[ergonomics]

i went from a E6600 at 3.5ghz to a Q6600 at 2.8ghz.

i do rendering in 3dsmax, so obviously i am seeing massive improvements

as many have said, theyre very cheap, and its not like windows is any slower because ive dropped 700mhz.

 

[Renatukasza]

I'm very happy with my qx6700, though i don't like the temps

 

[Digital Punk]

He think's he is God and what Easy says apparantly to him must go. Just nod your head and go along with it.. .. .

LOL!

By the time i actually need quad, there'll be vastly better ones on the market anyway, so I'd be wasting my money getting one.

Duo suits my needs right now, and I'd probably go for sheer clockspeed of the E6850 over quad cores if I were buying atm.

 

[eXor]

Yes, no improvement over two cores in gaming.