• 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.

Core 2 Duo E8400 Vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

Jihad said:
To be fair if you already have a 3.4Ghz Core2Duo you're just looking for reasons to upgrade, you won't gain hardly anything since you game at what, 1680x1050?

General Windows performance probably won't gain a noticeable increase in speed, maybe you should ask yourself if you do enough Photoshop/Video encoding to justify getting another 600 or so Mhz.

I'll be waiting for the new range of Quads myself, there is no reason for me to upgrade, if I was that fussed for an increase in Photoshop/Video editing I'd go Q6600, as for gaming whether I'm at 3Ghz or 4.4Ghz I'm not gaining any FPS at 1920x1080.

Of course it will, games are going to be GPU limited for some time yet.
Click to expand...

You WILL notice a difference betwenn 3Ghz and 4.4Ghz, sorry but get real, that's a massive 1.4Ghz increase. If you don't notice any sort of increase or difference you'd have to be blind or just plain retarded.

You may think differently when the new quads come and they're not what you expected.

(Read the Intel Delay thread)
 
The only recent GPU limited game I can think of is Crysis and who bloody cares about that once they've finished it, with a 4.4Ghz cpu you will notice an FPS increase over the majority of games on the market because most are not actually GPU limited.
 
Crysis is not GPU limited, just something did not go right with the code for a supposibly CPU dependant game.

I would not even use Crysis to describe any hardwares running, best ignore it.

I agree you will see a gain in games at these high clocks, most games now reply on the CPU and GPU.

No matter what you read a 8800GTX etc bottlenecks any CPU today (has been that way for while and I aint aware it has changed as GPU's normally 2x performance each new Series (7000 to 8000) and CPU's aint 2x each new Series).

I think anyone running a 8800GTX or Ultra needs to add a very high clocked CPU to it to get the most out of it in games that rely on the CPU/GPU, unlike F.E.A.R which is mainly GPU.

So I agree with the above ignoring Crysis.
 
Crysis looks GPU limited to me, 1680x1050 all high, 70% CPU usage, 1024x768 CPU is closer to 100%.


Crysis is like a parasite now worming its way through OcUK and infecting every thread it comes across :p
 
All we can go by is the CEO's info (nobody knows anything more than he does) and thats BS, game was said to be about CPU, dont load up 1 of my Cores nevermind both (many peeps on Quads seen same issue), so wont matter if I had a Nvidia 9950 Ultra SSC ACS3 it would still run crap.

Games also said to scale back 2 years, and wont scale forward 1.5years without patches when needed.

So I refuse to use Crysis to gauge any hardware untill properly patched.

That aside I still think 4GHZ+ over 3.6GHZ must help in games that are about both the CPU and GPU if the PC is running a GTX or Ultra.
 
Hmm do I need go post URL again ?, want to argue with the CEO who got it made ?.

(Im sure I have posted it enough times to sink in now).

@ Jihad, you possibly are using Games that are about the GPU or the simply fact your 8800GT cant match the balance needed at 3GHZ-4.4GHZ.
 
hmmm I don't know what I should do now lol.

The Q9450 is only £218 lol. Hmmm 8500 which will do 4Ghz maybe or a Q9450 which will need a new motherboard and may do 4Ghz also.

Grrr. Guess I will have to see lol.
 
anidoor.gif


:)
 
 
Yes lets get this back on topic :).

I've heard that the E8400 has 2 cores and the Q6600 has 4 cores... Hmmmmmmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom