-
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
- Thread starter willhub
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
WHAT bit above on that WEBSITE did I hack into and fabricate. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 137
No but you believe it so strongly that you come here stating that the CEO knows more than anyone here - your words not mine. The figures shown above and throughout the net suggest otherwise.
People were just trying to smack you down off that high horse then you point the finger and act all innocent.
I thought this thread was about E8400 v Q6600, not a load of drivel about Crysis
There have been several attempts to go back on topic but I think the little kink in the thread that is Crysis just needs to be worked out first...and I think that's happened now...I certainly hope so. derned infectious virus that is crapsis
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Yes I did, one more chance guys and I start deleting/suspending - Not fair to punish everyone else for a few's actions.
*Please* keep it clean people & the insults off the forum
*Please* keep it clean people & the insults off the forum
Lol @ crysis debate. I cannot believe so much attention is given to a game that is essentially a beta, badly coded POS. Typical of EA tbh and I wouldn't expect any different from future releases under the EA name. It was the same with BF2. Wait for 3 or 4 patches then the game will be complete, until then there will always be arguements about it. What that has to do with Q6600 vs 8400 I have no idea. I would be very tempted to get an 8500 but that would be for benching e-peen only.
I have seen little 'usable' difference between a cpu @ 3ghz to a cpu at 4ghz so why would a cpu with 6 or 7 hundred mhz more would make a difference? The new 45nm cores have 3mb cache per core whereas the q6600's have 2mb cache per core so there may be an improvement there the question is would this increase in cache and clockspeed benifit anything other than benchmarks?
I bought quads rightly or wrongly because I thought it was the next logical step. Sadly there are too few applications and games atm that make use of the extra cores. I havn't really noticed a difference going from a dual to a quad if I'm totally honest. When I first got one I thought there was but I reckon that was the placebo effect. I have recently built a few cheap dual core setups for friends/family and can honestly say I aint noticed a difference going back to dual.
So which to go for?
I will most likely get a 8500 but also keep quad core in the hope that multithreaded applications become the norm in the near future. Everyone uses their pc for different things so its all down to which cpu suits your needs best.
Just my indecisive thoughts.
I have seen little 'usable' difference between a cpu @ 3ghz to a cpu at 4ghz so why would a cpu with 6 or 7 hundred mhz more would make a difference? The new 45nm cores have 3mb cache per core whereas the q6600's have 2mb cache per core so there may be an improvement there the question is would this increase in cache and clockspeed benifit anything other than benchmarks?
I bought quads rightly or wrongly because I thought it was the next logical step. Sadly there are too few applications and games atm that make use of the extra cores. I havn't really noticed a difference going from a dual to a quad if I'm totally honest. When I first got one I thought there was but I reckon that was the placebo effect. I have recently built a few cheap dual core setups for friends/family and can honestly say I aint noticed a difference going back to dual.
So which to go for?
I will most likely get a 8500 but also keep quad core in the hope that multithreaded applications become the norm in the near future. Everyone uses their pc for different things so its all down to which cpu suits your needs best.
Just my indecisive thoughts.
Last edited:
I'm thinking of selling my quad and getting a 8500, I've got 2 cores sitting here doing nothing, the only time they come into use is when I render a movie in Vegas which is every blue moon. I was expecting all new games to be using 4 cores but it obviously isn't going to happen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
For a single 8800 ULtra probably not.
For SLI yes definetly(sp)
For SLI yes definetly(sp)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
LETS GET something staight, you called me a LIAR.
I posted PROOF I did not lie, now GET OVER IT.
The person who made this thread can mmake a decision, he cant decide what colour of socks to wear on his own nevermind the CPU he wants.
You want to reach 200 posts in 2 years you better start listening to the DON or your GONE
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Everyone just calm down and resolve your differences off forum or people start taking a holiday. No more warnings.
Lol @ crysis debate. I cannot believe so much attention is given to a game that is essentially a beta, badly coded POS. Typical of EA tbh and I wouldn't expect any different from future releases under the EA name. It was the same with BF2. Wait for 3 or 4 patches then the game will be complete, until then there will always be arguements about it. What that has to do with Q6600 vs 8400 I have no idea. I would be very tempted to get an 8500 but that would be for benching e-peen only.
I have seen little 'usable' difference between a cpu @ 3ghz to a cpu at 4ghz so why would a cpu with 6 or 7 hundred mhz more would make a difference? The new 45nm cores have 3mb cache per core whereas the q6600's have 2mb cache per core so there may be an improvement there the question is would this increase in cache and clockspeed benifit anything other than benchmarks?
I bought quads rightly or wrongly because I thought it was the next logical step. Sadly there are too few applications and games atm that make use of the extra cores. I havn't really noticed a difference going from a dual to a quad if I'm totally honest. When I first got one I thought there was but I reckon that was the placebo effect. I have recently built a few cheap dual core setups for friends/family and can honestly say I aint noticed a difference going back to dual.
So which to go for?
I will most likely get a 8500 but also keep quad core in the hope that multithreaded applications become the norm in the near future. Everyone uses their pc for different things so its all down to which cpu suits your needs best.
Just my indecisive thoughts.
i wouldn't go as far as saying crysis is in beta shape or badly coded for that matter - you've forgotten when doom3 was released? or other highly taxing games
crysis has just raised the bar a little more than usual with regards to hardware requirements, it scales extremely well the more gpu grunt it has to work with unlike games that were badly coded like deus ex 2 for ex.
i see around 90% scaling with my crossfire 3870's pre patch @ 1920x1200 res so i think the game and engine itself work just fine.
as far as clockspeeds the more the better if you're using it for encoding and the like, the same for cores. this quad @ 3.8 rips through x264 encoding like there's no tomorrow compared to my other 'lesser' boxes so it's always a per user argument in my eyes. i've also found that my crossfired cards like as much cpu as possible, you can really see the difference in fps both in benches and in game.
if you're browsing the net and in excel plus other basic desktop use of course there's no need for high clocks and a quad that's just common sense.
quads are still a welcome addition to me because i get the most out of them, i wouldn't trade 2 cores for another 400-600mhz that's for sure.
I'd choose the faster dual core over the slower quad. Unless you're doing heavy 3D rendering, video/music encoding all day.
The jump from single core to dual was a big one, as your normal application would load a single core resulting in total slowdown. On a dual core it's much harder to load out two cores under normal to heavish loads so apart from doing the process quicker than little need for quads for the normal home/gamer. Unless games use quads properly.
The jump from single core to dual was a big one, as your normal application would load a single core resulting in total slowdown. On a dual core it's much harder to load out two cores under normal to heavish loads so apart from doing the process quicker than little need for quads for the normal home/gamer. Unless games use quads properly.
So if 2 cores are better than one, surely 4 cores are better than 2 and 8 better than 4 etc etc. I aint arguing with ya coz I am totally undecided and threads like this (when they arn't being trolled) are a usefull space for folks to get different POV. On the one hand I bench a lot and the wolfdale would suit me better but on the other I do like the extra couple of cores and the flexibility it gives me.
I just cant help feeling going from a Kentsfield to a Wolfdale would be a downgrade which in essence is perhaps the only thing stopping me from trying out the wolfdale lol.
I just cant help feeling going from a Kentsfield to a Wolfdale would be a downgrade which in essence is perhaps the only thing stopping me from trying out the wolfdale lol.