Can you please link to the specific page which shows that? I just had a scan and didn't see a mention of the E8400. Also I think it's fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the E8400 does not need to be clocked almost a ghz higher to match the performance of a quad in games that aren't optimised for quad core.
-
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.
Did I make a mistake getting the Q6600?
- Thread starter y2viks
- Start date
Can you please link to the specific page which shows that? I just had a scan and didn't see a mention of the E8400. Also I think it's fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the E8400 does not need to be clocked almost a ghz higher to match the performance of a quad in games that aren't optimised for quad core.
Click the drop down tab and all the games are listed there (quads at the top section, duals in the middle graph)
Like i said, theres a few other reviews out there using 'lower' end graphics and with both cpus at stock there both within 5fps of each other.
One here using an 8800ultra http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
Last edited:
The way I looked at it, and the way I decided on a Quad Core chip was that while it's true only 3 or 4 games and 3 or 4 apps are designed for Quads, in the long run I'm guessing more and more stuff will be Quad based. I'm not the type of user to keep upgrading my system so i'm hoping the spec i bought (Q6600, 4gb ram, 4850 Gfx) will last me a few years.
The only reason i was after an upgrade was because i tried the Warhammer beta on the lowest graphics on my current spec ... and my PC shut down due to overheating in about a minute.
I think what i've got from this was that whatever chip i got, there's always going to be pro's and con's but all in all, going from a 2.8P4 - I should be one happy camper
The only reason i was after an upgrade was because i tried the Warhammer beta on the lowest graphics on my current spec ... and my PC shut down due to overheating in about a minute.
I think what i've got from this was that whatever chip i got, there's always going to be pro's and con's but all in all, going from a 2.8P4 - I should be one happy camper
Click the drop down tab and all the games are listed there
Like i said, theres a few other reviews out there using 'lower' end graphics and with both cpus at stock there both within 5fps of each other.
One here using an 8800ultra http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
Ahh I missed the E8400, skimmed down too fast. Ok:
Company of Heroes:
Q9650 @ 3600mhz = 91
E8400 @ 3600mhz = 82
Devil May Cry
Q9650 @ 3600mhz = 262
E8400 @ 3600mhz = 258
ET: QW
Q9650 @ 3600mhz = 140
E8400 @ 3600mhz = 128
Sup Com
Q9650 @ 3600mhz = 83
E8400 @ 3600mhz = 81
UT3
Q9650 @ 3600mhz = 139
E8400 @ 3600mhz = 133
Am I missing these huge differences you're talking about? Most seem pretty damn even at the same clock speed aside from two games which are still very close and way above 60fps.
There isnt a huge difference, that is my point & ive never said there is.
Note the Q9650, from 2.6 to 3.6 there is hardly any difference (4fps in one, 12 in another) but when the fps are that high anyway it really isnt anything you will notice and shows we are still GPU limited?
Most like to Compare old tech (Q6600) with the newer tech (E8400) the fps is nearly the same in all them games with a 4870x2 and the ones on the 2nd link. Most of the reviews suggest the C2D's hit a wall ounce past 3ghz and really dont gain many fps after that.
Im just getting sick of people talking crap & giving poor advice claiming the E8400 is far superior and consistenly outperforms the quads in none quad optimized games when the links i provided proove there is hardly anything between the Q6600, Q9650 & the E8400 running games.
Just hope this info has helped the OP deciding which cpu best suits him
It has been a good link that you have provided. I wonder if it would make any difference now with the later GPU's, like the 4870/x2 and the 280's, and the CPU's that they used...?
Maybe the later graphics cards, the 48x0 range being reasonably affordable, might show that the CPU differences could be more pronounced at a higher resolution as those tested done showed a greater differences between the CPU's at a lower one.
See what I posted above, maybe that is now a little different with the latest GPU's...?
The 1st link is using a 4870x2 @ 1920x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF and if you go through the results there really isnt much in it. It seems ounce you get to 3ghz its still a GPU bottleneck
2nd link is a better example but is only using a 8800ultra, at 1024x768 the clock speed seems to help (but no one uses this res) but at 1280x1024 and higher even the difference between a Q6600 & QX9770 is marginal
The 1st link is using a 4870x2 @ 1920x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF and if you go through the results there really isnt much in it. It seems ounce you get to 3ghz its still a GPU bottleneck
2nd link is a better example but is only using a 8800ultra, at 1024x768 the clock speed seems to help (but no one uses this res) but at 1280x1024 and higher even the difference between a Q6600 & QX9770 is marginal
....ah that is why I posted about your link and not links <hangs head in embaressment> I missed the first one about the 4870x2.
I had hoped that the differences in the first link with the 4870x2 might have been a lot more between the CPU's, especially considering the cost difference.
Thanks for posting it, I will give that a read, as I was looking for something just like this.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- Lowestoft
q6600 are a good choice