• 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.

Do games make use of Q6600

Stelly said:
Do you think that there will be much performance gains? People are saying around 5% over Kentsfield...

Stelly
Click to expand...

The 12mb cache will come in handy for the little hobby some of us have.

And then there's SSE4 ;)
 
Games will only really make use of quads if a) they support quad multithreading, b) a dual core processer needs >100% on both cores to run it, and c) the game is processor limited and not graphics limited.

A C2D at over 3GHz is typically fast enough to run any game so a C2Q is (currently) overkill.
 
drunkenmaster said:
lol, people have listed games that CAN use quad cores, but none need them. boost from dual to quad core in sup com is minimal and its the style of game that will have the biggest boost from extra cores. quad cores won't be needed for some time, utilised yes, but 100% of two cores, can be spread to 50% on 4 cores, but use no extra power, which is so far all is being done. but 99% of fps's won't even use dual cores maxed out, sup com is rare breed of cpu limited games, and even then its barely limited.

as for penryn, nothing to exciting, little in terms of benifits from anything except 45nm production. nehalem is being massively overhyped, people think the onboard mem controller will somehow make it massively faster. ath 64 only had a major advantage over an incredibly slow access p4's. core architechture has a lot , and i mean a LOT of transistors and logic dedicated to predicting and prefetching data so it is infact almost on par with memory access of the ath 64. by putting memorycontroller ondie most of that logic becomes fairly useless, so ondie mem controller is mostly going to be REPLACING logic on the die, not adding to and massively reducing latency, so benifits will be very very marginal. cheaper northbridges and probably a switch over to single chipset intel boards like amd boards is quite possible.

but theres a lot of indications the onboard mem controller will be limited to xeons, and xeons rebadges as extreme editions, as opposed to all down the range. which is very possible. for little benefit, other than marketing same features as amd, they will lose a heck of a lot of southbridge sales with intel the primary chipset maker for intel. where amd switching over meant via/nvidia lost chipset sales.
Click to expand...

Well a simple bench shows that AMD has a much higher memory bandwidth throughput, that's common knowledge, how can you say that intel achieving the same isn't a good thing?
 
Bioshock and MOH Airbourne use quad on mine. Even HL2 does to an extent! Most if not all of my current games seem to use quad to some degree... some more than others.
 
Last edited:
Well I doubt windows would use that much power when i'm in a game. But whatever, it's being used which means it's helping. :)

EDIT: Bioshock (low resolution)

quadcorebioshockkj0.jpg


MOH:AA is the same, hl2 uses quad core to a lesser extent, FSX uses quad core, and stalker is my only current game that does not spead load over all the cores. Yeah yeah get quad core... overkill but good for recent games and future realeses. :)

Please note that when the resolution is up in bioshock the 4th core is only utilised about half as much as in the above screenie. Also note that when I quit the game windows only uses 1% or less of the cores so I don;t believe any of the usage in game is for windows, it's all just to power the game.

EDIT2

This is STALKER... the only current game I play wich has a graph like this:

quadcorestalkerax6.jpg


It only really uses one core, but it is a 3.5Ghz core so it's still nippy! :)
 
Last edited:
Talrinys said:
Well a simple bench shows that AMD has a much higher memory bandwidth throughput, that's common knowledge, how can you say that intel achieving the same isn't a good thing?
Click to expand...


meh, on die mem controller has little to do with bandwidth, it decreases latency, or can and in this situation, because the core 2 duo is very good at it, the benefit will be minimal. bandwidth is down to the link, the access style, the chipset, the prefetching and buffering. none of that can't be improved without moving the controller on die. as i said, people are acting like moving it on die will somehow give massive boosts, which it simply just will not do. as for bandwidth, intel aren't particularly far behind at all. you can run at 400mhz fsb, and 600mhz memory, but you get better bandwidth from 500mhz fsb and 500mhz memory. the fsb bus, the connection, its whats limiting bandwidth, nothing else really and again, thats nothing to do with being ondie or not.

infact, putting memory controller onboard means, less chance to increase bandwidth/overclocking potential with a simple motherboard upgrade, you will likely only see jumps in possible fsb, memory with new architechture, which is less good for us. i mean, look at chipsets for AMD, barely any real change since release, because the architechture is responsible for everything. while intel have a lot more updates inbetween, because the northbridge can be updated and improved independantly. with the core logic intel have to reduce latency, theres no reason a decent higher bandwidth fsb and memory link can't be introduced, while keeping memory controller separate. its also the highest power part of the northbridge, its what is responsible for massively more cooling needed on intel boards compared to amd.

its easier to spread out the heat/power, than whack more power/heat onto the cpu. theres absolutely nothing wrong with indepandant mem controller, some pretty large possible advantages. you have to compare a POOR latency access from P4 to athlon 64, we're talking 150ish for intel and 50-60ns for ath 64's. a huge difference in reality, but core 2 duo is around the 65ns mark already. as i have hinted at, much of the logic to get the access latency so low is basically null and void when moving mem controller on die. the only advantage for on die is access latency, theres basically nothing to be gained here. the place to gain is by having something akin to a 2000mhz ht link ath 64 have. A new link is what intel needs to improve bandwidth, that link can be used from cpu to memory, or cpu to northy to memory, makes zero difference.


as for airbourne and bioshock, it would be very weird for any game developed to also be on consoles to be single core, when talking about high end games, not basic games for console. its cooler and better to spread the load on a console across 3 cores than 1 even if it only needed one. because the heat is spread across 3 times the surface area. this is largely why a lot of games from now will use quad cores. but as shown, use, if that 4th core is under a lot less load when gpu limited, then its barely using 2 cores fully. then also, whats it using 2 cores fully to do, push 150fps? or 20fps. in other words, even if it was maxing out two cores and you were limited on cpu, thats not to say its going to run badly.
 
Last edited:
IMO Dirt runnig on a G0 is a lot smoother than it ever was on a slightly higher clocked C2D with nothing else running in Windows XP apart from background tasks

(Probably isnt worth the investment to change but Im certainly glad I did
 
I can say for deff Supreme Commander is far superior on my q6600 and 2900pro flashed to xt, before i used to play this on my old c2d setup i had to sell sadly a 6320@ 3.2 and a 8800gtx and the game is far smoother on this rig i got now.
 
You sold a GTX and got a 2900pro?? why? surely it would have been a lot better to sell the c2d and save a bit and get the q6600?

the 2900XT is still not much faster then a G80 GTS if faster at all!
 
No i had no choice but to sell my c2d/8800gtx rig for financial reason 4-5 months ago, now i have built a new one and i wanted a cheap card to last me until the next round of cards were out, so i got a 2900 pro for £170 flashed it with xt bios so i got a good card to last me to maybe jan/feb then ill upgrade the card.
 
Jabbs said:
I can say for deff Supreme Commander is far superior on my q6600 and 2900pro flashed to xt, before i used to play this on my old c2d setup i had to sell sadly a 6320@ 3.2 and a 8800gtx and the game is far smoother on this rig i got now.
Click to expand...
Probably just a driver issue ? run your quad at 3.2 with a 2900 pro flashed to xt and tell me your fps on crysis beta plz i'll compare with my 3.2 ghz duo and 8800 gts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom