[email protected] to Q6600?

[yantorsen]

well I payed for it with money from my paper round, I get £90 (inc. £20 pocket money) a month so it took me a year or two to save for the whole system.

and my reasoning was partly becasue it secures bragging rights.

partly becasue if the e4xx cost i dunno how much they are now but say £60. then you buy a q6600 in say next spring for say £100? that £160! may aswell just pay that and have a quad for the whole time. see the logic now?

 

[Vertigo]

Unless you're using apps which are written to take advantage of quad core or simply use all available cores and scale very linearly, or are running loads of apps at once, then you're not going to notice much difference at all.

To those claiming their systems became much more responsive after moving from dual to quad at roughly the same speed - I don't believe a word of it I'm afraid. Unless you're running a load of programs at once, and these programs are actually using up lots of processing cycles, not just idling waiting for user input, then there's no way on earth than Windows is suddenly going to become more responsive with four cores rather than two, whatever you might like to believe.

I keep thinking about ditching my dual and going quad but then I think about it and can't find a single reason to do so at present.

 

[yantorsen]

I wouldn't go from dual to quad, but i had a single so before so i did, as i only upgrade very 5 or so years.

 

[Trunks9486]

I wouldnt do it either, wait for Nehalem, Conroe wont let you down until then

 

[pieman109]

I think the reason ppl find quads seem to be quicker in wndows is the fact that the quads have twice the L2 cache that the duals have, 4meg (dual core) as opposed to 8meg (quad core). Maybe thats making things a bit "snappier" in windows as it were.
Personally, I have no need for quad core as I certainly don't have more than more than one two apps running at any one time, maybe downloading summat and and using MS word or summat similar. If the user is say using photoshop, encoding, downloading and folding at the same time (four heavy apps) and does this on a regular basis, then a quad would useful, but for me (and I suspect most ppl here) a dual core would suit their needs just fine. Other than "Sup com" there no games that O know of that use quad core too, but I'm open to being corrrected on that one.
I personally have the cpu in me sig below an e6600 at 3.2ghz and me son has got an e6300 at 3.0ghz and I can't tell the difference between them performance wise, games apps, etc.

 

[Talrinys]

Get it now or wait for Nehalem, will work fine, or wait for Penryn and get a cheaper one

 

[Wiggins]

I have a 6320 sat happily at 3.2Ghz without breaking a sweat. I was debating the move onto Quad core as I do quite a lot of encoding especially with AVI Files but since I bought a divx dvd player I dont really see the need as I no longer need to encode a lot.

I will be sticking with my chip at least until the middle of next year where I may then get the Yorkfield chip.

I only see the point in a Quad core if you are really going to 'need' one and not just to keep up with the jones'.

 

[Biohazard]

I am quite happy with my C2D. Once applications start to make proper use of them, I will drop in a quad.

 

[bfar]

I was thinking about this, but figured it wasn't worth it. For those of you who have quads and think they make your system faster - I believe you! I wonder exactly how much of a diffence it makes, espessially for gamers.

There's two camps as far as I can see - the QuadCore camp vs the DualCore-higher_mhz camp.

Which is better for the gamer? Only someone who has both would truly know. We have lots of opinions but few hard facts.

I'd love to see some benchies so we can put this issue to bed.

 

[Vertigo]

I think the reason ppl find quads seem to be quicker in wndows is the fact that the quads have twice the L2 cache that the duals have, 4meg (dual core) as opposed to 8meg (quad core). Maybe thats making things a bit "snappier" in windows as it were.

No, they have the same 4MB L2 cache for each of the dual-core dies. This may be twice in total but, if the OS or application isn't using more than two cores to any real degree, the cache on those two extra cores isn't going to help at all.

 

[TomL]

Thats my 12 month old E6300, did a scan of the IHS before I lapped it. Been running it at 2800MHz (7x400) for pretty much the whole year but just the past few weeks I pushed it up to 3150MHz (7x450) using just 1.35vCore, not sure why I was running it at the slower speed lol?

I always hoped that I could get an E6300 running at 3500MHz but my ASUS P5B-Deluxe was not really up for hitting 500MHz-FSB, anyway . . . .

Changed mobos now to a new P35 chipset and will get some overclocking done during xmas, theres life left in the E6300 yet!

To the other guys owning an E6300 and are thinking of buying Quad-Core I say this . . .

If you want it buy it, you earn your money so you spend it as you please, however I honestly don't think you will notice any differerence from your overclocked E6300's. Ok in benchmarks you will especially 3D-Mark06 and things that take advantage of the extra cores but I have yet to see any real proof that games benefit?

I have looked at getting a Q6600 myself but what I basically want is a chip that can run 3600MHz so I'm considering picking up a used E6400 or most likely a used E6600 and clocking that. Now looking at peoples results it seems 3600MHz on a Q6600 wouldn't be too hard (maybe more maybe less?)

£65 'used' Dual Core @ 3600MHz vs £160 'new' Quad Core @ 3600MHz

Is the extra £100 (approx) worth spending for two additional cores?

If it is then please explain to me because I don't see it myself?

I tried putting my E6300 up to 450x7 and I get memory errors when I use 5-5-5-18, using P5B-Deluxe + Corsair XMS2 4GB - can you help me? My MSN's harris<at>ribba<dot>org