• 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.

E6600

Archibald0

Archibald0

Archibald0

Associate
Joined
24 Nov 2006
Posts
1,119
Im slighty confused. On games the specs say for example.
recommended cpu 3ghz

Now with the likes of a E6600 2.4ghz it has 2 cores, does that give processing power of 4.8ghz in total?

It just for comparing my cpu with the specs of new games :confused:
 
I'm afraid things aren't quite as simple as they used to be when it comes to CPU power.

On the one hand, no your dual core 2.4Ghz processor doesn't equate to a 4.8Ghz spec. In fact, most games will only use one core for the vast majority of the time - your dual core chip has other advantages than gaming.

On the other hand, "mhz for mhz" comparrisons between chip types don't work at all anymore. The specs you see quoted on games will most likely be for Pentium 4s. Your 2.4Ghz e6600 would absolutely spank a P4 running at 3Ghz. I would bet good money it would put a P4 clocked at 5Ghz to shame in every possible test as well.

Anyway bottom line: Your CPU will handle anything you throw at it. Ignore what it says on the game boxes, it isn't really relevent to your (newer) tech.
 
Archibald0 said:
no problemo, i just couldnt get my head around how much power the dual cores have in comparison to singles
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's tricky. In applications that use the second core (like media encoding for example) close to double the speed of an equivalent single core chip (there isn't a single core chip as fast as your e6600 but anyway...).

Other applications like games are very difficult to program to use the second core effectively. This will improve in the future, but for the moment it allows you to (say) download stuff and burn a DVD in the background while you play a game, without getting any performance loss. Also helps general performance in windows a lot, which will probably be fairly noticable with vista.
 
i see i see, i take it then the likes of this processor with 2gb ram and 256mb sapphire 1950xt will be able to play the like of oblivion, fear etc on max settings smoothly? i can only play at a max res of 1280 x 1024

My pc should come tomoro, i doubt il sleep lol, iv always had a borderline pc and i want to enjoy getting a new game without worrying that it will run badly
 
we know that at present games and such dont use both cores togeather to run , but is it possible to deligate a core for a game to run on..... i.e use windows to run on one of the 2.4 core's and then run game's on the other core using the full 2.4gig available .. (or does that already happen) ?
 
Archibald0 said:
i see i see, i take it then the likes of this processor with 2gb ram and 256mb sapphire 1950xt will be able to play the like of oblivion, fear etc on max settings smoothly? i can only play at a max res of 1280 x 1024

My pc should come tomoro, i doubt il sleep lol, iv always had a borderline pc and i want to enjoy getting a new game without worrying that it will run badly
Click to expand...


yeah , plus the 6600 overclocks to 3 gigs easy
 
xmonxjester said:
we know that at present games and such dont use both cores togeather to run , but is it possible to deligate a core for a game to run on..... i.e use windows to run on one of the 2.4 core's and then run game's on the other core using the full 2.4gig available .. (or does that already happen) ?
Click to expand...

It's all done automatically, but yes that's effectively what happens. The operatoring system (ie windows) has a 'thread scheduler', which when you're playing a game (or running another intensive application) on one core should send requests from other programs to the other CPU.
 
Archibald0 said:
i see i see, i take it then the likes of this processor with 2gb ram and 256mb sapphire 1950xt will be able to play the like of oblivion, fear etc on max settings smoothly? i can only play at a max res of 1280 x 1024

My pc should come tomoro, i doubt il sleep lol, iv always had a borderline pc and i want to enjoy getting a new game without worrying that it will run badly
Click to expand...

Yes, to everything except probably Oblivion. Very demanding game, but it's the graphics card that will be holding you back, not the CPU.

Don't worry, oblivion should be the only game that will struggle (and it does with *anyone's* PC) - the rest will be fine.
 
Depends if your overclocking or not :D and how far you are overclocking if you do... once you get over 2.9gig then the cache difference between the processors is for the most part negated for gaming by the faster core speed...

Even a 6gig P4 Northwood, wouldn't come near to the performance of a E6600, I had one of mine at 4.7gig for testing and it was still about 3 times slower than my E6600 at stock.
 
iv had this stuttering problem with my a64 3700+ @ 2.6

with 2gb corsair xms

i just want to know if the e6300 wont cause me ANY trouble (stuttering ect) when it comes to fps gaming. All i want is to play bf2142 and other fps games with the highest sets with vsync on at a SMOOTH 75fps with no stutter. This seems impossible even after the £1000 mark

if the e6600 will make a gaming differece, then im willing to spend the extra for it, if it will give me the same results as a e6300 (when gaming) then theirs no point, id rather go with the e6300

i will be using it with 2gb, the best i can get for £240, probably cellshock

a ds4

and an x1900xtx 512mb runing games at 1440x900
 
Duff-Man said:
It's all done automatically, but yes that's effectively what happens. The operatoring system (ie windows) has a 'thread scheduler', which when you're playing a game (or running another intensive application) on one core should send requests from other programs to the other CPU.
Click to expand...

thought so .. thanks !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom