• 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.

Is it time for Quad Core?

fox - stick with what you have - i thought you would know this

no point investing any more money on 775

you want to go quad? you need 45nm quad or i7

my q6600 only gets maxed on encoding/creative tasks

otherwise my old e6300 @3GHz was coping with everything very well for a £25 chip

on a side note...
i did warn everybody that gta4 was rubbish on the playstation3 because it was a port and would be ported equally as badly on pc
the result - it comes out and is ported badly
 
I went from an E8400 to a Q9650 (both 3Ghz, one dual, one quad) and althought the E8400 is by no means a bad processor, the Q9650 is noticeably faster at some things. CSS runs at higher fps, with more bots enabled (cpu intensive) and Supcom (obviosuly) runs better, but apart from that and multitasking (which I do a lot of) there isn't much of an improvement. I personally like the raw power I now have so I wouldn't go back, however as far as the cost goes, your probably better off going for a faster clocked dual, then a lower clocked quad. At the same clocks, of course a quad'll be faster.
 
Chimerical said:
Can you do a test/comparison with the E2180 at its 2.00Ghz stock speed aswell?
Click to expand...

Have done benchies on the e2160 at 1.8GHz (stock) and 3.1GHz in 3DMark03, 05, 06, PCMark04, 05, Cinebench 10, Crysis (at 0, 2, 4 and 8xAA), SuperPi 1M, 8M and 32M. Just waiting for the Q6600 to arrive...

Any other benchies u want to see?
 
Only my opinion but I bought a Q6600 which read "guarranteed to o/c to 3.0ghz", from 1066 to 1333 fsb. Have o/c it to 3.3 (though temporarily dropped it back to 3.0) and saw a big difference at 3.3
Though I am pleased with it I can't help but wonder if I should have :
either bought a Q9550 which, I think, is 2.83 @ stock, 45nm and more overclockable and not 'that' expensive.
Or,
gone for an E8400 - E8600. Do you know what ? - I May just have to buy one of those and see tbh.
Anyhow, whatever you choose I personally wouldn't go for the Q8200.
One guy at a computer store talked me out of the 1466fsb Q6600 which I now wished I had bought.
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
I never liked the Q6600, hot and old tech esp now with a 1066FSB and 65nm Tech.
Click to expand...

Haha. Well it's easy to clock them to 333 fsb and 3.0GHz on default vcore, which = a QX6850.

As for old tech, when a 2.4 Q6600 matches an E8500 @ 3.6 in GTA IV, I think dual core is old tech don't you?

Dual core is dead for gaming, nobody in their right mind would build a new gaming rig with a dual core chip any more.
 
gurusan said:
GTA IV is a terrible example, and who clocks an E8500 to a measly 3.6?
Click to expand...

You do take the point though?

And a Q6600 @ 3GHz (aka a QX6850) significantly beats out an E8500 @ 4GHz.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,..._with_13_processors/?article_id=669595&page=2


You have to clock the hell out of dual cores to keep up with default or slightly overclocked quads in GTA IV. Other multi core games like UT3 show the same picture.

Multi core is going to become increasingly necessary and buying dual core now is surely buying dead tech, just like buying single core would have been two years ago.
 
I take the point but there is still no real significant difference in my opinion. I have had a Q9650 @ 4.4ghz and could not tell the difference in any game over an E7200 at 3.8GHz....I did not play GTA 4 on this setup but I dont care much for that game

GTA 4 is a terrible game in both gameplay and performance, which may just be my opinion but who really cares if a quad gets 7 more min FPS over a dual core when the game is still totally unplayable.

...and UT3 gets 1 trillion FPS on almost any setup...so who cares if quads 20% faster frames, you will never notice.


I just don't think we are at the point where quads are worth it in gaming. We are close, maybe 1 more year...if Starcraft 3 and Alan wake ever come out lol
 
Last edited:
In multi core designed games a default 2.4 Q6600 can match or beat duals clocked 1GHz+ higher.

Of course in games needing only a single or dual core, the extra cores of a quad are moot. Also some games are GPU limited so a faster CPU has no effect.

Right now, a dual is adequate but games like GTA IV are the writing on the wall for dual cores I think. Quad cores aren't just a bit better, they are miles better in GTA IV.
 
dirtydog said:
Right now, a dual is adequate but games like GTA IV are the writing on the wall for dual cores I think. Quad cores aren't just a bit better, they are miles better in GTA IV.
Click to expand...

If GTA was a bit more optimised, right now I get 39FPS in the bench with the spec in the sig. Now this isn't "great", but it feels perfectly fine ingame, no lag anywhere.
 
Until most games utilise quads we are going to see the same thing said that high clocked duals are sufficent and that may well be the case. I do a fair bit of encoding as well as play games so it was an easier choice for me to go quad. Would i have done if games were my main thing would have been much tougher but i think i would still have got the quad for a greater degree of future proofing regardless of whether that is practical or not. I would still say the expenditure of going to a decent quad right now for one game isn't worth it.
 
dirtydog said:
In multi core designed games a default 2.4 Q6600 can match or beat duals clocked 1GHz+ higher.

Of course in games needing only a single or dual core, the extra cores of a quad are moot. Also some games are GPU limited so a faster CPU has no effect.

Right now, a dual is adequate but games like GTA IV are the writing on the wall for dual cores I think. Quad cores aren't just a bit better, they are miles better in GTA IV.
Click to expand...

If Phenom II causes a price cut ripple effect then it really will be clear that Quads are cheap, effective, and at clock rates on a par with duals.

There's still room for duals, but only on builds where every penny counts. Because the Q6600 clocks so well it's the entry price to quads I think.
 
RizlaKing said:
Until most games utilise quads we are going to see the same thing said that high clocked duals are sufficent and that may well be the case. I do a fair bit of encoding as well as play games so it was an easier choice for me to go quad. Would i have done if games were my main thing would have been much tougher but i think i would still have got the quad for a greater degree of future proofing regardless of whether that is practical or not. I would still say the expenditure of going to a decent quad right now for one game isn't worth it.
Click to expand...

It isn't as if quads cost that much more than duals though. When I bought my Q6600 it was £20-£30 more than an E8400. It outperforms the E8400 in GTA IV and other multi-core games and in applications like WinRAR and encoding video. In future dual cores will be redundant.
 
I never get why these threads are always so heated! Anyone would think that only one of these CPUs was any good for anybody and the other one was a terrible product. The reality is that both are very good CPUs and both will suit most people just fine. Which one you go for depends completely upon what you do with your PC. If the only CPU-intensive activity you do is gaming, then you'll be better served with a Wolfdale. If you make use of your CPU power in other ways, you should probably look at the quad. That's really all there is to it.
 
Mattus said:
If the only CPU-intensive activity you do is gaming, then you'll be better served with a Wolfdale. If you make use of your CPU power in other ways, you should probably look at the quad. That's really all there is to it.
Click to expand...

That used to be the perceived wisdom but with an increasing amount of multi core games, it isn't so any more.
 
As I said before, you can't tell the difference on UT3 engined games between a quad and wolfy. 215FPS on a dual core vs 235 on a quad core at 1024x768......

real significant there seeing as we can all tell the difference between 20 fps when you are already getting 215, and because we all game at 1024x768 with superfast gpus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom