• 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?

Big.Wayne said:
I would be happy to chat further but its just too much unmoderated rudeness for rudeness sakes and really not a lot of technical chatter which is mainy why I am a member here! How can you debate in an enviroment like that?
Click to expand...

Are you that oblivious? The only one throwing around the Noob comments has been yourself. Not to mention your manner. Yeah, I'm sure any exasperated replies were totally out of order.
The only chatter halfway technical you've made or posted has been a statement that memory bandwidth (not just performance level) is a bigger deal on a Core 2 system than a quad for responsiveness.

No worries though. I'm sincerely glad you've had your epiphany (or "personal eureka moment") regarding power consumption. Looking forward to any results you want to publish here or elsewhere.
 
I plan on moving to Quad next year, would never consider upgrading for the mess that is GTA IV.

When games start to be more CPU limited then I will move over, which I think will be around late 2009. Right now though 99.9% of games are GPU limited so there's no point. (and by that I mean 60FPS achievable on dual core just fine, don't see the point in Quad just to get 90FPS vs 80 on a dual)
 
I thought that was why GPU's were invented to take stress of the CPU margaret? :p I think they'll be doing something wrong if they rely on *** cpu more and more.
 
LeJosh said:
I thought that was why GPU's were invented to take stress of the CPU margaret? :p I think they'll be doing something wrong if they rely on *** cpu more and more.
Click to expand...

Yep but some games will benefit from quad core in the future no doubt as games get more and more CPU hungry. Just look at how single core went, now dual is the standard, but there was a time when you only needed a single core for gaming. :)
 
Can give my verdict on this soon, getting my hands on a qx9650 going from a e8400 @ 4ghz. I recode a bit and play a good few games that can utilise multi cores :)
 
Margaret said:
Right now though 99.9% of games are GPU limited so there's no point. (and by that I mean 60FPS achievable on dual core just fine, don't see the point in Quad just to get 90FPS vs 80 on a dual)
Click to expand...

Team Fortress 2 has to be the main CPU limited one and it's barely optimized for dual cores (I don't play any CPU limited RTS games or use crossfire/SLI). With a Q6600 at stock the framerate can drop way down when there's a lot of action going on. Overclocked to 3.2GHz it's perfect.

On the other hand you've got Left 4 Dead also from Valve and that's properly multi-threaded. It's very playable on a downclocked Q6600 locked at 1433MHz/239FSB where as TF2 chokes. One of the arguments against buying a Quad now is that by the time apps or games take advantage of multiple cores your CPU will be hopelessly slow so it's kinda interesting to see how a game plays with all four cores being used but at a low speed. I'm not sure how a slightly faster (but less cache, fsb) dual core E2140 at stock speeds runs L4D though.
 
Last edited:
Margaret said:
I plan on moving to Quad next year, would never consider upgrading for the mess that is GTA IV.

When games start to be more CPU limited then I will move over, which I think will be around late 2009. Right now though 99.9% of games are GPU limited so there's no point. (and by that I mean 60FPS achievable on dual core just fine, don't see the point in Quad just to get 90FPS vs 80 on a dual)
Click to expand...

By your logic there is no need for any gamer to overclock their dual core CPU. In fact we could all manage with a Pentium Dual Core E2140 and just buy a high end graphics card.

Plenty of games are CPU limited. Check out Tom's CPU charts and look at the game benchmarks.

I would hazard a guess that GPU limited games are the exception, not the rule.
 
Big.Wayne said:
Yes they do and INTEL use EIST (Enhanced INTEL speedstep) however for reasons unknown to me a lot of nOObzillas get told to disable Speedstep so in their quest to attain a 3800MHz 65nm quad core render beast they inadvertently create a 400w juice guzzling monster without realising.
Click to expand...

Hi Big.Wayne, if you put it like that then yes it does indeed seem like the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a power sucking monster :p. However, if we put it more into perspective and say a dual core machine would be consuming around 300 watts and a quad core based system around 400 watts then I think this is why quite a few people aren't quite so bothered about the power consumption of their quad core system. Since I would personally say that 100 watts isn't really anything to worry about. :)
 
I confess i did disable speedstep while overclocking and once i had my overclock stable i enabled it again as most people do. Also have i missed the demographics study that was done on members of OcUK ??.

I know he says he has unsibscribed to this thread (i have my doubts) but Big Wayne was the whole reason for the rudeness that came into the thread with his generalised statements and condescending attitude because he has apparently done or is doing research on the matter.

Fact is right now if all your doing is gaming the simple answer to the original question was no quad wasn't worth it but if you do more then yes it was worth considering which i think i did say someway back in the thread before it got hijacked for supposed green reasons though given the manner those green motives were represented i think it had more to do with deliberately winding people up to get a response that when got he then left..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom