• 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.

List of Programs for which Quad Cores see REAL benifits

easyrider said:
You could have got a quad and clocked that to 3.6ghz for the same money :confused:
Click to expand...

And more heat as well requiring better cooling and no performance benefit over dc in almost everything. By the time anything uses quad core significantly, there will be a whole new line of faster cpus anyway.
 
Last edited:
Your obsessed with these Non Native Quads, I do not ideally want any Intel CPU, I have explained why I'm on one now above quite clearly, 5 weeks of crap with a Asus Crosshair to be blunt blowing up mobo and 2 CPU's.

Since its only going to be short term for me I chose a good Dual CPU.

You should Google this cause you will find many many forums with hundreds of peeps on same page, with Q6600 or a E6850, well its down to what their usage is if same as mines.

P.S I think 3.6 is good on day 1, the Rig is a matter of hours old and I aint touched any Chipset volts yet. ;)
 
Energize said:
no performance benefit over dc in almost everything. By the time anything uses quad core significantly, there will be a whole new line of faster cpus anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats just not true.

I could easily utilise all four cores when i had a QX6700.

I think you will find ADOBE Production studio and numerous Video editing programs use quad core.

Its been used in the server sector for years.
 
easyrider said:
Thats just not true.

I could easily utilise all four cores when i had a QX6700.

I think you will find ADOBE Production studio and numerous Video editing programs use quad core.

Its been used in the server sector for years.
Click to expand...

So at the moment quad is only better over dual core for media creation and editing? With the down side of extra heat?
 
The longer you keep your cpu the better quad will get as some people willnot upgrade for a few years then the quad will get better, but if you upgrade every few months then maybe the c2d is just as good as you willnot keep it long anyway.
 
I can't believe the amount of people who must only be using their PC for one or two applications at a time. Don't get bogged down with individual apps which use all the cores, the fact is that you will be able to run 4 different applications with virtually no performance hit. I constantly get into a situation where I am running two intensive apps which bring my system to a halt. Can't wait to get a quad to get rid of that bottle neck. At it's current price point it is pointless getting a dual for the same money as a quad. 3.8Ghz has been hit on air cooling, we'll see what the norm is when then G0's become more readily available.
 
I can't wait because I used 3ds max a lot, and the rendering times really kill creativty. When you decide you need to re-tweak somthing like a physics sim or particle dynamics, and you have to sit there for 2 hours while it does it. My Q6600 will knock that down to quarter of the time (running a Pentium D 805 at standard clock atm).
 
i went for a dual core because barring supreme commander i use NOTHING else that uses the other 2 cores. It just wasnt worth me paying another £50 for 2 cores i wasn't going to use, and would hinder my overclocking while using more power.
Just fyi i went for an E6750 not a 6850.
 
Q6600 vs E6850

Equalities

Price (both currently priced around £175)


Benefits of Q6600

2 extra cores (potentially offering 'up to' twice the performance)


Benefits of E6850

Higher stock clock speed
Likely to overclock slightly higher
Produce Less heat (quieter to cool)


If all applications already took advantage of the additional cores, then the decision would be a total no-brainer. But currently a lot depends on how many of your daily applications take advantage of the additional cores, and/or how soon they are likely to start taking advantage of them (if they don't already).
 
easyrider said:
Fact is anyone getting a 6850 when a quad can be had for the same money is either a fool IMO or clearly misinformed.

why choose a dual core path when quad can be had for the same money and clock to similar speeds?
Click to expand...
You're not listening are you?

The Q6600 is not clocking to the same speeds as the E6850 in many cases and, in those where it is, it is chucking out a lot more heat which requires more expensive and/or noisy cooling solutions. The E6850 therefore has an advantage in that, in most cases, it can clock higher with the same cooling or requires cheaper/quieter cooling for the same clock speed.

Either you're incapable of wrapping your brain around this concept or simply don't want to admit that the E6850 has some advantages over the Q6600. In your mind, they are completely identical, costing the same, achieving the same clocks and requiring the same cooling in all cases, the only difference being that the latter has two more cores. What colour is the sky in your world?

I had a choice between an E6850 and a Q6600 and I chose the former. Despite your assertion that I must be a fool or misinformed, I am neither. I know all about both processors and chose the dual-core because I don't need the extra processing power right now and valued the higher clocks achievable with the E6850 whilst retaining quiet air cooling.

Whether you like it or not, these are real, tangible benefits of the dual over the quad. If the quad offered (on average of course as all processors are slightly different) the same clock speeds with the same heat output as the dual then yes, it would be a no-brainer to go quad but this simply isn't the case, despite your protestations to the contrary.
 
I would speculate that if you're the sort of user that won't find a use for 2 extra cores (either through current apps, or games coming out in the future weeks/months) then you're probably the sort of user that won't need a 4GHz CPU over a 3.2GHz CPU.

The sort of apps that would noticeably benefit from a 4GHz CPU would also benefit from 2 extra cores, wouldn't they?
 
The Buzz is all is down there ........

The conundrum that Intel posed with the E6850 vs Q6600 has all to do with potential vs effort. Meaning? Meaning that if you don’t overclock, you’ll buy the E for speed/games and the Q for general/”business”/”mama-papa-kiddies” use, but should you be a little hip and overclocks, then buying a E is …. chicken…… they’ve gocha .. which is why they are pricing them the same for it cost them more to make the Q.

Which idiot or lunatic will stand up and say that in XYZ game, the E overclocked to 3.8/3,9 is faster than a Q @3.3/3.4? Really? And you’ll also believe that the pope is an emissary from God? Halleluja, bro, good for you. By the same token, which idiot or lunatic will jump up and declare that a Q-aware game runs faster than a E given the same example overclocks as above? Ho-hum…. You are buying a Q over the E at the above overclocks because the extra 2 cores are free and in this greed driven universe, nobody will say “no” to a free E2xxx for that is effectively what you’ll get for free with the Q when things start to hum on the software front.

Rule of Thumb :

1. Fashionite: buy what you please for it makes no difference. It’s the buzz you’re [stands for “you are” whereas “your” stands for what belongs/is-associated to you] after, not the item [hint: a vibrator also offers the same-ish buzz effect, honestly];
2. Typical end-user/blank piece of paper : Get the Q;
3. Mouse overclocker : Maybe get the Q … or is it the E ? Stuff-up with more cheese before deciding;
4. Competent overclocker : Get the G0 Q. It’s worth the gamble but if you can’t wait or are in tatters, get the B3 Q whilst not forgetting the G0 had been sighted in Ole Blighty as of NOW….

Amen or two ….
 
Its up the the peep buying the CPU nobody else, I bought the E6850 as its a great CPU (now at 3700Megaherz day2 of build).

I will be on a AMD Native Quad when time is right for faster Destop CPU's from them in 2008 cause soon its slower clocked server quads from them, also when more applications use all cores fully.
 
Just a couple of (random) thoughts.

Some apps that I have used which are optimised for multiple cores only make small gains when going to multiple cores - as little as 20% difference between single and quad cores. Writing apps to support multiple cores properly is very difficult, and is something that is really only likely to happen to a subset of applications.

With games my suspicion that the driver for multi-core support will be the XBOX360, and most PC-only games for the forseeable future will either not support multiple cores, or will not be very well optimised for multiple cores, and hence the gains will be small.

With overclocking the quad core processors may have some advantage over dual core if reports that FSB rates are tending to limit speeds on some processors before thermal effects do are true.

I have seen reports that simply adding an increasing number of general purpose cores is unlikely to the future of CPUs. Instead an increasing number of dedicated processors optimised for specific tasks is likely to be the trend0 in future.
 
Another thing worth noting was that one of the reasons why dual-core showed a benefit to single core when they first came out, even in games (aside from the C2D archtecture being far superior to the P4s anyway) was that, even if the game only supported one core, it could use the WHOLE core, without it having to worry about all the windows stuff that previously the single core had to do - now it had one for windows/AV/whatever, and the other for the game entirely.

So as we're getting more and more games using dual cores to the full, we'll begin upon the same problem, surely? As in, if the game is running both cores at 100%, there's going to have to be some give for windows/av/etc. This is where a 3rd core might come in handy.

Or am I over-estimating the resources an otherwise-idle Windows uses?
 
I dont think its as simple as that, not same as going from 1 core to 2 core as from 2 cores to 4 cores.

I did not buy the 1st AMD dual cores either infact I skipped all AMD64 till AM2 for my own builds but used 939's for customers, its best let things mature just the way I like my woman. :D
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
I dont think its as simple as that, not same as going from 1 core to 2core as from 2 cores to 4 cores.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's not yet - but surely as programmes (and OS's) come to utilise multiple cores to the full, they will, in essence, become a single core... Ie, if a game utilises the full potential of 2 cores in the same way it used to with 1, surely you'll end up with the old problems of having one core - namely, that the game cannot use all the available resources, because the OS needs to run, etc.

This trend will, of course, continue indefinitely (or, rather, until core-numbers go the way of the Clock-speed as a dinosaur of pure CPU measurement).
 
DanGrover said:
Indeed, it's not yet - but surely as programmes (and OS's) come to utilise multiple cores to the full, they will, in essence, become a single core... Ie, if a game utilises the full potential of 2 cores in the same way it used to with 1, surely you'll end up with the old problems of having one core - namely, that the game cannot use all the available resources, because the OS needs to run, etc.

This trend will, of course, continue indefinitely (or, rather, until core-numbers go the way of the Clock-speed as a dinosaur of pure CPU measurement).
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head there. It's not a 'encode a dvd while playing a game' situation any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom