• 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

Wondering if anyone with a Quad thinks a Dual would have served their needs better ?!?!?

I for one have both and my Quad machine is my main game rig and I have no doubts it was the correct purchasing decision as it's "smoother" all round and frankly for games unless I've been living under a rock and things have changed rely mainly on the graphics card ..... So the argument that a dual is better value for games is rubbish as we are talking a couple of frames a second maybe for games which use the CPU intensely... There are not many of these games but Valve Games like HL2 CS:S etc show improvements with increased processing power but it's still very small when compared to the graphics card, either way a quad or highish dual is plenty of cpu power ...

So what else do you use your machine for, Surfing the net, downloading videos (read hardcore swedish flith), music, bit torrent at the very least as well as running maybe spyware/av/video optimisers like riva tuner etc etc all of these perform better on quads on windows !!!!

If you are truly "only" running games then yes in the V-short term a dual will be fine but then if you had the money to build a machine and use it for nothing but gaming you probably wouldn't be having the should I buy this or should I buy that debate you would just buy the top end cpu with ultras in SLI.

If someone is running a quad (preferably with experience with duals) and thinks thats bull then fair enough otherwise how the hell would you know ?!?!? :rolleyes:
 
As I have not made any purchase yet on the CPU, then I still have time to change my mid :D I am starting to warm to the idea of the Quad now more after reading some peoples views. :)
 
Big.Wayne

When you put it that way I guess it does have appeal. Like I mentioned in an above post I have been out of the scene for some time now. I mean my current CPU and Graphics card is a Athlon XP2000 and A GeForce 4 TI4600 :rolleyes:, so from that you can see I am a little rusty and maybe relying on other peoples recomendations more than my own. :)

No doubt there are valid arguments for and against a quad core, I take all on board and will make a decision within two weeks, which is when I will complete my rebuild.

For sure a lower priced CPU which can overclock to something very high does have huge appeal no doubt, but if I where to do that then I would always be asking my self why did I not get the quad ? I suppose its all down to long term system potential with the quad. Again just my thoughts from what I have read here tonight.

Two weeks to decide :D
 
Big.Wayne said:
Let me ask you Ian, what is your view on the E2140/E2160?

1/3 the price of the Q6600 and nearly all of its performance when overclocked.

No appeal?
Click to expand...

Ian it depends how long you are keeping it if you going to keep it for years like your current rig then maybe a quad is better but a c2d at a 1/3 of the price is good.
I think a lot of people getting a c2d will upgrade soon anyway.
edit:- meaning their upgrade path is short, like every few months
 
Last edited:
The reason i will look at a quad as i want to keep it for 18 months if i can(if i got will power) but i will decide aswhen my 4200 starts to struggle same as my 320 as i think they will start to struggle at the same time.
But i agree that at moment for games the different isn't a lot that why i trying to stop myself getting a quad until later as the next 4 months a lot is happening.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Been running a 6400 @ 3.8ghz for months.

The 6850 is overpriced for what it is..
Click to expand...


ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz, only day 2, it will go 4000mhz no probs no hurry and my cooler is not extreme. :)

You need give up telling others they are dumb etc, some do not all agree with you on current quads. ;)

And OCUK do not have any Q6600 Go Quads yet.
 
Last edited:
I agree with one of the people above. If you do a lot of multi-tasking, or hardcore "video editting" (as everyone seems so keen on, as obviously this is the only theatre in which quad-core is useful :rolleyes: ), then a quad will benefit you. If you don't, then there's no need to get anything near as fast as an e6850. You simply don't need it. Either you need the power, or you don't - especially when OCd, the 6850 offers no real tangible benefits over the (factory) slower and cheaper c2ds, but is far cheaper.

And as I said before (which appears to have gone largely ignored except by one), when the time comes (and it's basically here) where games are fully using 2 cores, you'll still need some processing power to run background apps. So even games that only use 2 cores, instead of 4, will benefit from quad core.
 
It's amazing how far stuff's come in the last few years. I know people always say that, Moore's Law and all that, but it seems that for the entire duration of the P4 lifetime (inc. Durons and Athlons) there was very little increase over the course of a few years. Clocks went up, 64bit got introduced but ultimately nothing spectacular. As soon as c2d came out (and even, though to a lesser extend, Pentium Ds), though, the path was blown wide open, and things really have gotten so fast.

It's a good time to be a performance hunter!
 
helmutcheese said:
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz, only day 2, it will go 4000mhz no probs no hurry and my cooler is not extreme. :)

You need give up telling others they are dumb etc, some do not all agree with you on current quads. ;)

And OCUK do not have any Q6600 Go Quads yet.
Click to expand...


165 for an an extra 200 MHz?

As I say 165 for dual core is over priced.

165 for a quad with double the cores and double the cache is not.
 
For a complete system rebuild I would have to overlook the E2140 and E2160. Yes they are a bargin and yes they can overclock to very high levels, but I would always feel like I cheated my self a little. If I was on a low budget then for sure both of these would come in to play, no doubt. But with what I have set aside I simply have to go for either E6850 or Q6600 or even if I can stretch it a Q6700.

I think this thread will run on for a while. In general most people here do favour the quad, but the high clock speed of the E6850 and the ability to overclock it to 4.0Ghz without too much heat, also has massive appeal.
 
Ian Marsh said:
For a complete system rebuild I would have to overlook the E2140 and E2160. Yes they are a bargin and yes they can overclock to very high levels, but I would always feel like I cheated my self a little. If I was on a low budget then for sure both of these would come in to play, no doubt. But with what I have set aside I simply have to go for either E6850 or Q6600 or even if I can stretch it a Q6700.

I think this thread will run on for a while. In general most people here do favour the quad, but the high clock speed of the E6850 and the ability to overclock it to 4.0Ghz without too much heat, also has massive appeal.
Click to expand...

400 mhz over a 3.6ghz quad will make no difference to your situation.

A year down the line and having a quad will make a massive difference to your situation.

How many times does it have to be said.

Not being funny but I have tested benchmarked nearly every C2D in the range.Been through numerous mobo's and overclocked a QX6700.

I know what I am talking about ;)
 
Well one thing I will admit, you know more than I do at the moment :). Like I said I am still getting up to speed with things again. All I know is I would like FSX to run as fast as I can get it and every litte bit on the cpu will help with this game. Maybe I am ignoring the Quads raw power for an extra few Ghz ?

So in other words wait for the Go.
 
Last edited:
Ian Marsh said:
Well one thing I will admit, you know more than I do at the moment :). Like I said I am still getting up to speed with things again. All I know is I would like FSX to run as fast as I can get it and every litte bit on the cpu will help with this game. Maybe I am ignoring the Quads raw power for an extra few Ghz ?
Click to expand...


You will not notice the extra 400mhz

Believe me!
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Agreed.

He seems to have his reasoning all mixed up :o
Click to expand...

i agree completely. my e6400@ 3.7ghz, 300mhz more is a joke for £50 or so. get a e2140 instead and get 3ghz for £50. the 6850 is a waste of money, either get the e6750 for £50 less or get the g0 quad.

lots of quad compatible appz and games will be coming out and it will hold its value much more than the 6850 when you sell it on.

basically the only 4 cpu's worth getting are:

e2140
e6750
q6600 pro
qx6850

just depends on your budget which you choose.
 
Ninja edit on post 115 there easy, I couldn't believe you had reversed your position ;)

I would say the CPUs with the best VFM are the ones with a 9x multi:-

e2160
e6600
q6600
<insert penryn with 9x multi>

As that gets a good balance between the top speed of the motherboard (FSB) and the top speed of the CPU (could be a bit of purchase justification with the e6600 though ;) )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom