Oc Cut price of Quad Cores

[marscay]

i bought a gtx because its the best period. it's for a specific task and at the time there was nothing better. i suggested a quad core if they are going to use the other two cores because they are the best. where's the hypocrisy?


if somebody said 'i'm a casual gamer' a gtx is the last card id recommend. grow up and stop nit picking at posts, because everybody here knows what im saying except you. somebody who buys a quad core, 8800gtx and phase cooling is in no position to preach to anybody about value for money.

you're right, you know it & we all know it ...somebody else just refuses to accept that their opinion is just that.....'their opinion'.

you can't reason with morons m8.

 

[easyrider]

you're right, you know it & we all know it ...somebody else just refuses to accept that their opinion is just that.....'their opinion'.

you can't reason with morons m8.

You can't reason at all.

What does your post actually say?

 

[WJA96]

The amusing thing about this thread is that easy and miller are agreeing on the crucial point - that quad core for £350 is worth it for people that have a use for four cores i.e. renderers and coders. This is both the most obvious and most salient point.

Yep. They're two of the most savvy contributors on here, but they just like a ruck as well. Leave them to it. For us über-folders the saving is enormous. You can sell off an entire PC and get the same points per day score with one that you had with two. Multiply that up by 5 and there'll be a lot of nice kit on MM in the next few weeks

 

[egg]

the thing i am interested in is the ability to use a quad core in a virtual environment like vm ware or virtual server/pc. i am going to take a closer look at the software to see what you can do about slicing up the cores to be used by different virtual machines so that (memory allowing) you can actually recreate a realistic version of fairly complex environment, couple of dcs running dns and dhcp, basic file server, several clients running running xp pro, nt4, windows 2000 and vista and even an sms with sql backend. This is quite a big ask within a normal network even if you have 5 -6 pcs humming around the place making your electricity provider richer. To be able to run all these machines within one (albeit chunky box) is a convienence that outweighs the extra 150 - 175 quid over a similar e 6600 cpu, which in all fairness maybe capable of running the same environment but just slower.

 

[l33t-krew]

Hello all thanks for your comments

(especially yours easyriders )


I will be using the CPU for Gaming and benchmarking (Sad I know, but in a overclockers forums what is sad about spending money on performance hardware).

I understand your comments people, but it seems silly to me, to have spent £300 on a 8800GTX, £130 on an eVGA 680i, someone on ram, and be held back by an inferior chip.

The only thing that would stave me off from by a Quad is if there is going to be another extreme price drop. I can take the normal heavy depreciation


Money wise im not loaded, in fact I have got but £4000 at the moment. I know this is not bad for here and now (I earned it from my eBay business, til I got kicked ) but it is stagment money. It aint getting larger.

I have started up a business in ireland, but I wont be keeping the money, but reinvesting it. (Want to become a millionaire before Im 21. Only got 4years )


Ergo what im saying is, in a years time when I still have this pc, which will then be totally obselete, I will still have a Quad Core instead of a Dual Core, helping it keep the pc alive).



Still Overclockers arnt having the Chip in for some more weeks, so I can still scout around.

 

[james.miller]

The amusing thing about this thread is that easy and miller are agreeing on the crucial point - that quad core for £350 is worth it for people that have a use for four cores i.e. renderers and coders. This is both the most obvious and most salient point.

what grates me is that i've pointed this out to him, more than once. He is agreeing with what i said in my first post and arguing with me at the same time. I dont understand the guy, really.

I understand your comments people, but it seems silly to me, to have spent £300 on a 8800GTX, £130 on an eVGA 680i, someone on ram, and be held back by an inferior chip.

If you're gaming you wont be held back. a lot of us gamers are very happy with dual cores because the minuscule advantage a quad will give you in gaming is negated when you pay twice as much for pleasure if you know what you want, buy it i know i wont be needing one for a long time yet

 

[Netvyper]

Im in a similar situation; Im quite an active gamer;
Especially in the MMO eve-online; Frequently running 2-3 game clients; along side lots of excel/browser/comms apps etc.
This was saturating my 2.5ghz X2 to the point mp3 playback was jittering

My options are obviously a decent C2D; or the Q6600 now at least within ballpark in pricing terms. The question is; is it worth the extra £175, considering that only probably 30% of my time will be spent at these high loads....

Damn all these hardware decisions atm... amd/nvidia, 2/4 cores, upgrade or wait, stand on yer left foot or right....

 

[FirebarUK]

Using a QX6700 and its one of the best purchases I've made at this time (other than my 24" iMac ). Currently I use virtualisation software (VMware) and I can happily run 4 virtual PC's and then go off and play CSS in my break with lovely high FPS

 

[HighlandeR]

Tis a hard choice I went Q6600 for £550 and felt it proberly wasnt worth it but was a moment of madness anyhow few games excel it in and supreme commanders one of them u can at times see the 3rd core peaking, 4th I dont think anyones seen that yet tends to happen only during major battles also.

If your not upgrading this year again or just want a good powerful rigg to be sorted for years to come then Q6600 @ £350 is pretty good.

Remember it will proberly cost £199.99 by this fall....cos thats the last major price cut from intel so come August/September just before AMDs barcelona for desktops are launched there maybe Q6600s going for £200.

 

[easyrider]

I had a quad but it cost £670 so I sold it as I couldn't justify the cost.

However I will be getting a Q6600 at this new price as a 6600 C2D looks expensive now in relation to this.


Quad core for the masses....Bring it on.

 

[WJA96]

I had a quad but it cost £670 so I sold it as I couldn't justify the cost.

However I will be getting a Q6600 at this new price as a 6600 C2D looks expensive now in relation to this.


Quad core for the masses....Bring it on.

You don't think they're going to take the E6600 down to £150 at this point then?

 

[easyrider]

You don't think they're going to take the E6600 down to £150 at this point then?

They probably will but for that amount of cpu power the quad will a big seller IMO.


a lot of people have been waiting for the price drop on the quads.

 

[Big.Wayne]

a lot of people have been waiting for the price drop on the quads.

People are always 'waiting' on price drops or new tech so there is nothing new there.

I know a lot of people were well up for switching to dual-core a few years ago, nearly all of them were AMD users who had only ever used a mono core with no Hyper-threading feature (enjoyed by INTEL users for ages) so the prospect of having a dual-core did seem quite appealing, proper multitasking and a great boost in media encoding.

Now onto four cores . . . why are 4 cores better than two? more electricity, more heat, higher power consumption?

Does a quad core deliver twice the performance of a dual core? does it deliver four times the performance of a mono-core?

If you sit and edit video all day, render 3D all day I can see the appeal, render times may be reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour 45 mins, cool!

What else? Hmm oh yeah that old chesnut "I can run a few game clients at the same time" (EVE Online etc) haha thats gotta be the weakest "I can JUSTIFY this purchase" arguement ever

It seems some people just buy what they want, for themselves, they dont really care what others on the forums think, then there are others who look for guidance and the general thumbs up from the community so that they feel safe in their purchase, their doing the right thing etc

I cannot in anyway 'justify' spending £300-£400 quid on a cpu now and when I see others doing so I know that their a) Rich or b) A pro poweruser or c) an ePennie

Funny thing I noticed is the ePennies deluding themselves into thinking their a Pro power-user, like "Sure I can justify this purchase, I render a lot of videos!" sorta thing.

The marketing isn't working, the price was wayy off, now INTEL have had to MASSIVELY slash the prices because sales are likely to have been poor.

 

[l33t-krew]

Ok got my Rig planned out

Quad Core Q6600 2.4Ghzz (to be brought)
4Gb Reaper PC-8500 1066mhz Memory (will only buy 2gb @ first
2x320Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (Brought)
1x250Gb Maxtor Maxline III (Brought)
BFG 8800GTX 768mb (Brought)
eVGA 680i MotherBoard (Brought
ThermalTake Purepower 680w (Brought)
Zalman 9700 Aero Flower (Brought)
Samsung 18x DVD-+RW Dual Layer (Brought)
NZXT Lexa Classic Case (Brought)
X-FI XtremeMusic (Brought)
Creative Gigaworks G500 5.1 THX certified Speakers (Brought)
Dell 2407Wfp Rev A04 (brought)


Already obselete but will have to do me for the next couple of years.

 

[l33t-krew]

People are always 'waiting' on price drops or new tech so there is nothing new there.

I know a lot of people were well up for switching to dual-core a few years ago, nearly all of them were AMD users who had only ever used a mono core with no Hyper-threading feature (enjoyed by INTEL users for ages) so the prospect of having a dual-core did seem quite appealing, proper multitasking and a great boost in media encoding.

Now onto four cores . . . why are 4 cores better than two? more electricity, more heat, higher power consumption?

Does a quad core deliver twice the performance of a dual core? does it deliver four times the performance of a mono-core?

If you sit and edit video all day, render 3D all day I can see the appeal, render times may be reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour 45 mins, cool!

What else? Hmm oh yeah that old chesnut "I can run a few game clients at the same time" (EVE Online etc) haha thats gotta be the weakest "I can JUSTIFY this purchase" arguement ever

It seems some people just buy what they want, for themselves, they dont really care what others on the forums think, then there are others who look for guidance and the general thumbs up from the community so that they feel safe in their purchase, their doing the right thing etc

I cannot in anyway 'justify' spending £300-£400 quid on a cpu now and when I see others doing so I know that their a) Rich or b) A pro poweruser or c) an ePennie

Funny thing I noticed is the ePennies deluding themselves into thinking their a Pro power-user, like "Sure I can justify this purchase, I render a lot of videos!" sorta thing.

The marketing isn't working, the price was wayy off, now INTEL have had to MASSIVELY slash the prices because sales are likely to have been poor.

Dont want to sound offensive, but I have already stated my ****** intentions.

I am not pretentious enough to claim "rendering" or what ever. Never heard of it before. Hell the only thing remotely resembling that sort of crap is using Prodesktop or AutoCad. Nothing flashy at all.

I WANT IT FOR GAMES. THIS IS MY LAST UPGRADE FOR A BIT OF TIME. I WILL REMEMBER THIS POST IN A BIT OF TIME.

p.s Since I have started runnign my business, there may be other uses for it in the future.

 

[l33t-krew]

Oh bugger. Just remembered. EVGA 680i motherboards dont clock the quad cores very well.

Better get me an RMA

 

[Big.Wayne]

Dont want to sound offensive, but I have already stated my ****** intentions.

Um? not quite sure where your coming from with that one? I just posted an opinion and it wasn't aimed at you in particular so really i suggest you chill out a bit and lay off with the bad language

I WANT IT

Fine then get it, enjoy and lighten up?

 

[easyrider]

Afterall its only a cpu and 350 quid is not a lot of money.

People dont bat an eyelid when a GTX is purchased for 450,

And yet the cpu is the fundamental part of any pc.

 

[l33t-krew]

Afterall its only a cpu and 350 quid is not a lot of money.

People dont bat an eyelid when a GTX is purchased for 450,

And yet the cpu is the fundamental part of any pc.

Very true. Have to say in my heart though I would not purchase a GPU for £450 though. Hell my GTX @ £300 was stretching it slightly lol.

Still I suck @ finding stuff on the net so I do not know where to buy a Quad Core @ £350 yet so I am going to have to wait for Overclockers to start selling some. Something may come up/


My google skills suck

 

[Big.Wayne]

Afterall its only a cpu and 350 quid is not a lot of money.

£350 is a large lump of money actually

People dont bat an eyelid when a GTX is purchased for 450

Your doing it again, who are these 'people' your talking about? I personally have never spent that large sum of money on a graphics card, because I know the value just drops and drops. I like to game but not as often as I once did.

If you build up your opinions by reading these different 'speciallist' forums you are not seeing the whole picture, your basing your ideas on the opinions of total hardware maniacs, they really do not represent the bulk of people that buy hardware.

Easy, seeing as you have used a quad, would you care to explain where the main benefits are, why is it worth spending an extra £200-£225 on a quad over a dual?

3ghz C2D is plenty.