• 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.

Q6600, E8400 or Q9450

Stand corrected. But still can't see what all the hype is about - I can't help feeling its a step back.
 
I'd rather have a faster dual, rather than a slower quad. Big jump from single to dual, as most people do multi-task.

But most don't do so much CPU processing as loading out a dual core.
 
The best part for me is thier ability to run with passive watercooling or quiet air cooling. Plus the low power draw is a bonus.
 
badbob said:
I'd rather have a faster dual, rather than a slower quad. Big jump from single to dual, as most people do multi-task.

But most don't do so much CPU processing as loading out a dual core.
Click to expand...

You see thats what I mean, surely thats a contridiction in terms. On the one hand your saying you would rather have a faster dual than a slower quad but then you say most people do multitask so wouldn't 4 slower cores be 'faster' than 2 fast cores? I mean its not as though we are talking Ghz difference in speeds.

I noticedd very very little difference between both a dual and quad at 3ghz and a dual and quad at 4ghz which shows little difference other than benchmarks and although I do like to benchmark I wouldn't make the switch at the cost of everyday use.

I aint discarding wolfdale, I am actually considering the switch myself, I'm just trying to guage the benifits of getting a faster dual over an already fast quad. People just seem to be getting all excited over clockspeed.
 
Last edited:
I aint discarding wolfdale, I am actually considering the switch myself, I'm just trying to guage the benifits of getting a faster dual over an already fast quad. People just seem to be getting all excited over clockspeed.
Click to expand...


If the applications you use are incredibly CPU heavy then yes I'd advocate quad core, or even quad core dual physical CPU's (ie server) however just how far do you need to go to get fast performance, without going silly?

By the same logic, everyone should buy quad SLI as it's faster than SLI. But you've got to be really serious gaming to need Quad SLI, talking Dell 30" monitor or even higher resolutions.

I did notice the jump from single to dual (3700+ to 4200x2) and everyone knows how slow a single core CPU PC can be when it's loaded out, since the time of 95-2000 era.

Perhaps if you can show reviews, in gaming that a quad core is a jump above dual than perhaps, but afaik the Supreme Commander tests show little jump in quad, and only when playing in MP in huge maps.

By the time you need a quad for games, a quad wolfdale will be affordable, and I'd rather drop one to replace a cheaper E8400. Although saying that I paid £300 for a 4400x2, but I knew that a dual is worth it because I'll be using the power straight away...and not just using it for normal "office" work ie Opera, OE etc. Ripping large album collection is I needed it, as I knew Windows uses dual so system is usable when ripping a album.

Unlikely I'll be ripping music plus playing a game, due to HD I/O bottleneck..also don't have dual screen so would to alt-tab, and that sometimes halts the game or causes other problems (ie COH)
 
Just did some research lol.

cpucomparechart2zu7.jpg


Ok no surprises there even with 6t00mhz deficit the quad still destroys the wolfy.

Gaming performance, which appears to be the favoured reason for going wolfdale isn't as clear cut tho :

EDIT : Removed link due to competitors :(

A max difference of 1-2% with the quad actually leading in some cases!

So where are the benefits apart from benching? Cooler running chips is always a bonus as is less power usage but surely that aint it?

Come on guys, gimme a good reason to swap to wolfdale!
 
Last edited:
Well it's fairly obvious a quad will have lower encoding times for music and video. Ideally in the graph above need to see a single core of the same speed.

Need to show gaming performance. FS-X and Supreme Commander.
 
Ask yourself what you want the CPU power for.

If its games, I believe most people will agree that the vast majority of games are GPU limited currently, not CPU, so the quad core will provide much the same performance as a dual.

If its encoding, folding or other heavy CPU application, then thesedays these tend to be multithreaded, at which point the quad core will comfortably beat the dual core, so again I'd recommend the quad.

If its for benchmarking, low power consumption (and therefore cool running), posing or seeing just how fast you can push a CPU, then the dual cores begin to make more sense.
 
badbob said:
Need to show gaming performance. FS-X and Supreme Commander.
Click to expand...

I did but had to remove it due to US competitors advertising on that site ;). Gaming performance with both cpu's at stock speed (2.4 vs 3ghz) showed mixed results, quad winning in some, wolfy in others even with the 600mhz difference. So gaming wise I would say there is next to nothing in it.
 
w3bbo said:
Come on guys, gimme a good reason to swap to wolfdale!
Click to expand...


There isn't one imo if you already have a 3.6ghz Q6600.

The chip I will be getting is the Q9450 for just over £200 that will give me if I run it at 3.6ghz

4GHZ + performance over 65nm Quad more cache less power and cooler with SS4 instructions set for a huge boost in Adobe Production studio.
 
Monstermunch said:
TBH, Get a Q6600 or an E8400... The 45nm Quads will be a waste of time if clocking becuase of the stupidly low multi's
Click to expand...

How do you work that out?

A 3.6ghz Q9450 is like running a 4ghz Q6600 reggardless of the lower multi the 45nm are quicker at slower clocks.


have more cache use less power and run cooler.

I don't see anyone running their Q6600's at 4.2ghz 24/7 so even at a conservative 3.6ghz for Q9450 you still have a faster PC.
 
The low end quads seem to be a little bit crippled by low multi's and will need a very good fsb capable board to get the most out of them but the added instruction set will make up for the lack of mhz. I guess it depends what your Q6600 clocks like before making a decision to go for a low end quad, unless you plan on running it on air then the yorky will be the better option.

Been offered £200 for my Q6600 anyway so the decision is made for me I guess.
 
w3bbo said:
The low end quads seem to be a little bit crippled by low multi's and will need a very good fsb capable board to get the most out of them but the added instruction set will make up for the lack of mhz. I guess it depends what your Q6600 clocks like before making a decision to go for a low end quad, unless you plan on running it on air then the yorky will be the better option.

Been offered £200 for my Q6600 anyway so the decision is made for me I guess.
Click to expand...

Most p35 and x38 mobos will comfortably do 450 FSB making a Q9450 running at 3.6ghz as fast if not faster than a Q6600 at 4ghz.

I ran my Q6600 @ 3.8 24/7 and will happy with a Q9450@ 3.6ghz as I will still have a faster PC and the added bonus of the extra instruction set.

Plus having some new tech to play with :)
 
200 for W3bbo's Q6600, 220 for the Q9450. 200ish quid for useless watercooling. 40 quid for decent air. Money in pocket for beer.

There. Free drink for upgrading. Job done! :p
 
Well i've gone for the E8400 now.
Couldnt wait for the quads anymore.

I may upgrade the processor in 6 months or so if I need to.
But I figured, may as well go with what will give me the best FPS right now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom