Q6600 OCUK Latest Batch Codes and Performance

[DBT85]

Lets see how well your dual core measures up to my 3.8Ghz Q6600 G0 (L726A) in something like UMMM Crysis when its released. Tell ya what i'll cut you some slack and cut mine down to 3.2Ghz if you want

oooo your quad will be faster in crysis than his dual...wait for it...wait for it...no. Doesnt mean *oi language!*. IF what you do uses multiple cores then YES quad is best for you. IF however you currently run a good dual core and dont NEED more, then why change??

if i were building a PC now then i would go quad because of the price and because of what i do. if i was speccing one for my nan then i wouldnt bother as she wouldnt use it. Quads and duals are both VERY good performers in their own fields. neither is better overall. it entirely depends on what you are doing.

 

[cliffy]

oooo your quad will be faster in crysis than his dual...wait for it...wait for it...no.

So Crysis wont use all 4 cores then?

 

[stickroad]

If you had a Quad at 3.6GHZ and a E6850 at 4GHZ what would you go for?

The diffrence between 3.6GHZ and 4GHZ is very small i belive.

 

[helmutcheese]

Depends how long your going to run the CPU your buying for, short term till new ones soon from both camps or well into 2008.

 

[cliffy]

I would still go with the Quad core as more and more programs are being released that will utilise and give performance increases with 4 cores. My example of Crysis was given as chances are the majority of people reading these forums who are able to will play at some stage and i am sure Crysis is not the only game being released that will utilise 4 cores. The following is a quote taken for a Q&A session with Intel and Crytek highlighting the performance increase.

Quote :

What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?

You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.

What technologies, effects, enhancements etc. will we see in Crysis with the use of the multiple core processors?

The most significant enhancement is the increased frame rate but it doesn’t stop there. Multi-core systems benefit from being able to generate much more complex visual particle effects using the additional cores to offload the work from the main game code.

Will Crysis be more dependent on the GPU or the CPU?

That will depend on the settings you are running the game at. Crysis is designed to make the most of both the CPU and GPU but with enough scalability to ensure a good game play experience on older hardware as well.

Will Crysis support some kind of thread branching so it can theoretically support an unlimited amount of cores?

The engine doesn’t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it’s proved more suitable to use a parallelization technique where individual tasks, such as physics, sound, particle calculations etc. are performed in parallel.

How is gaming processing distributed among the cores? ex: AI, sound, effects, physics

This varies based on the type of hardware you are running on. In theory the physics, sound, many of the particle systems and the game logic can all run on separate cores. In additional much of the time spent in the graphics driver can be offloaded to another core as Crysis has a very highly optimised Direct3D graphics engine.

Will the x64 version have a significant performance improvement over the x86 one?

With all others things being equal regarding hardware and driver performance then the 64bit version of Crysis will be the best performing version. The Sandbox level editor processes a large amount of data and is best run on a 64bit system.

Do you have any recommendations on other complimentary hardware to ensure maximum performance and avoid potential bottlenecks?

N/A

What is being done to accommodate those on older slow processors?

While Crysis has been optimised to allow for best possible gaming experience on high end multi core systems the game still offers an excellent experience on older hardware. Several features can be scaled back to ensure Crysis can be run well on older systems without affecting the game play experience.

How early into the games development have you been working with Crytek?

We have been working with Crytek for over 2 years to keep them updated with the latest progress in hardware development.

What benefits will gamers see as a result of your direct involvement with Crytek?

See above: frame rate stability, effects etc…

 

[DBT85]

So Crysis wont use all 4 cores then?

i dont know/care how many cores its going to use. i wont be playing it so it has no bearing on how many cores i need in a CPU. its all very well you saying "well mines faster in crysis" and then when he loads up x and it beats yours because its not multi threaded you both get one point each. then what? at the moment, the amount of consumer software that uses more than even one core is tiny. yes thats changing, but if the stuff HE wants to do is faster with the dual then why bother upgrading until its needed?

evne so, crysis may well be able to dump stuff on to other cores, much like supcom does. but even then its not using all 4 cores equally. supcom as the prime example uses about 90% of core 1, 40 of core 2 and 10 of cores 3 and 4. at the end of the day you buy and use whats best for what you do. you want to be able to play crysis on your quad then great, good for you. others dont see the need and so dont bother.

 

[cliffy]

Ok we seem to be arguing the same points now but from different sides of the fence. I was arguing about the quad fanboy statement further up the thread that goes on that there aint enough programs out to warrant quad, hence the example of something thats going to be very popular that uses 4 cores and is only just around the corner. Plus i havent seen a G0 q6600 yet that that doesn't clock aswell as a dual core when used with a P35 chipset. So in that case you can get the best of both worlds.

 

[w3bbo]

Why is this debate going on that has nothing to do with the thread title? Any chance we can get back on topic?

 

[FrankJH]

I was at the theatre last night and have my work summer party tonight so looks like my quad wont be set up until Friday pm or saturday now, but am really hoping to get it 3.8Ghz + completely stable

I still personally think that Windows and background tasks can easily occupy 2 cores (on boot up a full av scan and update to av signatures can occupy 1 core, Windows another before even getting started) Still leaves a whole C2D to be productive with

Of course you can strip down Windows to the minimunm etc etc but Im looking forward to setting it up and letting it loose

Anyway Members market should have a few extra bits and pieces next week either way

 

[Rojin]

No, it's a fact, whether you like to admit it or not.

What is getting tiring is the endless "Quad > *" fanboy crap, even when faced with the basic fact that a faster clocked dual will outperform a slower clocked quad if the app in question doesn't use the extra cores.

I'm perfectly happy with my dual at the moment but it doesn't want to go above 3.6 without major voltage hikes so I'm watching what happens with these G0 quads with interest. If they can hit 3.4-3.6 without expensive and/or noisy cooling then I might be tempted to switch but if not, I'll stick with my dual as it'll be faster for the things I do.

It is not "fact" whether you like it or not If you limit yourself and only do one thing at a time on your computer then yes you will not see any benefit. Perhaps getting a quad core and introducing yourself to the world of multi tasking will enlighten you?

Stop getting bogged down with single apps that use multi cores, multi cores also allows you to use multi apps...

If you just use you computer for games, it's probably not worth it at the moment, but the majority actually use it for more than that...

 

[Rojin]

IF however you currently run a good dual core and dont NEED more, then why change??

Yes I do, I constantly sit in front my computer waiting for tasks to finish. Getting a quad will alleviate this bottleneck for me. I do use some apps which will use 4 cores but in the main it is time intensive work which holds me up

 

[Cuchulain]

There's quite a few apps/games that I use that support > 2 cores, e.g.

FSX (post SP1)
CM DiRT (at least, there's settings for up to 8 cores in the config file)
Adobe Premier
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Lightroom

Not to mention the huge reductions in the time it takes to encode divx/xvid and mpegs.

And then there's the upcoming games like Alan Wake, HL:EP2 etc

A worthwhile investment if you ask me.

 

[Rojin]

Got my Q6600 G0 today and here are the codes

SLACR
L725B020
Pack Date 16th August 2007 (wow)

So far i'm sat at 4.02Ghz in XP
Temps very nice at 45c Idle - For once all the temps agree
Asus ProbeII and Core temp both show the same.

The chip puts more pressure on the mobo which is where i'm not sure about stability. Can do superPi no probs at 4Ghz, working on Prime.

Just going to let it bed in for an hour or two then see how stable she is.

Mine has just arrived this morning (along with some ballistix and an Abit IP35 Pro), same codes and dates. Just need to get a D-Tek Fuzion sorted out and it's all on for a build Saturday morning

 

[deadsquirrel]

No, it's a fact, whether you like to admit it or not.

What is getting tiring is the endless "Quad > *" fanboy crap, even when faced with the basic fact that a faster clocked dual will outperform a slower clocked quad if the app in question doesn't use the extra cores.

I'm perfectly happy with my dual at the moment but it doesn't want to go above 3.6 without major voltage hikes so I'm watching what happens with these G0 quads with interest. If they can hit 3.4-3.6 without expensive and/or noisy cooling then I might be tempted to switch but if not, I'll stick with my dual as it'll be faster for the things I do.

Firstly, calm down dear. My current 'rig' is an athlon 2100xp so I am certainly no fanboy of anything. Secondly, can you hand on heart say that if you had both, and wanted to get rid of one, that you would keep the Dual?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stickroad
A 3.6GHZ Quad is better than a 4GHZ Core 2 Duo. Your crazy if you dont keep the Quad.

to which 555BUK replied:

For the majority of people, this statement is not (yet) true. For >95% of the applications I use, there is no advantage using a quad. But in 12-24 months time.........

I say: It was not a statement. It was advice as per the OP request. He did not say "everyone should sell their crappy Duals and get Quads" did he? He responded directly to the OP query.I have no idea why you insist on telling us how you are waiting to see what is happening before jumping in, no one asked and it has no relevance to the OPs question.

 

[V|per]

OK, mines arrived now, it's an L723B010, so a couple of weeks earlier that the above 2, (package date 15th August 2007)

Bioshock has also arrived, so im playing that at the moment But rest assured, this WILL be in my system be the end of the day, infact, i'll go and download fraps, i'll let you lot know the framerate difference from a dual to a quad in Bioshock

 

[clone]

Just for a wee laugh

 

[Vertigo]

Firstly, calm down dear. My current 'rig' is an athlon 2100xp so I am certainly no fanboy of anything. Secondly, can you hand on heart say that if you had both, and wanted to get rid of one, that you would keep the Dual?

Depends on how fast the two were relative to each other in the apps and games I commonly use, how much heat the quad was kicking out, how much noisier the cooling had to be as a result, etc etc etc. The point I'm making is that it's nowhere near as clear-cut as the quad zealots would have us believe.

I say: It was not a statement. It was advice as per the OP request. He did not say "everyone should sell their crappy Duals and get Quads" did he? He responded directly to the OP query.

It was not advice at all. He didn't say "I think you should do such...", he said "A 3.6GHZ Quad is better than a 4GHZ Core 2 Duo. Your crazy if you dont keep the Quad.". That's a statement I'm afraid and a sweeping generalisation to boot. 555BUK felt the need to respond to this statement with some wholely accurate observations which you then rubbished as "very tiring".

I have no idea why you insist on telling us how you are waiting to see what is happening before jumping in, no one asked and it has no relevance to the OPs question.

I added this in an attempt to convey that I'm not "anti-quad" in any way, merely that I, unlike many on here, appreciate that all is not a bed of roses with quad-cores and they do have disadvantages compared to the duals. Yes, if it turns out that I can get a quad which runs at a similar speed to my dual without the need for more expensive or noisy cooling then I may well switch but this is far from being proven as yet which is why I'm watching with interest.

The key point here is that I have an open mind, unlike a great many people on here who feel the need to post disparaging and insulting comments towards anyone "stupid" enough to go for a dual-core over a quad.

 

[Rojin]

I added this in an attempt to convey that I'm not "anti-quad" in any way, merely that I, unlike many on here, appreciate that all is not a bed of roses with quad-cores and they do have disadvantages compared to the duals. Yes, if it turns out that I can get a quad which runs at a similar speed to my dual without the need for more expensive or noisy cooling then I may well switch but this is far from being proven as yet which is why I'm watching with interest.

The key point here is that I have an open mind, unlike a great many people on here who feel the need to post disparaging and insulting comments towards anyone "stupid" enough to go for a dual-core over a quad.

It doesn't come across that way at all though. Just seems that you are defending dual cores all the time. Clarified now though

 

[V|per]

OK, quad in at alst, took bloomin ages to take the water out and re-install it (and i got carried away with bioshock )

Any ways, i did 2 runs of bioshock, from as the bathosphere comes up and you see that guy get mullered, untill you get to the electro bolt plasmid... results:

e6400 @ 3.80ghz

2007-08-23 18:44:30 - Bioshock
Frames: 9436
- Time: 137440ms
- Avg: 68.655
- Min: 41
- Max: 139

Q6600 @ 2.4ghz

2007-08-24 00:40:11 - Bioshock
Frames: 10838
- Time: 151750ms
- Avg: 71.420
- Min: 39
- Max: 142


As you can see, not much in it, but the clock speeds are very different, at least i know i have 2 games that will make use of this quad (supreme commander being the other)

Admitedly, the sheer clock speed on the e6400 will out perform this quad on pretty much everything else i use, but hey, i wanted a quad... now for some clocking

at stock, it's registerring as mid 30's accross the cores idle, and 44°c max on quad orthos blend, these are obviousley not the correct temps, but not too shabby so far!

 

[Vertigo]

That's impressive - possibly the first game to take real advantage of a quad. Yes the dual only has 2MB L2 cache but I think that's been proven not to be that important with games, correct?

SupCom's quad usage is very dissapointing. I've played against people with stock Q6600s and my 3.6 dual thrashes them. Of course if the quad was clocked up above 3-3.2 then it'd swing the other way but the point is SC seems to me relatively little use of the extra cores. Bioshock, OTOH, seems to scale very very linearly.