thinking of getting shot of my e6600, primarily a gamer, with a bit of video encoding as well, ill be getting a 780i motherboard soon (evga upgrade) so adding a second gts is very tempting for sli, which cpu would i see the most benefit from, my e6600 is currently @ 3.6ghz and it aint a bad chip, bit voltage hungry but im thinking towards the future.
-
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 or e8400
- Thread starter setter
- Start date
You won't get many sensible answers in here, main just the fanboys shouting "quad" at you with no reasoning involved whatsoever.
The quad won't help you in games but will with video encoding so it entirely depends on how much of the latter you do. A Wolfdale will clock further than a Kentsfield or Yorkfield on the same hardware so, if the majority of what you do doesn't utilise the extra cores, the dual will be faster.
The quad won't help you in games but will with video encoding so it entirely depends on how much of the latter you do. A Wolfdale will clock further than a Kentsfield or Yorkfield on the same hardware so, if the majority of what you do doesn't utilise the extra cores, the dual will be faster.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
How can you say that when the majority of wolfdales are so hard to clock and i bet most are lucky to hit 4ghz and be stable. Since he encodes and games i would recommend a quad, who's gonna notice the 300-400mhz difference on a dual?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
Considering that will be 600-800mhz of processing power that would be noticable...
Depends on the games you play. If it involves UT3 or Supreme Commander, or any other game that supports more than dual then quad's a definite.
It also depends on how long you intend to keep it. If you are a regular hardware changer and enthusiastic overclocker then see what you can achieve with a wolfdale dual. If you intend to keep your processor/board/ram for more than a 18 months go for a quad IMO. I reckon more and more games will support quad core in that timeframe making it a worthwhile investment.
If you are prepared to wait another 4-6 weeks then 45nm quad core chips will become available (probably priced at a premium). This MAY give you the best of both worlds with high overclockability and better longevity over a Q6600 G0.
I went for a q6600 G0 by thw way. I play both UT3 and SupCom, and I intend to keep it for a couple of years
It also depends on how long you intend to keep it. If you are a regular hardware changer and enthusiastic overclocker then see what you can achieve with a wolfdale dual. If you intend to keep your processor/board/ram for more than a 18 months go for a quad IMO. I reckon more and more games will support quad core in that timeframe making it a worthwhile investment.
If you are prepared to wait another 4-6 weeks then 45nm quad core chips will become available (probably priced at a premium). This MAY give you the best of both worlds with high overclockability and better longevity over a Q6600 G0.
I went for a q6600 G0 by thw way. I play both UT3 and SupCom, and I intend to keep it for a couple of years
wolfdales are 5-10% / clock faster
You got a link on that? I know the new patch is better, but I thought it was still a long way off full utilization of all cores - Supreme Commander still seems to be the only game that benefits to a noticeable degree from 4 cores.
Not sure I'd bother with a cpu upgrade TBH - spend the extra cash on another/ or better GFX card - maybe even a Triple Head2Go if you're a big FS fan?
Stick with your 3.6Ghz E6600 tbh, looking at the wolfdale overclocking thread the average oc is still far lower than the originally anticipated 4.5Ghz...etc. It's like when C2D first came out most people were misled into thinking they all did 3.4-3.6Ghz when in fact most only did 3-3.2Ghz with the initial L2 revision chips.
I went for the quad and I think it's great but sometimes still can't help thinking it's too fast for my needs even though I run F@H.
I went for the quad and I think it's great but sometimes still can't help thinking it's too fast for my needs even though I run F@H.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,896
- Location
- Bristol
How long have we been hearing that for?
Crysis was supposed to make full use of quads as well.
I'd go with the E8400. People are hitting 4Ghz on air with them.
From Legion Hardware:
"At 4.4GHz the system was completely stable, completing all benchmarks and satisfying us with a number of successful Prime95 passes. Going beyond 4.4GHz will require water-cooling to bring the temperatures down, but for now we are quite happy with the result that both the E8400 and Thermalright Ultra-120 has provided us with."
Last edited: