• 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 vs E840

The gaming Dual Core vs Quad Core debate..

platinum87 said:
but i would say quadcore, i see no benefit to getting a dual core, many games do use quad core and even the ones that dont, im sure newer games will come out which use 4 cores nicely.
Click to expand...

:D

pastymuncher said:
LOL. To be fair there are a few games that make use of more than one core. It's about time the devs started using multi cores for all games now. We've been waiting long enough.
Click to expand...

I am not critisizing anybody, but has anybody got a list of the many games that use quad core? Not just the 3 or 4 that everyone quotes. When I google, all I get is as many opinions as there are forums, with no authoritive answers.
 
GunRunner said:
I see this statement about games using 4 cores, (how many is many?) but I have yet to see a list showing all the games on the market and then from that list the ones that benefit by using all 4 cores at the same time. Anybody?
Click to expand...

supreme commander, cant say what else but ive tested it!

TomL said:
Personally, given today's software, and the amount of heat the Q6600 pumps out, I think you're better off going with a dual core and clocking the socks off that. Looking at my Q6600's temperatures compared to my E6300 make me sad.
Click to expand...

probably the only valid argument, but its useless because its not hot enough to do damage or break so, but i do like to see low temps, and personally id rather be below 15 degrees constantly.

the point is people think Quads are useless and Duals are better, thats wrong, quads just have extra 2 cores which are not used in some games..

so the point is, you might aswell buy 4 cores when they cost the same as 2 cores and it does help in some games and certainly in APP's. so Right now buying a dual IMO is just foolish.. and when i see people complaining that they are getting slow results for something and they have a 8500, i will post i told you so!
 
platinum87 said:
supreme commander, cant say what else but ive tested it!
probably the only valid argument, but its useless because its not hot enough to do damage or break so, but i do like to see low temps, and personally id rather be below 15 degrees constantly.

the point is people think Quads are useless and Duals are better, thats wrong, quads just have extra 2 cores which are not used in some games..

so the point is, you might aswell buy 4 cores when they cost the same as 2 cores and it does help in some games and certainly in APP's. so Right now buying a dual IMO is just foolish.. and when i see people complaining that they are getting slow results for something and they have a 8500, i will post i told you so!
Click to expand...

Has anyone posted and complained that they are getting slow results? Nah I cannot see that happening! It is all relative. As I have posted before, I have used a q6600 for approximately 3 weeks and I ended up with an E8400 and with both of them overclocked to the best I could manage, I found the E8400 was the better by 30% ish for my game. To me it is irrelevant how much longer the other apps take when I am in no hurry, so it is horses for courses as they say. For me the E8400 is the dogs danglies because the game I play is CPU intensive to say the least, and my CPU runs at 4.1 ghz all day everyday.
 
helmutcheese said:
Dream on m8, that's why they try to OC the CPU's to 4+GHZ to try get the Benefit from the GPU's.
Click to expand...

That may of been abit extream when I said 1 - 1.5yrs, I guess the cpu would be struggling tp keep up by then. But I hope my e8400 will see at least 2 more graphics cards before I change my cpu
 
But don't the E8400's have more cache per core than the q6600's anyway?

Also, what is this GPU faster + more advanced than CPU rubbish? CPU's are very advanced, it's just they are a general processor. A GPU is efficient at one thing only, and it's only by exploiting that one thing with specific code (GPGPU) that they appear to be very fast. A lot of software/code simply wouldn't be able to run on a GPU or be totally crippled by it compared to a CPU.

Unless some major architechtural change occurs they will still both need each other, and they will out perform each other in specific area's. Point being here... a cpu could emulate a cpu, but for the majority of tasks seriously doubt a GPU could emulate a CPU.

Nowadays i'd go with the e8400 (or similiar) and mega overclock it, as it outperforms by about 10% on average (I think) compared to the older cores. That is, unless your SERIOUSLY into encoding/decoding and trying to play games whilst ripping half the universe in one session.

Matthew
 
Well I had a QX6700 could only get 3.4GHz out of it :( Then bought a E8400 got it to 3.8GHz without any problems what so ever, I don’t regret moving from a quad to a dual at all, I defiantly notice some very nice speed bumps probably due to the extra MHz and of course the biggest difference is temps the E8400 is a nice cool chip :)
 
I run my 8400 on stock speeds with 9800GTX plays all games i play no probs apart from Crysis.

I did have my 8400 clocked to 4Ghz when i first got it but TBH with what out today just running it at stock undervolted :) means that the cores never go above 45c on my Rev B Ninja, and games play just as good at 3Ghz as they did at 4Ghz.
 
platinum87 said:
supreme commander, cant say what else but ive tested it!
Click to expand...
Have played over a LAN with my 4Ghz E8400 versus another player with a 3.2Ghz Q6600 and he was running slower than I was. SupCom may use the extra cores more than most games but it's not enough to overturn the advantage of the extra cache and speed of a Wolfdale unless you can get the quad to nearly the same clock.
 
AbsenceJam said:
helmut how many times must I say not to spread rubbish around? Read this - http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors . Even if they replaced the 8800 Ultra with a new card you'd see the same sort of results.
GPU's are the bottleneck and CPU's don't get much of a workout.
Click to expand...

Don't talk to me like that lamer, you seem to think your someone special going by that 1st line of crap above.

Your not some Mod and I can post what opinion I like.

Infact I ignore lamers. ;)
 
helmutcheese said:
Don't talk to me like that lamer, you seem to think your someone special going by that 1st line of crap above.

Your not some Mod and I can post what opinion I like.

Infact I ignore lamers. ;)
Click to expand...

"lamer?" :rolleyes:

It's not an opinion it's misinformation, we're not talking moral greys and abortions for gay muslims. You're advising people how to spend their money based on an opinion that has nothing to do with facts just belief....
 
What a child, I know he'll still read every post.
helmut.gif
 
AbsenceJam said:
What a child, I know he'll still read every post.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Unfortunately helmutcheesem, you are wrong when you say: "I still say the CPU limits before a GPU"

Some games the CPU *IS* the limiting factor, Sup Com, FS Series, etc.
Some games the GPU *IS* the limiting factor, everything not in the above.

Eg. I went from 2.5Ghz X2 to 2.4Ghz C2D with a X1900XTX at 1600x1200, max AA and AF in BF2. The FPS with the X2 varied from about 40 to 99 whilst with the C2D 80-99FPS... So here we have a CPU limitation at this res.

However turn it around to crysis, my bros 2.5Ghz X2 with a XT clocked to XTX barely plays it any slower than my rig does due to being GPU limited (again 1600x1200).

Now go to FS-X, same cards, same settings, same res, I get 9FPS more than he does.

So at around 1600x1200 and upwards with new cards, new games the GPU is the limiting factor, under this, the CPU starts becoming the bigger factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom