• 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.

Quad core or Wolfdale

Ethan62

Ethan62

Ethan62

Associate
Joined
8 Feb 2007
Posts
261
I'm in the process of buying and building at the moment i have a 45 nm compatible Mobo. I'd like some opnions on whether its worth paying the extra £120 to get a quad core or to simply go with the new wolfdale due instead.

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6700 "LGA775 Kentsfield" 2.66GHz (1066FSB) - Retail £299.99 (before VAT)

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 3.16GHz (1333FSB) - Retail
£173.99 (before VAT)

Someone who knows a lot about CPU's i would be grateful if you could choose one or perhaps find a better for up to the same price and explain your reasons.

I have no intention to overclock btw.

Thanks Ethan
 
Ethan62 said:
I'm in the process of buying and building at the moment i have a 45 nm compatible Mobo. I'd like some opnions on whether its worth paying the extra £120 to get a quad core or to simply go with the new wolfdale due instead.
Click to expand...


If your still thinking about a quad after all everyone else has said then dont bother with the Q6700, as the 266Mhz gain in speed is in now way worth twice what you would pay for a Q6600. The Q6600 would be cheaper than the wolfdale chip, but on raw CPU power wont match up, not unless you clock it which you dont sound as though your into (go on have a go ;) )
 
I was scared of overclocking my new pc when I bought it a few years back.
But when I learned that its just a case up upping a few settings in the BIOS, and checking the temperatures, I clocked away!

Its easy peasy. Well, It was when i did it a few years back, dunno about now!

On another note. I am in exactly the same position as you.
I was set to get a Q6600, but with these new wolfies out, I am torn!

Do you go for quad, incase these get utalised more in the next year, before my next upgrade.
Or do I go for MHz for the short term gaming boost!?
 
It also depends what you compare with what. I seem to remember Toms hardware doing some benchies of the last gen of chips and the quad cores did out perform the dual cores even in single thread apps. But for the extra £100s it clearly wasnt worth it for such a small increase in performance if you were just using single threaded apps.

But then why do you even need two cores if you are just gonna play single threaded games ;)!

I guess the answer is that it helps when you are running multiple apps and that argument is true for 2 and 4 cores, given the (assumed) closeness in pricing for the next gen chips its not such an easy call imo. And there are a few multi core apps out there - including games (supreme commander etc).

Also, given that most tech media outlets are getting super excited about virtualisation and there is much anticipation for this tech to go more mainstream in 2008/9 im definitely waiting to see what the price diff between 2 and 4 cores will be.

Of course if its £500 again like the last gen then I wont bother. But if the 9450s are <£200 then why the hell not?!

Cheer :)
:)
 
Jezza101 said:
It also depends what you compare with what. I seem to remember Toms hardware doing some benchies of the last gen of chips and the quad cores did out perform the dual cores even in single thread apps. But for the extra £100s it clearly wasnt worth it for such a small increase in performance if you were just using single threaded apps.

But then why do you even need two cores if you are just gonna play single threaded games ;)!

I guess the answer is that it helps when you are running multiple apps and that argument is true for 2 and 4 cores, given the (assumed) closeness in pricing for the next gen chips its not such an easy call imo. And there are a few multi core apps out there - including games (supreme commander etc).

Also, given that most tech media outlets are getting super excited about virtualisation and there is much anticipation for this tech to go more mainstream in 2008/9 im definitely waiting to see what the price diff between 2 and 4 cores will be.

Of course if its £500 again like the last gen then I wont bother. But if the 9450s are <£200 then why the hell not?!

Cheer :)
:)
Click to expand...

Q9450 is £218-236 and Q9550 is £361-385 depending on where you look.

Quad core is a complete waste of time for gaming. At best you will have half of it sitting there doing nothing. That's why i am going for a E8500. By the time something actually uses the quad cores there will be a faster more power efficient quad core out and we will be on Intels new socket. So i am selling the quad while it's still worth something.
 
Well, it is a massive thread. And nothing really got resolved did it?

I read an article on toms hardware, which is a few months old now (As everything seems to be on that site!).
It stated that for gaming, the Dual cores are the way to go, until the true quad core Intels come out at the end of 2008.

So I am thinking I might go Wolfdale until next year.
I just hope that the next 'Greatest game of 2008' doesn't utilize 4 cores. Otherwise I shall be crying onto my keyboard!
 
To be honest both chips are excellent and will give you a great gaming experience, if you do go down the Q6600 route then clocking to 3Ghz is pretty straight forward on i.e. a P5k-e board, and there is plenty of help to hand on these forums should you wish to do so.

If your only ever gaming on the PC then a quad may be a bit of a waste, for me when making a similar decision before xmas I went for the quad as I tend to do quite a bit of photoshop/lightroom work where the quad really does perform, also the quad was only £155 then so cheaper than the chip your considering and I knew I could clock it to >3Ghz, currently at 3.5 just now :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom