• 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 price cuts?

Big.Wayne said:
Morguk, Just out of interest, why do you want a quad-core?
Click to expand...

Just becuase i dont want to upgrade my processor anytime in the near future. As everything is going tri/quad core i want to get onto the band-wagon, especially as more games will be taking advantage of 4 cores.

Haha PikkOn yes PC ***** are a rip off with most of there products, but a job is a job :p
 
morguk said:
Just becuase i dont want to upgrade my processor anytime in the near future.
Click to expand...
That's not a bad answer actually . . . but even though I do see that point of view I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to upgrade a chip? I think thats probably my fave item of hardware to swap out, mainly because its easy (vs upgrading a mobo which requires more effort).

morguk said:
As everything is going tri/quad core i want to get onto the band-wagon, especially as more games will be taking advantage of 4 cores.
Click to expand...
Jumping on the bandwagon eh! :p

So your saying your seeing a lot of other people doing something and your gonna do it just because they are doing it haha :o

A good rule of thumb I have worked from over the years is, when it comes to PC hardware only pay out cash for features that will benefit you right now. If I saw enough results where a quad core smashed up a dual core badly I think I would be more interested in buying one but I am not seeing that?

Would be nice to see some benchmarks don't you think?

Anything costing over £100 should be a considered purchase and when considering the Q6600 you should be asking

"What benefits am I actually getting for an additional £100"

"Would I be happy with an overclocked E2160 costing £50 and £100 in my savings account"

Sorry if this all comes across funny, I don't want to spoil your purchase but I just wanted to make sure you were buying for the right reasons! :cool:
 
it's not £100 extra, it's £50 difference: e6750 vs q6600. e6750 is the G0 processor performs in single threaded applications closest to q6600.

and for £50 extra, why not get the relative future proof? just look at what you gain with UT3? im pretty sure you can't play againest 31 bots as smooth on a dual core.
 
Big.Wayne said:
Try e2160 vs q6600

No its £100
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with your general take on quad vs dual, you can't compare an overclocked dual with a stock quad, that's just daft.

The E2160 clocks at 75% of the speed of the Q6600 and has a quarter of the L2 cache per core - hardly a fair comparison is it? Either the E6550 or E6750 are better comparisons with the Q6600 and are 50 and 40 quid cheaper respectively.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Don't bank on it. Rumours persist that Intel will put a price premium on the new Penryns as they have little competition from AMD and want to recoup some of the revenue they've lost from price cuts over the past year or two.
Click to expand...

My mistake, its the 2.5Ghz processor thats marked up at $266, which is the same price as the current Q6600, and E6850. The Q9450 is currently listed at the $316 price point, and the Q9550 at $530.

That should put the 2.66Ghz part somewhere between £190 and £200, and the 2.83 at a little over £300 pounds. However as these chips are not even released yet, there is still plenty of time for price cuts.

Phenom's release has been a disaster imho, but it is cheap. If AMD can get the clock speeds up to 2.4 - 2.6Ghz, Intel may well decide to continue the price wars.
 
If Intel put a price premium on the chips by too much, they'd be killing their own newer chips - think of it this way - how many people will actually buy them if they cost twice as much but perform the same? Very few people. Now factor in that they may have to get a new motherboard (not just enthusiasts, what about OEMs with stock left over?) and it's even less likely. At an extremely bolstered price, Phenom would actually be a better buy.

Edit: actually, from Intel's past, they always push the new revision of chips... Remember how they killed off most P3 Tualatin sales by making the motherboards completely incompatible and pushed their prices sky-farkin-high, all so they could push the new Netburst core. They'll probably end up making the 65nm parts look like a crap buy so that people buy into the new products they've just plunged billions of dollars into.
 
Last edited:
PikKOn said:
The moment you said PC **** I began to hate you! But then again even if you are a PC **** employee which I find them to be a bunch of goons who overprice silly little things and deteste those evil people who call themselves tech guys... how could they be called that when they don't even know the basics?
Click to expand...


I hate you too mate...;)

I can assure you hat, despite the stupid uniform, i DO know what I am doing...

As morguk said, a job is a job, it keeps a roof over my head. Well, until I can get the hell out of there it does.
 
Imo - it's never been a better time to buy PC components.

You can buy a quad core CPU with a guaranteed stepping which can be overcloacked by at least another 1GHz for under £200.

Memory has never been so cheap 2 gig for under £40!! It wasn't that long ago you were paying £200+ for that luxury.

A wide range of affordable over clockable motherbaords and graphics that nearly match that of the top end cards.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Whilst I agree with your general take on quad vs dual, you can't compare an overclocked dual with a stock quad, that's just daft
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing an overclocked E2160 vs a stock Q6600, just chip vs chip overclocked or not?

Both chips should overclock to 3200MHz - 3600MHz with a bit of know how and 'luck'
 
but at 3.2Ghz, the E2160 is obviously not going to perform the same as q6600 because of its cache limitations.

you are comparing the overclock-ability of both, but don't forget the q6600 can reach 4Ghz with good water cooling.
 
wuyanxu said:
but at 3.2Ghz, the E2160 is obviously not going to perform the same as q6600 because of its cache limitations.
Click to expand...
Sorry wuyanxu I don't understand what you mean there? :o

Anyway I see you are a Q6600 owner and I don't want to get into a debate where you are defending your purchase, its a nice chip you have although its a bit expensive for me, enjoy it :)

P.S: My stance on quads hasn't changed since it was launched, I had this same chat with people when it was costing £350 ish. The price cuts on the Quad make my arguement weaker all the time and as soon as they cost £100 I will vanish into a puff of smoke! :eek:
 
Vertigo1 said:
Whilst I agree with your general take on quad vs dual, you can't compare an overclocked dual with a stock quad, that's just daft.

The E2160 clocks at 75% of the speed of the Q6600 and has a quarter of the L2 cache per core - hardly a fair comparison is it? Either the E6550 or E6750 are better comparisons with the Q6600 and are 50 and 40 quid cheaper respectively.
Click to expand...

i tryed to rephrase that, but obviously failed :rolleyes:

i really hope you can have you wish next year, when AMD's native quads drive Intel's quad core down in price, so hopefully i can get a Penryn and go for 4GHz :D
 
Bought my brandnew retail box Q6600 G0 for £140, flogged my E6600 on eBay for £90, only £50 different and I have two extra cores. Mind you, £50 nowadays is nothing really, can't even buy a quarter of a decent pair of jeans with that money. I'm glad I made the decision, couldn't be bothered to wait for Penryn any longer. Whenever it comes then I will look into selling my Q6600, again :D
 
toucam said:
Bought my brandnew retail box Q6600 G0 for £140, flogged my E6600 on eBay for £90, only £50 different and I have two extra cores.
Click to expand...
Well thats great, firstly you managed to get a 'super' deal on your new Q6600 and secondly you managed to get a 'great' price for your used E6600. On top of that you don't have a problem with upgrading :)

Still you paid out £50 and went to all that effort for nothing because the two extra cores are not being used! :p
 
I could sense a hint of "bitterness" in your wording of "super" and "great" but no no, it's not for nothing at all.
I use dbPower Amp and now I can encode 4 songs at the same time as opposed to 2. (yes, dbPower Amp supports Quad) Imagine how much time is saved by doubling the amount of songs encoded? Apple lossless takes forever!
Besides, Q6600 G0 runs a lot cooler than my ex-E6600. I'm well chuffed with the move no matter what people are saying.
If you run iTunes, open about 50 windows of IE+Firefox, encode music, have P2P, Antivirus, Firewall programmes running in background all at the same time, trust me Quad does make a difference. My computer definitely feels more responsive now than it was before. Just try it for yourself then you know that I'm not talking ********.

Big.Wayne said:
Well thats great, firstly you managed to get a 'super' deal on your new Q6600 and secondly you managed to get a 'great' price for your used E6600. On top of that you don't have a problem with upgrading :)

Still you paid out £50 and went to all that effort for nothing because the two extra cores are not being used! :p
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom