-
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 or C2D
- Thread starter valerian
- Start date
mk17 said:What happened to the search function? Is it temporarily unavailable, or gone for good?
Temporary http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17762922
stickroad said:
No not really. I'd personally look on the first page and the next couple but not everyone has that luxury of time do they?
edit: One of your linked threads is "Gamer needs a new cpu" that's not necessarily going to draw attention from the OP, another is at the bottom of page 3 and the other on page 4. You can't realistically expect everyone to go through that many pages, especially someone new to the forum (not the OP, but you get my meaning).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,896
- Location
- Bristol
If you're wanting to keep it for a long while and don't plan on ugrading anytime soon, go quad.
If you don't mind upgrading to a quad core in about a year or two when the two extra cores will actually make a noticeable difference in most tasks, then go with the dual.
If you don't mind upgrading to a quad core in about a year or two when the two extra cores will actually make a noticeable difference in most tasks, then go with the dual.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 937
- Location
- London
Rojin said:
I'm planning on getting the Q6600, when are the G0 variants expected?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,945
- Location
- West Bridgford
Quad - why go from one dual core conroe to another, it's madness! 
okeasyrider said:Indeed!
whats the point?
I have been running my 6400 @ 3.8ghz for ages!
4 ghz 6850 is so boring.
Quad for the win
i'll get a quad 2.4
new board
still use 4gb ddr2-800 if i put vista 64 on it, and either get a 8800gts oc 640 or wait for something better value
valerian said:
What does 4core have to do with dx10 :S
Theres already games that utilise more than 4cores, a lot of new games are coming out to support multicore, basically you shoot yourself in the foot if you choose 2 slightly faster cores over 4 cores, especially when its not too difficult to close that gap with a little overclocking.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,281
valerian said:
Both Processors are fast enough for current games. Perhaps the issue is whether you believe developers will release games that will require faster horsepower on 1 core than 2.4(or 3+Ghz if confident to overclock), or whether there is enough headroom in the current 2.4ghz (opt. oced to 3ghz+..) core that developers would have moved over to multiple core games before the indivual core speed becomes a bottleneck.
Wherever the crossover point is, its hard to tell what the ceiling Ghz game requirement will be for a single core in the medium term (3-5 years). If optimistic you might think that 2.4Ghz (opt. oced to 3ghz+) on each individual core will be enough for upcoming games and so a quad core would offer a significantly higher useful lifetime.
Not that I have the experience and evidence to support this but;
given that developers have already started moving over to dual / quad core, it seems reasonable that if you could get the q6600 up to 3GHz, then you are likely to remain in the sweet spot for longer than perhaps a dual core at 3.5Ghz+
ontop of that i cant see any big devs bringing out games that are single threaded. Since AI and physics can generally be offloaded onto different cores. Games wont stay single core, the question is how many cores will they end up at, and its looking likely to be 2 or over(if you have a quad core with a dual core game you'll still get a performance increase, due to the O/S needing to utilise cores aswell as other things)
Am i right in saying this? Generally if something is designed for 2 cores, itll run better with 3, since the O/S could be offloaded onto a 3rd core?
Am i right in saying this? Generally if something is designed for 2 cores, itll run better with 3, since the O/S could be offloaded onto a 3rd core?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
Rojin said:
O my. Dont have the luxury of time? It hardly takes an age. Im prity sure most people would have the time to search for something by using their brain if they could be bothered. The real reason is they cant be bothered and would rather others do it for them.
I often go back as far as 8 or 9 pages looking for things. Its not to difficult. Id say it takes a whole of... mmm... 10 minutes?
As for the one saying "gamer needs cpu" thats again to me just lazyness of not trying to achualy see if it does having anything to do with CPUs. Because well, it doesn't take to bigger strech of an imagination that it may have somthing to do with either a Quad or a Dual. You migth say well its not comparing them. My answer to that is. Since when did humans loose the ability to make decisions based on information or does everything have to be spoon fed now days?
If hes a gamer and everyone is saying get the quad for gaming. Then im sure that more then answers his question.
Rant over!
And i think its already been decided that you should go for quad.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,165
- Location
- South Wales
Thing is, nobody has mentioned the fact that by the time 4 cores are fully used in games then we will probably have frequencies of 1ghz more, more than likely.
8igdave said:
Well we'll have to agree to disagree, you can waste your time manually searching for information. 10mins to search nine pages? Sorry don't think so, that gives you a little over a minute to read each page and check and read each thread of possible interest... Speedy!
It's because of this inefficiency that search facilities exist. Once OcUk have the speed problems sorted out and it's back all the better 
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
Rojin said:Well we'll have to agree to disagree, you can waste your time manually searching for information. 10mins to search nine pages? Sorry don't think so, that gives you a little over a minute to read each page and check and read each thread of possible interest... Speedy!
Noo i never said i read them
10 minutes to search through the forums opening things in tabs which you will want to read checking the first few posts that you do want them. Then you go through them in your own time
Still, its not like it takes ages. You can read through a page in 2 minutes probly. Baring in mind i am a slow reader and i manage. Though i do tend to skip lines out while i read lol... perhaps thats why?