Quad or Dual Core!?!?!

XD-3 · 4 Mar 2007 at 16:30

Linz said:
I got this thread too late I think before you spend your money.

I am biased, the other way, hear me out

Quad prices will come down in time, but maybe not by such a large margin as we hope. BUT, by then my QuadFX will be.. just a few tenners cheaper than when I bought it....but Dual-Core will be lame and won't be attractive at all, even on the 2nd-hand market... so what was the best investment in reality?

Subtract the total cost of your Dual-core from the premium over a quad, then add the performance value of the quad into the equation that you could enjoy NOW.

At stock setting (how quaint), some Dual-core benchies may nudge ahead of a stock quaddie, but who the heck buys a quaddie to run it stock

The OC'd quaddie stomps all over all Dual-core in everything.
I play games at the same framerates as any Dual core, but finish way quicker on 3D apps, video encoding (TPMG using all 4 cores 100% is beautiful to see) and unzipping/unraring files and generally doing lotsa heavy-cpu things at once.

Don't waste your dosh, it's not that cut-and-dry

mmmm I am also in this boat i have the money for the Quad. But do you think it will be better to go for the EE 6800 ? or even a 6700 to save money how good do you find the quad?

I bet the quad core makes vista run like a dream though? I will be playing games like crysis, Stalker HL2 ep1, UT3 and i may try C&C because i have never played a c&c game.

This will be on SLI'd 8800GTX's and 4GIG of ram so because the setup so fare is looking really good i thought the quad was the way to go? any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated as i am really stuck as to what to go for...

Thanks
XD-3

P.S Another reason i am looking at the Quad is because i will be banned from PC upgrades for 18 months after i get this setup

. So i am thinking future proof? Also will the performance of the quad still be really high in games that don't support multiple cores?

HighlandeR · 4 Mar 2007 at 18:29

The problem with Game/Software developers is there only just now focusing on Dual core setups, we do have games with Dual core support but the difference in performance is little, I think Q4 showed the largest gain of about 20fps+ and that was about it the rest of the games were like 5-10fps.

You can even see in these reviews:

http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1669_10.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/02/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700/8.html

After looking at them I see why no ones bothered with the Quad cores, even the E6600 under 200 quid is but 10-20fps slower and £350-400 price difference.

Maybe in 1-2 years time Quad core may have its use but at the moment even Dual core hasnt even been tapped

Of course Crysis could come out end of this year and then showing 30-40fps+ difference but I found both counts unlikely !

DPSoftware · 4 Mar 2007 at 22:13

This will be on SLI'd 8800GTX's and 4GIG of ram so because the setup so fare is looking really good i thought the quad was the way to go? any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated as i am really stuck as to what to go for...

Will you be running Vista 64-bit ? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all the memory of both 8800 cards will be mapped to the available 4Gig in the 32-bit version. This would mean most of the second 2Gig RAM would be wasted. I have 4Gig and a single 8800 and I only get 2.8Gig available in Windows.

I think if you are only going to run one application at a time then the quad will not gain you anything (yet). Dual should let you run Vista and an app. If however you want to regularly get mail, virus check and play games at the same time then maybe it will. If you have a one time chance to upgrade then I would get the quad.

XD-3 · 4 Mar 2007 at 22:13

So come on guys I have the money for either the Quad EE 2.66ghz,
or the Core 2 EE 2.93ghz. Which one should i go for ?? I really cant decide I am in need of guidance.

XD-3

XD-3 · 4 Mar 2007 at 23:03

DPSoftware said:
Will you be running Vista 64-bit ? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all the memory of both 8800 cards will be mapped to the available 4Gig in the 32-bit version. This would mean most of the second 2Gig RAM would be wasted. I have 4Gig and a single 8800 and I only get 2.8Gig available in Windows.

I think if you are only going to run one application at a time then the quad will not gain you anything (yet). Dual should let you run Vista and an app. If however you want to regularly get mail, virus check and play games at the same time then maybe it will. If you have a one time chance to upgrade then I would get the quad.

I will be running Vista 64, and i guess it is like a one time chance to upgrade. Well for 18 months that is. Ill be using it for games mostly but im sure games like stalker and crysis will have multi core support?

XD-3

HighlandeR · 5 Mar 2007 at 07:48

Crysis has multicore support but then its anyones guess if it will make use of the extra cores, + its delayed till this fall and tbh who knows if it will appear in 2007.

on subject of Stalker....

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=33&threadid=2009429&enterthread=y

Seems sadly no one knows about Stalker and dual/quad core support, chances are it perhaps doesnt but if u wait a week or 2 will find out for sure.

As the guy says in that thread only Quake4 showed 40% boost in performance and even then that was a one off in 1280 rez, other rez or higher and its down to barely nothing.

Perhaps Crysis/Alan Wake due for fall 07/08 may show benefit but no ones got a crystal ball.

Id say its better off keeping that 400 quid and start saving for a quadcore for 18 months time

FirebarUK · 5 Mar 2007 at 09:29

I seem to remember Gabe Newell saying that Quad core interests him much more than Dual core does. I think they are aiming to optimise the source engine in the near future. Although when it comes out the Q6700 etc will be outdated by quite a way. This is coming from someone with a quad core!

DPSoftware · 5 Mar 2007 at 10:08

I choose the quad

I assume he is going to buy one of the two processors and not buying anything is not an option.

In this case, it looks like the speed differences in the games are not worth talking about at the current time. The price difference is about 10 pounds plus vat. So for future potential and ability to run multiple applications at once I would choose the quad.

The only time the quad gives significant performance increase today is when you run multiple programs that make heavy use of the processor. Only then do you see figures like 50% speed improvements. Since thats what I do and I rarely play games, the choice was easier for me.

mishima · 5 Mar 2007 at 10:17

OP: I would go for a dual core, E6600. The E6700 is only another 400MHz faster and the price difference is silly. An after-market cooler could take you to E6700 speeds and beyond

cobxx · 5 Mar 2007 at 12:36

Yeah, I really thiknk the money would be better saved for a quad core system when it's actually going to benefit performance. Ok, you can overclock a 6300/6400 to >3ghz and get the same performance as a E6700, but even if you leave it at stock, you'll have plenty of performance to last if you want to upgrade to a quad core later.

Linz · 5 Mar 2007 at 16:56

Bottom line, are you only ever ever gonna play games?

If the answer is no, a quaddie will keep you smiling far longer. Its a few quid more but you pay a bit more for a wider grin. You have the money and a desire for either the EE6800 or the QX6700 so that is a no-brainer as the price difference of the QX6700 gets you 2 more cores nearly for free.

Then dial-up even a modest overclock and get your stompin boots on

The oc'd QX6700 beats everything right now. Including Oc'd EE6800's (OK notwithstanding unrealistic LN2 cooled setups and the like).

yeah it will be out-of-date in months to come, but so will everything else, even we end up in Boot Hill so go for it, life's too short to sit watchin' prices.

Oh, and I like you, was subsequently banned from spending any more any time soon

nelsby · 5 Mar 2007 at 16:59

XD-3 said:
P.S Another reason i am looking at the Quad is because i will be banned from PC upgrades for 18 months after i get this setup . So i am thinking future proof? Also will the performance of the quad still be really high in games that don't support multiple cores?

Get an dual core now. Bank the change in an interest account and get a quad when they come down in price/are a more attractive option.

Just explain to whomever is banning you that this is what you have done so there are no arguments when you upgrade in the future!

squiffy · 5 Mar 2007 at 17:17

Go for the dual core. Unless you do 3D rendering you won't need the quad.

Linz · 5 Mar 2007 at 18:35

squiffy said:
Go for the dual core. Unless you do 3D rendering you won't need the quad.

Won't 'need it' per se for 3D either, but it will be a league faster doing it...

...along with Photographic work, Video work, archiving, sound encoding and every other thing that isn't games.

That's a broad brush, but true, you get what ya pay for. Quads won't be that much cheaper to ever justify throwing away a high end dual core, ever.

HighlandeR · 5 Mar 2007 at 19:36

18 months is a long time indeed.... u just gotta remember that in about 1-3 months time that cpus gonna be £330-£350 making it a no brainer....

And then as usual this fall we got newer Quad cores appearing being much better/faster and proberly similar monster prices as we see them now.

Its a shame u cant buy an E6600, enjoy it and in few months time sell it and upgrade to the quad core.

As it stands imo I got a gut feeling that dual core gaming before we start seeing some "proper" boost rather then 3-5fps increase currently I think were still way off.... Id like to see Supreme Commander on a single core vs dual core/quad core scores !

So ill revote E6600 for now, 18 months later Quad-core

HighlandeR · 5 Mar 2007 at 21:11

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17700255

XD-3 · 6 Mar 2007 at 00:39

This is kind of helping me make the choice...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_quad_q6600_preview/page5.asp

I love HL2 and the Quad eats that Benchmark up. Look were the Core 2 EE is :eek:

if having a quad core means you can have ultimate physics and adaptive rain i am all for it.

EDIT: I would read the hole review aswell very interesting if your in the same boat as the OP. and myself...

XD-3

XD-3 · 6 Mar 2007 at 00:57

Linz said:
Bottom line, are you only ever ever gonna play games?

If the answer is no, a quaddie will keep you smiling far longer. Its a few quid more but you pay a bit more for a wider grin. You have the money and a desire for either the EE6800 or the QX6700 so that is a no-brainer as the price difference of the QX6700 gets you 2 more cores nearly for free.

Then dial-up even a modest overclock and get your stompin boots on

The oc'd QX6700 beats everything right now. Including Oc'd EE6800's (OK notwithstanding unrealistic LN2 cooled setups and the like).

yeah it will be out-of-date in months to come, but so will everything else, even we end up in Boot Hill so go for it, life's too short to sit watchin' prices.

Oh, and I like you, was subsequently banned from spending any more any time soon

I do like this post Thanks "Linz" someone has suggested i get water so maybe in 3 months i might just be able to sqeeze in a £250 water setup without anyone realizing

and OC the Quad to 3GHZ!!! (Perents are so lame!)

I do like the idea of getting an E6600 and then going Quad later, but looking at the review i posted HL2 Ep2 and Steam are on the verge of Multi Core support. And looking at the "Game" list posted by Snowdog Alane Wake will have "Quad Core support"

XD-3

smsmasters · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:27

If you're rich get quad core. If you're a rich wannabe, get a dual core.

HighlandeR · 6 Mar 2007 at 22:21

XD-3 said:
This is kind of helping me make the choice...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_quad_q6600_preview/page5.asp

I love HL2 and the Quad eats that Benchmark up. Look were the Core 2 EE is if having a quad core means you can have ultimate physics and adaptive rain i am all for it.

EDIT: I would read the hole review aswell very interesting if your in the same boat as the OP. and myself...

XD-3

Just get the Quad core, your hearts set on it already....

Such a shame Intels price cuts are so far away... and not to mention AMDS quad cores are so far away....

I think we will start seeing Dual core gaming take off in another 1-2 years, but its good to see Valve/Epic saying nah we will just design our engines for Quad and more cores... that way its just supported in the engine endless!