-
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 vs Duo
- Thread starter wiggyuk
- Start date
Personally My thoughts on getting the G0 when it first became available are thus:
1) 1 Core for Windows and the general running of background apps
2) 1 Core for firewall and av scans etc (even on a duo an av scan would cause pausing)
leaving 2 cores to have "fun" with - Dirt for example makes use of 2 cores, and no doubt many more games will be even better. Not to mention any encoding etc
1) 1 Core for Windows and the general running of background apps
2) 1 Core for firewall and av scans etc (even on a duo an av scan would cause pausing)
leaving 2 cores to have "fun" with - Dirt for example makes use of 2 cores, and no doubt many more games will be even better. Not to mention any encoding etc
What other info do you need m8? Only too happy to help
. My current build has changed somewhat since that video as I no longer have am E6600 nor and EVGA board. I swapped them out for an Asus Blitz and Q6600, so the water cooling has also changed.nah wiggy he was 2 busy showing his toes
Big feet and bent toes are the mark of fine overclockers...honest
If money's an issue, the why not wait until Q1'08. Yeah I know thats months away, but the Penryn quad's are going to bring in some considerably cheaper options. The 2.66Ghz Penryn should be about the same price as the Q6600 is now, yet it has a faster 1333mhz FSB, and 12meg of Cache. It will also be a lot easier to cool as its a much lower power requirement.
That said, compared to your single core P3 3.2Ghz, even a 1.6Ghz Core 2 system would be faster at virtually any task. C2D's are simply that much faster. Not to mention many encoding apps can utilize multiple cores. Dual 1.6 V single P4 3.2... Now your talking.
Myself, I went from 3.2Ghz P4 to 2.67Ghz Core 2 Duo... Its like night and day, the C2 is blazingly fast. OK A quad's even faster in certain applications, and that gain will increase as more software is better written to make use of multicore processors, but the C2Duo is still a fantastic processor.
That said, compared to your single core P3 3.2Ghz, even a 1.6Ghz Core 2 system would be faster at virtually any task. C2D's are simply that much faster. Not to mention many encoding apps can utilize multiple cores. Dual 1.6 V single P4 3.2... Now your talking.
Myself, I went from 3.2Ghz P4 to 2.67Ghz Core 2 Duo... Its like night and day, the C2 is blazingly fast. OK A quad's even faster in certain applications, and that gain will increase as more software is better written to make use of multicore processors, but the C2Duo is still a fantastic processor.
Last edited:
From a gaming perspective I found this very interesting
In the Lost Planet game options there is an option called concurrent operations, 2 or 4 can be selected, selecting 4 enables Quad cores to really take flight its a shame there isn't a lot more games optimised like this....Supreme Commander also has Quad core support just found that in the review.
Full review http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html#sect0
In the Lost Planet game options there is an option called concurrent operations, 2 or 4 can be selected, selecting 4 enables Quad cores to really take flight
its a shame there isn't a lot more games optimised like this....Supreme Commander also has Quad core support just found that in the review.
Full review http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html#sect0
Last edited:
