So who is getting Quad 6600 then at this new price?

[easyrider]

Interested who with 6600's etc...will be selling them on to make way for this little beauty.

 

[easyrider]

I couldn't justify my QX6700 at 670 but I can justify 350 odd for a Qx6600

 

[easyrider]

not a chance not worth it

Why?

 

[easyrider]

More to the point, why would you need the extra 2 cores? What do you use your PC for primarily?

Video Editing mainly using Adobe Production studio.

I have 3 monitors and when I'm working on a video project for example I will have Premier open on one,Audition open on another and after FX open on another screen.

With all these apps open you could be rendering a DV video with real time FX in the timeline while working on the credits in after fx in real time while having 64 audio tracks open in audition and mastering your sound track to a stereo master or 5.1 surround sound master.

All this is going on without any lag whatsoever and can make one more productive.It also gives you confidence to try new things too,as the time to try an effect in realtime then decide you don't like it is a lot faster.Heavily increasing ones creativity.

Although C2D@ 3.8ghz is no slouch at doing this,I would have a quad back anyday and will look forward to getting a Q6600.But at the time of me having Qx6700 I did feel a tad guilty in spending 670 on a cpu.Thats one of the reasons I sold it.

If they were still going to cost 670 I would not buy one again.As I can manage with what I have.But at 350 they are too good not to have.Especially after the sale of the 4300 and 6300 meaning I only need to shell out 160 for one now.

 

[easyrider]

Ultimately Easy there will be a bunch of people with better, faster systems than what you have, their benchmarks will 'destroy' yours, can you live with that?

Well I'm liviing with it now with a 6400 @3.8ghz that has 2mb cache and a 8800 GTS that has 320MB ram.

So what's your question again?

You know I have this setup just like fornowagain does.And he's right If i cared about benchmarks then I would still have the QX6700 and GTX.

However a quad for 350,and after selling a 6300 and 4300 I had around makes the upgrade to quad easier on the wallet, (around 160) so thats why I ask.

The answer is still the same even though its had a massive price slash its still a chunk of money to lay out on a CPU.

But it was ok for you to spend 300 on a opty 170?
Hypocrisy at its finest


Any way this thread has gone way off topic.

My original question was:

"Interested who with 6600's etc...will be selling them on to make way for this little beauty?"

And what most have done is tell me its not worth it....LOL when it wasn't what I was asking.

Thanks for bait though wayne,

But this fish just aint hungry

 

[easyrider]

Haha and the answer was . . . of course I don't, I mean why would you need a quad?

People are asking the wrong questions, no-one on these forums needs to ask "Do I need this new product xyz" almost everyone knows the answer to that question, its more a case of "I want product xyz" can anyone else help me justify the purchase lol!

Of course it will, people will be dumping their uber Conroe/Allandales very fast.

Thats the idea, the marketing people are trying to make you upgrade an already brilliant processor, they just want your money and will fill your head with guff, basically just go and do a weeks work and spend the lot on a piece of hardware that offers no 'meaningful' advantage whatsoever?

64-bit processors, um thats been useful for most of us, dual-core again offers very little, Quad-core? what rubbish, DirectX 10? nothing uses it yet and even when it does what exactly will directx 10 look like over well coded DirectX 9?. NCQ on hard-drives, SLI, Crossfire, PCI-express, the list goes on and on and on.

Are people really so gullible? I don't think so, I know how I see things and I'm guessing a lot of other consumers do to, the Quad-Core is a huge flop, INTEL have had to almost cut the price in half to tempt people to buy them, if they were selling well then they wouldn't have reduced the prices so much would they?

£75 quid is a very sweet price for a processor, £150 is pretty much top end but if you hit me with every last bit of hype and show me lots of pretty charts showing benchmarks with the new product whooping everything else then I may, just may rise to a top spend of £200 but I'm not gonna spend one penny more. More than likely I'm gonna buy the £75 quid product and tweak/overclock it to get more *Bang for Buck*

GUFF


I answered every Curiosity of yours.

Oh and before you bore anyone else tell me why 170 opty was worth the 300 quid price tag?

Don't post again unless you answer this question,that i put to you two posts ago.

Thanks

 

[easyrider]

i agree with you 100% about the current state of the hardware industry, in short it's a con with empty promises and smoke screens at every turn.

but with no shortage of 'power users' (ie pretentious wannabees) snapping up this crap they will keep churning it out.

i'll entertain thinking about a quad processor when there's likelyhood of needing one.

Just like Phase?

It's not needed,but yet you done it!

Hypocrisy at its best

LOL

 

[easyrider]

I'm not a hypocrite and I don't appreciate being called one. Would it be possible to not get involved in a childish name calling thread for once, if you don't agree with anything I have said then either ignore it or if you can be bothered make an articulate reply?

OH Dear. Copy and paste from a dictionary LOL (nice move)

Want me to search waynes buys opty 170's?

Your not gulity in buying opty 170's @300 a pop?

there is a post not long back wher you admit it!


At least have an arguement mate.

thanks

easy

 

[easyrider]

To be honest, I do think Dual Core Conroe was & still is somewhat worth spending on because they dont make any better single core CPU's & it offers considerable better performance than AMD for cost, eventually I guess duel core will be phased out but we will have to see.

As for Quad Core, the question is will you make use of all 4 cores now & within the next 6 months or so, I dont think I will to be honest & to be frank my main use for my pc is gaming & untill we see games making use of all 4 cores it's not worth my expense.

you were buying a Q6400 ES in the last thread I read! lol

 

[easyrider]

As said before, ignore Easyrider, he loves making arguements, im sure hes 12.

Have you read my OP?

 

[easyrider]

He woudnt haggle the price down so I soon changed my mind & I wont use all 4 cores so it is a waste of money.

Just like the 8800 GTX doesn't use 768 MB of ram in todays games lol

Never mind R600 with its 1GB

 

[easyrider]

Yeah I'm bored now too, I think I like to test my 'reasoning' skills on him but it appears to be a waste of time!

I wonder how old easyrider is anyway? never occured to me he could be 17

Then don't post.


Reasoning? Trolling more like,

Ultimately Easy there will be a bunch of people with better, faster systems than what you have, their benchmarks will 'destroy' yours, can you live with that?

I have told you I have a 6400 and a 8800 GTS 320mb.

The point is wayne you have no arguement.You have ignored every question I have put to you.

If you can't take being questioned directly about something without becoming 'defensive' I will just avoid asking you any pertinant questions

Thats rich considering you have ignored my question...
why its ok to spend 300 on an opty 170 but not on a quad.

I ask you again?


No in fact don't answer, I'm not remotely interested.

 

[easyrider]

Q6600 looks really overpriced to me - it costs way more than double an E6600, which is more than half as good in terms of real world usage.

For £366 you can get an E6320 with decent cooler, quality overclocking motherboard and 2gig of quality DDR2.

Yes but its not quad core.

 

[easyrider]

That's my point, Q6600 is only quad core, not octa. It costs about 2.5x as much and yet in real world conditions is less than twice as fast in most cases. In single threaded apps I guess it will be marginally quicker than E6600 due to the increased cache (4meg per core instead of 2) but nothing worth spending hundreds of pounds on.

Bear in mind that for general desktop usage the move from single to dual core is likely much more pronounced than that from dual to quad. Yes it may be attractive for distributed computing and such like but I think at the current pricing levels, quad-core is more suited to niche markets rather than mainstream enthusiasts (unlike the E6600).

its 330 quid thats all..

Hardly expensive

 

[easyrider]

I am usually one of 'those' that like to upgrade to the latest and greatest but I fail to see enough of a beneift of quad over dual core in the applications I use. .

Fair enough then don't get one.I'm not saying everyone should.I'm saying for the CPU power you have £350 is not a lot of money for the central part of the PC.

I for one would use the power along with many others.

Although my P4 2.0 ghz M gets used 95% of the time on my laptop.And have never had the urge to upgrade to a C2D laptop as it does everything I need when mobile.

A quad in my main rig will be welcome again after my QX6700 flash in the pan.

Sure it would be nice to have a faster render but at what cost? It isn't just a matter of upgrading the cpu anymore, if you want quad it usually means a motherboard upgrade too if you like overclocking as most boards are struggling to get the quad to overclock well. So the cost of upgrade is still going to be circa £500 minus the small amount you will get for your now 'dated' 2nd hand C2D setup which have been hit hard with the recent price drops..

most mobos now have the issue of quad clocking sorted.Like the EVGA 680i rev 2 mobos.

I don't want to bash quad core but for me at least, until 4 cores are utilised more then it is a bit of a waste when the money spent could benefit my system elsewhere.

Where?

You already have a top end rig..What else could you upgrade to?