• 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.

Worth Waiting for Penryn?

stickroad said:
Depends what he will be using the pc for?
Click to expand...

well i know that, but i have seen no evidence thats theres any real benefit going to quad, read fair few reviews on it as well, especially the Q6600, can you name anything that will really benefit from quad?
 
Gashman said:
can you name anything that will really benefit from quad?
Click to expand...

Visual Studio. It will compile different .cpp files on different cores, meaning that multi-core compilation is noticeable faster. You will also get a much more responsive and reliable computer while it's compiling and/or debugging.

That's why I went quad core anyway.
 
XeNoN89 said:
Im trying to decide, go ahead with my current build i have planned (with a Q6600) Or wait for Penryn?, as Penryn isnt a major increase in performance it may be better to just skip it and upgrade when Nehalem gets here, what does everybody think?
Click to expand...

Whenever you buy a PC, you will be able to be a better PC for less six months later. If you wait for Penryn the same will be true. There will always be a new thing "just around the corner". How much do you want the new PC? How long are you willing to wait?
 
Gashman said:
well i know that, but i have seen no evidence thats theres any real benefit going to quad, read fair few reviews on it as well, especially the Q6600, can you name anything that will really benefit from quad?
Click to expand...

I cant name a program that is truely optimized for a Quad Core.

Though if you are a true video editior, encoder etc.. then i would say a Quad Core would be very beneficial to you.
 
To answer some questions, the PC will be mainly used for games, and my current one is broken due to a PSU exploding, so i do need a new one ASAP realy.
 
Visual Studio. It will compile different .cpp files on different cores, meaning that multi-core compilation is noticeable faster. You will also get a much more responsive and reliable computer while it's compiling and/or debugging.
Click to expand...
Thats really usefull info, thanks for pointing that out, i wasn't awear it could benefit (though probably depends which version ?), im running VS 2005 on mylaptop at the moment, and its slow as anything to start up and compile programs.
 
DavidB said:
Thats really usefull info, thanks for pointing that out, i wasn't awear it could benefit (though probably depends which version ?), im running VS 2005 on mylaptop at the moment, and its slow as anything to start up and compile programs.
Click to expand...

I think VC++ 6 will, VS 2003 & 2005 will definetly do it - at least the Professional versions will. IIRC, it's one of the options to swith it on or off.
 
I'm probably going to wait on the CPU (at least until Penryn) but I may upgrade to an 8800GTX in the meantime to keep gameplay a little smoother than my 7800gtx allows (thinking crysis here).

However, if having 4 cores for Crysis makes a big difference to gameplay I may upgrade the CPU sooner.
 
sargatanas said:
His PSU just went so i would spec him a lower power chip, and the Conroes are faster in games because they clock higher. I see no reason at all a gamer would pick a quad just now over a faster clocked dual.
Click to expand...

Show me some benchmarks between a 4GHz Dual Core and a 3.6GHz Quad Core please....
 
stickroad said:
Show me some benchmarks between a 4GHz Dual Core and a 3.6GHz Quad Core please....
Click to expand...

You dont need benchmarks to know 2 identical architechtures, but one clocked 10% faster, the 4Ghz one would be faster. Because its only half the cores it will use significantly less power and give out less heat doing so too.
 
sargatanas said:
You dont need benchmarks to know 2 identical architechtures, but one clocked 10% faster, the 4Ghz one would be faster. Because its only half the cores it will use significantly less power and give out less heat doing so too.
Click to expand...
in programs which use only 2 or 1 threads, the dual core would be unnoticably faster (as in probably like 5%), but in ones which use 3, the quad core would be up to 50% faster, and in ones which use 4, up to 100% faster, there has being loads of topics about this.
 
sargatanas said:
You dont need benchmarks to know 2 identical architechtures, but one clocked 10% faster, the 4Ghz one would be faster. Because its only half the cores it will use significantly less power and give out less heat doing so too.
Click to expand...

Of course the higher clocked Dual will be faster providing the application you are using dosent use any more than 2 cores. But the difference isnt even worth comparing, its like comparing 150FPS to 200FPS, you wouldent notice the difference. If your spending near £150-£200 Quad is the only CPU you should be thinking about.

Only argument about the Quad which is mildly valid is the heatout put.
 
mattyrigby00 said:
in programs which use only 2 or 1 threads, the dual core would be unnoticably faster (as in probably like 5%), but in ones which use 3, the quad core would be up to 50% faster, and in ones which use 4, up to 100% faster, there has being loads of topics about this.
Click to expand...

There have been yes, but I know I would rather 5-10% faster in 99% of applications I use, while using less power and giving out less heat, than 50% faster in 1%.
 
What is needed here:

A new PSU
A new GFX card
A new CPU

But at what resolution?

If it is 1680 x 1050 then where is money best spent? And for that matter what is the budget?

Saying to get a Q6600 is alll very well if an e2140 (for arguements sake) will do the job just as well. Saying to spend an extra £100+ on a chip is a big deal for a lot of people.


To rely purely on benchmarks is not using logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom