- Feb 1, 2003
- 3,190
- 6
- 81
Core 2 Duo E8500 Vs Q6600
- Thread starter Darkstar757
- Start date
It's like asking, Range Rover 4wd vs Porsche 911 Turbo. It depends on what you use it for. Faster clocked Penryn dualcore will kickass in most if not all games vs the q6600. When crunching, the q6600 will have a leg up because of it's 4 cores though. When overclocking you can quite rapidly even the playing field, since the q6600 can be oc-ed to 3.2-3.4ghz quite easily, whereas the e8500 will prolly stop at 4.0ghz anyways. That 4.0ghz isn't based on anything though, so I might be a little off.
Nice answer. I really like this one.
In any case though....it is simple...
Raw Clock Speed: Dual-Core
Raw Processing Power and "future-proofing": Quad-Core
I want a quad anyway, more and more games are gonna be coming with multi-threaded support. You can always OC a quad to help offset the speed difference but you can never add 2 more cores to a dual.
:thumbsup:
- Feb 1, 2003
- 3,190
- 6
- 81
Are you suggesting the Dual cores do not overclock? These apples to oranges comparisons confuse me.
In this case, you can't make up for lack of clock just like you can't add cores. As much as the Q6600 will OC, the E8400 will OC more (I've seen over 4GHz on air, 5GHz with more esoteric solutions).
For today's games, go dual (since it will be faster). For today's encoding, multitask productivity, and possibly tomorrow's games, go quad. Of course, if it's tomorrow's games you are looking at, wait for the Q9XXX series.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Dual 8XXX will be the best choice for most people IMO. The future proof arqument for current quads is hogwash, by the time games and general apps show meaningful improvement with over 2 cores your current QXXX will be on a keychain
Don't waste your money or give up clockspeed for the sake of "future proofing" that is the same trap it's always been. NOTHING IS FUTURE PROOF!!!!
Buy what runs the apps you want to run today at the best price/performance, period end of story.
Don't waste your money or give up clockspeed for the sake of "future proofing" that is the same trap it's always been. NOTHING IS FUTURE PROOF!!!!
Buy what runs the apps you want to run today at the best price/performance, period end of story.
To some extent, I'd say future proofing would be applicable to about 3 years, 4 if you're lucky. Most enthusiasts and gamers change their CPU by 3-4 years, sometimes less than that, so really that's all you need to future proof it for. Granted there are exceptions to this statement, such as those who use F@H and those who spend a majority of their time on video encoding, etc.
I find it very, very unlikely that a majority of the programs you will use in 2-4 years will be that much more advantageous on a Quad than a Dual. In 2-4 years time, you'll probably end up getting a new CPU anyway, and it's not because all the applications you use run so much better on a Quad, it's because your hardware is simply getting outdated while the software is advancing.
I find it very, very unlikely that a majority of the programs you will use in 2-4 years will be that much more advantageous on a Quad than a Dual. In 2-4 years time, you'll probably end up getting a new CPU anyway, and it's not because all the applications you use run so much better on a Quad, it's because your hardware is simply getting outdated while the software is advancing.
reports of e8400 at 4GHz are up on the web at 1.3v... at less than $200... no reason to go back.
dajeepster
Golden Member
- Apr 15, 2001
- 1,974
- 16
- 81
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
your current QXXX will be on a keychain
oOooOOOo... i like that idea... my keychain is faster than yours!!!
If you do any video get quad. I've found that some new games use up all of 2 cores already, like UT3, can't do anything in the background.
lol... it's the feeling you get in your erection, knowing your benchmarks are higher than the lower 80th percentile!
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
Quad Core processors are good for benchmarking and doing such CPU-dependent activities as video/audio encoding/decoding, or Folding @ Home, and other things similar to that. But for gaming... it's another story. Most games still use a Single Core, a good number will often use a second Core from time to time, either because the GPU drivers off-load some Vertex/Shader computing to the second Core (such as the ForeWare drivers), or simply because the game was programmed to be computed in multiple threads.
Multi-threaded games are more and more popular, and of course are made in greater numbers since the past year or so, but still, today, I haven't met a single game where two Cores were "fully" used, to a point where a third and perhaps a fourth Core would be required (key word) to resume game-play. Most of the so called multi-threaded games will use something like 70% or 80% of one Core, and then around 30% to 40% of the second one. There are a few exceptions such as Supreme Commander where the first Core is used to about 95% and the second to 60% or so, but such games aren't made each months...
With that said however we should, eventually, prepare ourselves for a multi-core requirement era, and we can already see the tip of that iceberg today, but it's still a tip and nothing more at the moment, especially to the eyes of a gamer. Of course all of this is just my two cents on the subject, but there are still facts. No games today and to be released this year, as far as I know require three or four Cores to actually launch and play them.
But just like when Dual Core CPU's were first released, what were most gamers saying? "It's still useless, there's no games using two Cores as of now, it'll be worth it only if you do video encoding and stuff like that, and to increase your 3DMark score". But what was the "better" reason why most people didn't move to Dual Core? Think for a second... done? Because the Dual Core processors were not affordable. It's simple. Today you can hardly find a Single Core, most of them are now Dual Cores and they are even more affordable than some Single Cores only two years ago. It's a new trend, and to some extent a necessity today. They are still doing their job fine and making any systems run perfectly well, but we are now using more than a Single Core in most of today's applications.
It's still a question of adaptation and prices, it hasn't changed much over the years did it?
When the Quad Core CPU's are more affordable people will make the move and slowly but surely leave their Dual Cores behind. The "good" (not the "extreme" ones) Quad Cores today aren't very affordable, and the less expensive ones are always cut in features or capabilities (just take the Q9300 for example, it seems at first glance that it is an affordable Quad Core but then it has half of its counterparts' L2 Cache cut, it has a very low multiplier, and quite a significantly slower base frequency). The day that Quad Cores such as the Q9450 or perhaps the future revisions of it will be as affordable as a fast and efficient Dual Cores of today will be the day where people will suddenly forget all they've said "against" the purchase of a Quad Core and will then praise them instead and minimize the efficiency of Duals.
Market and technology adaptation, consumers adaptation, time and prices. It's always the same story.
Multi-threaded games are more and more popular, and of course are made in greater numbers since the past year or so, but still, today, I haven't met a single game where two Cores were "fully" used, to a point where a third and perhaps a fourth Core would be required (key word) to resume game-play. Most of the so called multi-threaded games will use something like 70% or 80% of one Core, and then around 30% to 40% of the second one. There are a few exceptions such as Supreme Commander where the first Core is used to about 95% and the second to 60% or so, but such games aren't made each months...
With that said however we should, eventually, prepare ourselves for a multi-core requirement era, and we can already see the tip of that iceberg today, but it's still a tip and nothing more at the moment, especially to the eyes of a gamer. Of course all of this is just my two cents on the subject, but there are still facts. No games today and to be released this year, as far as I know require three or four Cores to actually launch and play them.
But just like when Dual Core CPU's were first released, what were most gamers saying? "It's still useless, there's no games using two Cores as of now, it'll be worth it only if you do video encoding and stuff like that, and to increase your 3DMark score". But what was the "better" reason why most people didn't move to Dual Core? Think for a second... done? Because the Dual Core processors were not affordable. It's simple. Today you can hardly find a Single Core, most of them are now Dual Cores and they are even more affordable than some Single Cores only two years ago. It's a new trend, and to some extent a necessity today. They are still doing their job fine and making any systems run perfectly well, but we are now using more than a Single Core in most of today's applications.
It's still a question of adaptation and prices, it hasn't changed much over the years did it?
When the Quad Core CPU's are more affordable people will make the move and slowly but surely leave their Dual Cores behind. The "good" (not the "extreme" ones) Quad Cores today aren't very affordable, and the less expensive ones are always cut in features or capabilities (just take the Q9300 for example, it seems at first glance that it is an affordable Quad Core but then it has half of its counterparts' L2 Cache cut, it has a very low multiplier, and quite a significantly slower base frequency). The day that Quad Cores such as the Q9450 or perhaps the future revisions of it will be as affordable as a fast and efficient Dual Cores of today will be the day where people will suddenly forget all they've said "against" the purchase of a Quad Core and will then praise them instead and minimize the efficiency of Duals.
Market and technology adaptation, consumers adaptation, time and prices. It's always the same story.
I remember that I asked this question when we were talking about Athlon 64 Vx Athlon X2
I got similiar urgings to go single core.
This turned out to be a HUGE mistake for me, as I ended up wanting dual core for games like supreme commander etc.
The future gets here faster than you expect. I would go Quad core. You can get the clock up near to the dual, and there will be near to no difference in single threaded apps.
However, unless you plan on upgrading it again in 6 months to a year I Would go quad.
I got similiar urgings to go single core.
This turned out to be a HUGE mistake for me, as I ended up wanting dual core for games like supreme commander etc.
The future gets here faster than you expect. I would go Quad core. You can get the clock up near to the dual, and there will be near to no difference in single threaded apps.
However, unless you plan on upgrading it again in 6 months to a year I Would go quad.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Comparing the switch from single > dual core to dual > quad doesn't make sense.
1. switching from single to dual vastly improved multitasking for the average person
2. when duals were released several apps including games were begining(or would shortly) utilized the second core.
These two things alone made it a smart decision to go dual core. Unforetunately neither of these things are true when switching dual>quad. If the apps you use now can't use over 2 cores, it's highly unlikely that they will begin using more than 2 cores in the next 2-3yrs. If you don't do encoding or folding a quad is strictly an epenis purchase at the moment.
You could always take up F@H to make your epenis purchase seem more viable, that seems to be a popular tactic here
1. switching from single to dual vastly improved multitasking for the average person
2. when duals were released several apps including games were begining(or would shortly) utilized the second core.
These two things alone made it a smart decision to go dual core. Unforetunately neither of these things are true when switching dual>quad. If the apps you use now can't use over 2 cores, it's highly unlikely that they will begin using more than 2 cores in the next 2-3yrs. If you don't do encoding or folding a quad is strictly an epenis purchase at the moment.
You could always take up F@H to make your epenis purchase seem more viable, that seems to be a popular tactic here
Puffnstuff
Lifer
- Mar 9, 2005
- 16,187
- 4,871
- 136
Well in my experience there have been several times where my quad seemed slower than the dual it replaced when doing certain things. To be honest I don't see any difference except for the loss of funds to purchase it. When more apps are written to take advantage of the extra cores then that will change. The biggest difference I've ever seen was when I moved from single to dual core.
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Comparing the switch from single > dual core to dual > quad doesn't make sense.
1. switching from single to dual vastly improved multitasking for the average person
2. when duals were released several apps including games were begining(or would shortly) utilized the second core.
These two things alone made it a smart decision to go dual core. Unforetunately neither of these things are true when switching dual>quad. If the apps you use now can't use over 2 cores, it's highly unlikely that they will begin using more than 2 cores in the next 2-3yrs. If you don't do encoding or folding a quad is strictly an epenis purchase at the moment.
You could always take up F@H to make your epenis purchase seem more viable, that seems to be a popular tactic here
AHAHAHA.
yes since when was DC and folding so popular? since the release of the q6600 i guess. I mean we went from "awesome" being quake3arena & Fear to a black & white dos screen with text saying, "cruching, crunching some more, crunching" Yay quad owns!
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
I used to do distributed computing... then I calculated how much it costs me in electricity... LOTS, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS...
a little under 200$ a year per computer... (i ran it on 5)
The dual cores are so much faster then quad cores for EVERYTHING except video encoding...
I would take the faster clocked dual core over the quad any day, and they actually demand about 100-200$ more for a quad. ha!
Future proofing computers is retarded, when the future arrives, there is something BETTER AND CHEAPER. (and often the "futureproof" tech ends up being dropped, like RDRAM for example)
Rather then paying 200$ extra for a quad core penryn, you can buy a FASTER dual core penryn, and when quad core apps finally come out in a year or two, upgrade to a quad core nehalem, the cost of the quad core nehalem in a year and a half and the cost of the dual core penryn TOGETHER would be LESS then the cost of a quad core penryn now...
a little under 200$ a year per computer... (i ran it on 5)
The dual cores are so much faster then quad cores for EVERYTHING except video encoding...
I would take the faster clocked dual core over the quad any day, and they actually demand about 100-200$ more for a quad. ha!
Future proofing computers is retarded, when the future arrives, there is something BETTER AND CHEAPER. (and often the "futureproof" tech ends up being dropped, like RDRAM for example)
Rather then paying 200$ extra for a quad core penryn, you can buy a FASTER dual core penryn, and when quad core apps finally come out in a year or two, upgrade to a quad core nehalem, the cost of the quad core nehalem in a year and a half and the cost of the dual core penryn TOGETHER would be LESS then the cost of a quad core penryn now...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter