Dual core or quad?

[Shmee]

You forgot the Q6700? Did you check its prices in your country? Over hear its priced nicely between Q6600 and the Q9550. And guaranteed G0, so should OC well. Also, it has a stock frequency of 2.66 Ghz, which I believe is that of the much pricier Q9450. It wont have the same clock quite as the Q9550, but you can easily OC it just a bit to match it. I'm talking something like only 300 mhz, and your already at 2.96 Ghz. People say the Kentsfields are being EOLed, I say that is just really a sad thing. Q6600 is still way ahead of the Q8200, for less, and has much more cache. Even has more Cache than the Q9300 and Q9400, and can be oced to match it. But if money istn too much of an issue, than I would go with the Q9550. Just try to get the E0 version. 😀

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: Shmee
You forgot the Q6700? Did you check its prices in your country? Over hear its priced nicely between Q6600 and the Q9550.

Not in the catalog for the Q6700. Probably they don't recommend it.

Originally posted by: Shmee
Over hear its priced nicely between Q6600 and the Q9550.

Then I predict the price to be around RM900+.
Q9550 is RM1100, so I might as well go for Q1550.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: drajin
That is a strong "IF" there.
What you said was right. If I (yes, another "IF") bought the E8500, I might be wondering. "If I bought Q9550 that day, I wonder how it would be like?"
This happens all the time, everyone experience this. Not just with computers. Haha
But since you didn't wrote any detail to convince me, that "IF" only worth 1%. Hahahaha

My Mind;
49% E8500
51% Q9550

LOL, 🙂 Well, if you have noticed in my sig, I have 3 in there that I use most of the time. There are others but I do not mention them as it's not necessary... Of the 3, the E7200 is my dually and it is a great chip to own. I have it @ 3.6 and it hasn't even had as much as a glitch to cause me any problems. I have put it through some stress, no doubt. Only thing is, it can't multitask like my Q6600 or my Q9450. I place the same program on it as my Quads and run the same amount of apps at it and for what its worth, it performs well but NOT in the same timely manor. The quads just overpower it. Not to say the E7200 just isn't good, just to say that it isn't up to the multitasking the quads can do.
This isn't to degrade my E7200 nor any dually at all. Just to note that the Quad has more to offer in the multitasking world. Also to mention, I have the E7200 running a Cpu and a Gpu client for F@H and it is working @ 100% load. I can surf the net and do several other things and it performs very well.

 

[Shmee]

http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLB8V

That is the page for the information on the E0 stepping of the Q9550. Its the one you want. look for SLB8V on the box, or in the order description. The other stepping, C1, is the older one and is denoted by SLAWQ.

 

[drajin]

If multi tasking is the only thing quad is good at, then I'll take dual core E8500. But I doubt it's just multi tasking. However, I do some multi tasking, but probably not heavy application at one time. There's probably only 1 task that drains a lot from the cpu, the rest are probably minor task. Example, I don't play games while encode video simulataneously. The more reasons I should take E8500.

If some said that present or future software is beginning to support multi cores happens to be true, then I'll take Q9550 without doubt. But how true is this? What software support quad now? I hope someone can provide example. In video encoding, I don't use software that is meant for general people such as Ulead or similar. I code it manually, using free software like VirtualDub, Avisynth, TMPGENC, etc. By using that method to encode video, how much does it demand cpu?

My mind;
45% E8500
55% Q9550

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: drajin
I code it manually, using free software like VirtualDub, Avisynth, TMPGENC, etc. By using that method to encode video, how much does it demand cpu?

In video encoding, the difference will be double assuming equal clock speed. Video decoding software scales almost 100% and using all the cores you can throw at it.

Put it this way, to convert a movie from 8.5GB 720P to 4.5GB to fit on a DVD will take about 2.5 hours (depends on the settings in DivX converter, etc.) on my Q6600 3.4ghz. Because the Penryn quads are optimized for SSE4.1 after DivX6.8, you get even faster performance. So let's say 2 hours. A dual core with 25% faster speed will be <4 hours. If you encode overnight, then you won't have any advantage by going with the quad.

Having said that, I still think in 3-4 years, for games any current quad will be too slow. But look at it another way: the price difference is RM 480 (or you said $150 USD roughly). That's an annual cost $37-$50 over 3-4 years. That wasn't a lot of $ for me since coffee costs me that much a month. Everyone is different.

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you encode overnight, then you won't have any advantage by going with the quad.

Good point there. I probably power on my computer 24/7. Sometime I do encoding overnight.

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
But look at it another way: the price difference is RM 480 (or you said $150 USD roughly). That's an annual cost $37-$50 over 3-4 years. That wasn't a lot of $ for me since coffee costs me that much a month. Everyone is different.

Now it goes all the way back to money factor. I hope the E8500 is better, as it's cheaper. Money is still a factor to me. So, I was still thinking whether paying almost double is worth of Q9550.

Some people say that the extra cores in quad can be utilised to do physics work, but I don't know how true is that. But I heard ATI is working in GPU doing physics work, which I think nvidia had already done. If physics a factor to buying quad, might as well spend those extra $ on new mid range card, which performs physics better. But I don't want to talk much about physics, as even I don't know much about it. I also wanna avoid physics as factor in choosing between quad or dual.

Back to topic, extra RM450 is a lot to me, especially I'm still a student. So, at this moment I'm more towards dual core. Higher clock speed does looks promising. Besides, I prefer not to overclock, so Q6600 is no-no.

My mind;
65% E8500
35% Q9550

 

[myocardia]

Here's how this works, drajin. Today, in most games, you;ll get 20-25% better performance with a dual-core. There are only few games at the moment that benefit much from a quad-core. They include Microsoft's Flight Simulator X (you'll get ~200% faster with the quad here), Supreme Commander (but only with maximum amount of AI, on larger maps), and UT3.

And yes, the future of gaming is most definitely quad-cores. Your choices seem to be slightly less FPS now, and up to twice the FPS in the next 1-2 years if you choose the Q9550, or slightly higher framerates now, and much lower in the not too distant future (with the games coming out then), if you choose the E8500. An E8500 will be the equivalent of a single core CPU in gaming, long before you get back home.

BTW, spend every penny on your video card that you can. It's about 10x as important for framerates as your CPU, assuming you aren't a flight simulator addict. I'd much rather have an E8500 + a GTX280 three years from now, than have a Q9550 + a HD4850.

 

[Gillbot]

This discussion has been beaten to death, instead of rehashing the same opinions over and over I suggest a search and review of everything that has already been discussed.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd much rather have an E8500 + a GTX280 three years from now, than have a Q9550 + a HD4850.

hehe, but you haven't considered that he can still purchase hardware. You'd be much better off geting $150 HD4850 today, and $200 card in 1.5 years than to have $380 GTX 280 over same 3 years.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd much rather have an E8500 + a GTX280 three years from now, than have a Q9550 + a HD4850.

hehe, but you haven't considered that he can still purchase hardware. You'd be much better off geting $150 HD4850 today, and $200 card in 1.5 years than to have $380 GTX 280 over same 3 years.

Yeah, you are right that incremental upgrades work out better as the prices fall on newer/faster hardware, but it seems that OP is going to be locked in a prison in India for the next 3-4 years where he can't buy upgrades. :music:

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd much rather have an E8500 + a GTX280 three years from now, than have a Q9550 + a HD4850.

You'd be much better off geting $150 HD4850 today, and $200 card in 1.5 years than to have $380 GTX 280 over same 3 years.

That is 100% opinion. What if he wants the high FPS today? I'm sure people who kept a 8800gtx for 1.5 years really enjoyed it more than those that had a 7800gtx for 1 year, 3 months, and then bought a 8800gtx recently. Sorry for being OT, my vote is for the E8500

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd much rather have an E8500 + a GTX280 three years from now, than have a Q9550 + a HD4850.

hehe, but you haven't considered that he can still purchase hardware. You'd be much better off geting $150 HD4850 today, and $200 card in 1.5 years than to have $380 GTX 280 over same 3 years.

You should read threads before replying to them. According to the OP, he won't be able to buy anything for the next 3-4 years. Anything as in zilch, nada, etc. And yeah, your way is the way I'd do it myself.😉

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: myocardia

You should read threads before replying to them. According to the OP, he won't be able to buy anything for the next 3-4 years. Anything as in zilch, nada, etc. And yeah, your way is the way I'd do it myself.😉

I did read the thread 🙂 He said it's too expensive abroad. But even so I still bet a $200 videocard (abroad) in 2 years will wipe the floor with GTX 280. Besides GTX 280 is just bad value all around no matter that it'll "outlast" the other cards. 6800U didn't outlast 6800GT, X850XT didn't outlast X850Pro, X1900XT didn't outlast X1950Pro, 7900GTX didn't outlast 7900GT. 2 years is a long time! Remember when Doom 3 came out and no matter what you had it was too slow? Far Cry? Crysis? In all those cases it didn't matter if you had a GT/Ultra or Pro/XT version of the card of same generation. They were all too slow 😉

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Here's how this works, drajin. Today, in most games, you;ll get 20-25% better performance with a dual-core. There are only few games at the moment that benefit much from a quad-core. They include Microsoft's Flight Simulator X (you'll get ~200% faster with the quad here), Supreme Commander (but only with maximum amount of AI, on larger maps), and UT3.

You assume that dual core have advantage NOW, is it because of higher clock speed? Is 2.83GHz (Q9550) and 3.16 (E8500) really that much different? (forget about money at this point)

Anyway, I don't think I'll play Flight Simulator. I heard most ATI GPU (including HD4800 series) fair badlay with Flight Simulator, some are not playable (<30fps)

Originally posted by: Gillbot
This discussion has been beaten to death, instead of rehashing the same opinions over and over I suggest a search and review of everything that has already been discussed.

This is not much of a review, rather need more advise on my situation right now.

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

I did read the thread 🙂 He said it's too expensive abroad. But even so I still bet a $200 videocard (abroad) in 2 years will wipe the floor with GTX 280.

Ya, it's expensive in India, as most of the computer hardware were imported from my country of origin, Malaysia. Yes, maybe in 1-2 years I can buy older GPU in India as it drops price, going for crossfire, let say, for an upgrade.

However, there are still chance I go back to my country. Even so, I only upgrade GPU, not other things like mobo or cpu. Going back and forth would mean spending extra $450, but it's not like I go back just to buy PC stuff, lol. I don't worry much about GPU now. I'm going for HD4870, as the HD4850 in Malaysia is just a small difference. (around $40 difference)

So, going back to basic, I had already asked, but I'll ask again. Is 2.83GHz (Q9550) and 3.16 (E8500) really that much different?

 

[User5]

It just makes so much more sense to get a dual core.. cheaper, faster, run cooler, higher o/c potential, more cache, lower power consumption..

You will benefit so much more from a dual core processor capable of being overclocked well over 4.0ghz, than two cores that may or may not be taken advantage of, one or two years down the line. Crysis Warhead, the latest and greatest game.. is this even being optimized by quads? During loadup the game displays a screen something like "best played on dual core" or something lol

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: User5
It just makes so much more sense to get a dual core.. cheaper, faster, run cooler, higher o/c potential, more cache, lower power consumption..

Please provide a more "professional" answer than that. All that stuff is general knowledge in term of tech stuff.

Originally posted by: User5
You will benefit so much more from a dual core processor capable of being overclocked well over 4.0ghz, than two cores that may or may not be taken advantage of, one or two years down the line. Crysis Warhead, the latest and greatest game.. is this even being optimized by quads? During loadup the game displays a screen something like "best played on dual core" or something lol

I thought Crysis quad cores optimised? Why would it's successor wants to demote back to dual cores? Games like Devil May Cry 4 during opening it says something like "Plays well on Quad core" or something like that.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: drajin
So, going back to basic, I had already asked, but I'll ask again. Is 2.83GHz (Q9550) and 3.16 (E8500) really that much different?

No, not at all. It's only ~11% difference. The majority of people here seem to be recommending the E8500 because it overclocks slightly higher.

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I did read the thread 🙂 He said it's too expensive abroad. But even so I still bet a $200 videocard (abroad) in 2 years will wipe the floor with GTX 280.

You'd be wrong, though. That $200 video card would need to be a $64 card here, since video cards are more than 3x as expensive in India.

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: drajin
So, going back to basic, I had already asked, but I'll ask again. Is 2.83GHz (Q9550) and 3.16 (E8500) really that much different?

No, not at all. It's only ~11% difference. The majority of people here seem to be recommending the E8500 because it overclocks slightly higher.

So, assuming I don't overclock, that is small different.

Originally posted by: myocardia
That $200 video card would need to be a $64 card here, since video cards are more than 3x as expensive in India.

Ya, come to think of it, GPU in India is THAT expensive. I wonder how many indians afford GPU, their mean income is low too.

Regarding CPU, if money is not a factor, and 11% is not much different, then I'll probably go for the Q9550. I really don't plan to overclock, risking from damaging my hardware. If the near future is towards multi thread, then thats all I need to convince myself to buy a quad core. But after reading this whole, lengthy, cooperative thread, my mind is still towards E8500. Some of my conclusions from your response;

I would take E8500 because;
1) Higher clock speed
2) cheaper
3) I doubt future app will be multi threaded (not in this time around)
4) less electricity (is it?)
5) I don't do much multi tasking
6) overclock better

So, if anyone can overturn my conclusions, you are more than welcome to do so. But right now, E8500 is winning the battle. Unless something miracles happen, such as the Q9550 drops price in this 2 weeks, then I without doubt took Q9550. Money is the biggest thing here. lol

My state of mind;
65% E8500
35% Q9550

 

[sskk]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Here's how this works, drajin. Today, in most games, you;ll get 20-25% better performance with a dual-core.

What? Are you kidding? Show me some game benchmark that has E8500 beat Q9550 by 20-25%, OC or not, at a reasonable resolution. Most games now are GPU limited a 20-25% higher OC does not translate into performance.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: drajin
This is not much of a review, rather need more advise on my situation right now.

We cannot tell YOU what you should buy. We can make suggestions and as I said, this whole dual/quad debate has been beaten to death.

My suggestion was for YOU to review the many many many Dual/Quad debate threads and draw your own conclusion as to what you need.

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

We cannot tell YOU what you should buy. We can make suggestions and as I said, this whole dual/quad debate has been beaten to death.

My suggestion was for YOU to review the many many many Dual/Quad debate threads and draw your own conclusion as to what you need.

People are willing to help me, I don't know why you're so upset about it. If this thread really bothers you that much, then just ignore it. This thread is dedicated to ME, at this particular TIME. This is not a dual/core debate, but some guide at my CURRENT situation; which is I already wrote it. I'm not gonna write it again, and I don't think you read this thread thoroughly.

I don't think there's any other thread matches my SITUATION at this particular TIME. Computer hardware changes very quickly. Is 3-4 months thread regarding dual-quad debate gonna help me NOW? I don't think so. They're outdated. But, it's not like I didn't read them first before I started this thread.

 

[Gillbot]

Your situation isn't so specific that many of these replies are unique. If you read all the other threads, you'll see the same points re-hashed over and over.

My biggest dilemma is to choose betweem Q9550 (2.83GHz) or E8500 (3.16GHz). In my country (Malaysia), the price for Q9550 is almost double the price of E8500. I didn't include E8600 because the price is almost approaching Q9550.

You basically answered your own question. If a quad is worth double price to you and will be utilized for the applications you will be running, get it. Otherwise get the dual and overclock it.

What I do with my PC? Basically I do all things, including heavy application, video encoding, and playing games. Another question, how much does Quad core affects gaming? I want a recommendation and a good reasons why that is recommended. I'm looking for more advise on performance rather than price.

We can't make a clear recommendation to YOU because you didn't explain specifically what you need. If you run applications that can take full advantage of a quad core, then yes, get the quad. HOWEVER, if the majority of your time is spent in software that is not optimized for QUAD CORE processors, obviously getting a quad would be a waste of your money.

After all of this, My point still stands. If you would review the replies in many of the current Quad/Dual threads, you will get an idea of what people are recommending and why they are making those recommendations. If you have software or specific applications in mind, those questions may have been already answered and it will give you a better idea of where your money will be best spent.

Personally, with the new intel chips being very close to launch, I wouldn't buy anything. Wait a short time and you may just see price drops across the board with everyone anticipating the new hardware releases.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: sskk
What? Are you kidding? Show me some game benchmark that has E8500 beat Q9550 by 20-25%, OC or not, at a reasonable resolution.

I don't kid. Are we talking about your reasonable resolution, my reasonable resolution, Gillbot's reasonable resolution, or the OP's reasonable resolution? And of course there isn't a 20-25% difference between an E8500 and a Q9550. I never said there was, now did I? With only roughly an 11% clockspeed difference between the two, that would be impossible. Where you get up to a 25% performance gap between duals and quads is at the same price point, specifically between the E8400/E8500 & the Q6600/Q9300.

Most games now are GPU limited a 20-25% higher OC does not translate into performance.

Not even close, unless you're using a much older, much slower card, or have a home theater-sized monitor, or both. You might want to read this article for more information on the subject.

 

[sskk]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: sskk
What? Are you kidding? Show me some game benchmark that has E8500 beat Q9550 by 20-25%, OC or not, at a reasonable resolution.

I don't kid. Are we talking about your reasonable resolution, my reasonable resolution, Gillbot's reasonable resolution, or the OP's reasonable resolution? And of course there isn't a 20-25% difference between an E8500 and a Q9550. I never said there was, now did I? With only roughly an 11% clockspeed difference between the two, that would be impossible. Where you get up to a 25% performance gap between duals and quads is at the same price point, specifically between the E8400/E8500 & the Q6600/Q9300.

Most games now are GPU limited a 20-25% higher OC does not translate into performance.

Not even close, unless you're using a much older, much slower card, or have a home theater-sized monitor, or both. You might want to read this article for more information on the subject.

Funny you say " Where you get up to a 25% performance gap between duals and quads is at the same price point, specifically between the E8400/E8500 & the Q6600/Q9300."
then shows a chart which the difference between E8400 and Q6600 is smaller than 10%. In that article, E8400 only beat Q6600 over 10% once, by 13%. They were on par once, and the rest has E8400 beat Q6600 by 5-8%.