E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!

[taltamir]

ah, but the only current gen quad core you can get is this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115034
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Yorkfield 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 130W Quad-Core Processor - Retail
Only 1179$

Also the thread is title the E8400 obsoletes the Q6600... but not only that, it also obsoletes the E6850... the E6850 costs even MORE then the Q6600, and it is the same clock speed of the E8400, only its based on last gen tech, which is slower per clock, doesn't have SSE4, and is slower under EVERY imagineable situation...

The q6600 is only slower in ALMOST every PRACTICAL situation. there are still a few practical situations where then Q6600 is faster (photoshop3 before the SSE4 patch, maybe even after; audio encoding, compiling half life 2 maps, etc), and a TON of IMPRACTICAL ones where the Q6600 is faster (benchmarking software)

 

[krnmastersgt]

That's an extreme edition, of course it's going to be pricey, and besides that came out 2 months before the E8400, next month is when the other quads come out now please let this thread die already.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
you guys are comparing grapes to apples.

And no grapple doesnt count.



This thread has no point and purpose. You pick processor by application, not because of OC numbers.

If you guys want to get all technical

Skulltrail /w 2 x QX9775 > EVERYTHING.

OC numbers and core numbers.


So dont compare different chips unless its a same family. Yorkies and kents should not be misplaced with wolfdales and conroes.

You guys DONT UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT

If you do stuff which requires 4 cores, A Kentsfield will PWN DESTORY RAPE [insert anger word here] a WOLFDALE.

There is no competition. I posted this on another thread, and i'll post it here again.

You have 4 threads you need to finish.

Wolfdale will finish 1 thread in 2 hours
The Kentsfild will finish 1 thread in 2.5 hours.

Now the wolfdale needs to do that 2x 1 per core @ dual core for a total of 4 HOURS.
The kentsfield needs to do that process ONCE @ 2.5 hours for all 4 threads.

Wolfdale 4 hours total
Kentsfield 2.5 hours total.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS ABSOLUTELY BS IN WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Let this thread die. Its stupid and you guys arent getting the point in having 4 cores over 2.


And to my knowlegdge EVEN WITH SSE4 the wolfdale is NOT 2x faster then the kentsfield. THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE for tho two chips to be =


People please think carefully b4 you type stupid BS comments. You cant compare a dual with a quad. If you need a quad you get a quad. Or if you want quads.

You get a dual if you DONT need a quad. Thats all there is. Its not rocket science in picking processors.

 

[Amaroque]

Funny... This is the SAME exact arguement everyone had concerning single Vs dual core CPU's a few years ago. Single core is clocked higher, and better for games. Now everyone uses dual core CPU's...

Ask again in a few more years, everyone will be using mostly quads. Quad Vs Octa core CPU's will be the same arguement! :laugh:

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Funny... This is the SAME exact arguement everyone had concerning single Vs dual core CPU's a few years ago. Single core is clocked higher, and better for games. Now everyone uses dual core CPU's...

Ask again in a few more years, everyone will be using mostly quads. Quad Vs Octa core CPU's will be the same arguement! :laugh:

EXACTLY...

This is why this thread is STUPID.

History always repeats itself. And watch in 4-5 yrs EVERYONE COMPLAINING about quadcore's will most likely be on one.


Actually it will be sooner.

Watch some other person post a thread going....

Nehalem obsoletes Skulltrail! - well it will be kinda true, but if you need the multi tasking, skulltrail would still win with 8 cores vs. 4.

i dont think theres a 100% increase over neha vs yorkfield.

 

[taltamir]

Except right now you can still buy the Q6600... and it costs MORE MONEY then the E8400... thats the whole point...

And fyi:

And to my knowlegdge EVEN WITH SSE4 the wolfdale is NOT 2x faster then the kentsfield. THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE for tho two chips to be =

Not 2x faster, the same speed. SSE4 makes video encoding 2x faster... so the quad core (which was 2x faster) becomes the same as the SSE4 dual core.

Last week I would still say that the quad core is better for some things, and the dual core is better for some things... But the biggest bastion of advantage for the quad core was the video and graphics scene... which SSE4 equalizes them in. So right now the older quad cores are obsolete. They cost more money but are not worth it.
The older dual cores are CHEAPER... so they are not completely useless...

In a month the new quad cores will come out, and then you will once again have a case where quad is fit for certain thins, and dual fit for others. Until those new quads come out though you are better off sticking with wolfdale... or better yet, if you need a quad, WAIT until the new quads are out to buy.

This isn't a quad vs dual argument, its an OLD vs NEW argument... where the quads benefit does NOT justify the extra cost in this miniscule time period where the new architecture is only available as duals (or as the extreme edition quad for 1170$)

 

[Markfw]

taltamir, the biggest problem with your argument, is how much software is written for SSE4 ?

If everything was, you might have a point. As it is, its a VERY small amount, but quite a few things are multi-threaded.

 

[taltamir]

the software that is written for SSE4, is the software for which quad core is needed to begin with.
Video encoding on the most popular formats is already SSE4... photoshop is getting an SSE4 patch.

Yea, games are NOT SSE4 and will NOT see any benefit from it, but games were ALREADY faster with dual core then quad core.

BTW, whats with comments like "let this thread die" and "what is the point of this thread"... We are having a chat online discussing computer hardware... what is the point of any of this? its teach and learn. I learned that half life two level compiler has quad core support and in it quad core will annihilate dual core. I hope some other people also learned things here.
I already knew that distributed computing wins on quad core and does not benefit from SSE4. But I don't do DC since I calculated it to cost me 180$ per computer (assuming 10 hours a day of computer usage... if I use it for less then 10 hours a day then it costs me MORE then 180$ per year per computer)

 

[krnmastersgt]

Why let this thread die? Because although you have a point in that forums are teach and learn, this entire page save the first post is just repeating stuff from earlier, no point in continuing an argument/discussion with the exact same info is there? Besides what technology is capable of doubles nearly every year, you'll have similar discussion to this one countless times before you just give up and settle for what you have so please let this thread die already.

 

[aigomorla]

227 dollar X3210 vs a 217 dollar E8400


Yeah... thats a WHOLE lot cheaper for the 2 extra cores.


the X3210 8x multi will do 400fsb ~ 1.4Vcore. Heating requirements ummm, i recomend a tower cooler. Yeah it will load up more on heat, but you get 4 extra cores.



And you still dont get my concept. IF YOU THINK OR FEEL YOU NEED A QUADCORE YOU BUY ONE.

And you NEVER BUY A CHIP BASED ON HOW HIGH THE OC NUMBERS CAN GET.


Why cant you understand this? No a wolfdale WILL NEVER BE FASTER then a QUAD in multi threaded aps. ITS NOT POSSIBLE.

4.0ghz Wolfdale Even With SSE4 is NOT 2x FASTER then a 3.2ghz Kentsfield. How come you CANT UNDERSTAND THIS?

And if you compare STOCK

2.66ghz Wolfdale is NOWHERE NEAR 2x faster then a 2.4ghz Kentsfield.

THINK PLEASE! im getting tired of these stupid threads.


Reason why i say let it die is because THERES 3 OF THEM RUNNING ON THIS FORUM AT THE SAME TIME. Why not just AMEND 1 and not have 3 running.

 

[imported_dinGLeBeRRy]

nvm

 

[imported_dinGLeBeRRy]

.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

4.0ghz Wolfdale Even With SSE4 is NOT 2x FASTER then a 3.2ghz Kentsfield. How come you CANT UNDERSTAND THIS?

Because everyone is using Aquamark and Super Pi. That's why.

 

[taltamir]

I understand, you simply fail to read what I am saying again and again. Or fail to understand what I am saying.
READ MY POSTS! NOT A SINGLE ONE OF MY "CLAIMS" YOU HAVE REFUTED HAS EVER BEEN CLAIMED BY ME OR OTHERS IN THIS THREAD
You mentioned 3 other threads? you are arguing arguments against what was said there in here... I haven't read those other threads and none of your counters applies in this thread

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Why cant you understand this? No a wolfdale WILL NEVER BE FASTER then a QUAD in multi threaded aps. ITS NOT POSSIBLE.

Except that it is, if the quad is slow clocked and the multi threaded app is SSE4 capable.

4.0ghz Wolfdale Even With SSE4 is NOT 2x FASTER then a 3.2ghz Kentsfield. How come you CANT UNDERSTAND THIS?

I never said it was 2x faster, I was also comparing 3ghz wolfsdale to 2.4ghz kensfield.
I was saying that a wolfsdale with SSE4 is two times faster then a DUAL core without SSE4, and that quad core was two times faster then a dual core... so they two end up the same.
2.4ghz x 4 cores = 9.6
3.0ghz x 2 cores x 1.8 (SSE4 adds 80% encode performance) = 10.8
overall the E8400 is SLIGHTLY faster then the Q6600.

And if you compare STOCK

I don't recall comparing anything OTHER then stock even once. If I had it was a typo not attempting to compare OC. (but I can't see any mention of it)

2.66ghz Wolfdale is NOWHERE NEAR 2x faster then a 2.4ghz Kentsfield.

The E8400 is 3ghz wolfsdale.

The 2.66 ghz wolfsdale is cheaper then then the Q6600, but so is the 3ghz wolfsdale... So i see no reason to compare the 2.66 one.

 

[AdamK47]

If only performance could be calculated with frequency multiplied by the number of cores, but it's not.

 

[taltamir]

no, but its close to it with video encoding. I am just trying to explain it so he stops accusing me of saying that its 2x as fast as quad core, I never said it was 2x faster then the quad core, I was saying that its twice as fast as itself without it. But he kept misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

 

[F1shF4t]

Why is everyone comparing single tasks which are multithreaded. Fact is when you multitask on a single processor its slower than completing one task and starting another. So running 4 threads on a dual core should be slower than running 2 then running another 2 after the first 2 is finished. I'm talking here about different tasks.

As soon as you start doing a lot of different tasks the quad will obliterate the dually. Then again can you get me a dual core which can run an instance F@H, encode a video and run a game at the same time with no slowdowns? Doesn't matter how fast it is at a single task either it will take it longer or you will be loosing performance.

So for individual optimised tasks sure the dual core could be faster, but for majority of uses where a quad core is ACTUALY REQUIRED the quad will come out on top.

 

[taltamir]

except, benchmarks show it doesn't.

The Q6600 is an older gen piece of hardware that cannot compete with the newer gen stuff... but is still priced higher. Just like The 8800GTS 640MB still costs more money then the 8800GT.

Its not a case of newer = better.
Its not a case of dual is better then quad because thats not the task I run. (a NEW quad is a lot faster in multi tasked apps then the new dual).

Its a case of a single new part, the E8400, that is either MUCH faster or very very close to a single older part the Q6600 which is more expensive.

Stop making this thread into something that it isn't. Nowhere do I contend that dual cores are universally better then quads, or other such outlandish claims. I am comparing two SPECIFIC parts.

If I was to compare the E6850 (3ghz dual core conroe) to the Q6600 (2.4ghz quad core conroe) I would say that the Q6600 is faster in multi threaded applications such as video editing, and that the E6850 is faster in single threaded applications, such as most games.

But I am not comparing those two parts, am I?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: taltamir
except, benchmarks show it doesn't.

The Q6600 is an older gen piece of hardware that cannot compete with the newer gen stuff... but is still priced higher. Just like The 8800GTS 640MB still costs more money then the 8800GT.

Its not a case of newer = better.
Its not a case of dual is better then quad because thats not the task I run. (a NEW quad is a lot faster in multi tasked apps then the new dual).

Its a case of a single new part, the E8400, that is either MUCH faster or very very close to a single older part the Q6600 which is more expensive.

Stop making this thread into something that it isn't. Nowhere do I contend that dual cores are universally better then quads, or other such outlandish claims. I am comparing two SPECIFIC parts.

If I was to compare the E6850 (3ghz dual core conroe) to the Q6600 (2.4ghz quad core conroe) I would say that the Q6600 is faster in multi threaded applications such as video editing, and that the E6850 is faster in single threaded applications, such as most games.

But I am not comparing those two parts, am I?

Precisely, that is still the case with E8400. Only issue is that the E8400 might be able to outperform q6600 in video encoding or apps where SSE4 gives a huge improovement (this is not going to happen in every app, even if it does by that time both cpu's will be way outdated), but I havent seen any benchmarks comparing this.

What I'm stating is comparing running just one multithreaded app is not the only thing to consider. Heavy multitasking is another consideration. There are tasks which are not dependent on time (such as games, you will not notice a performance diff between 2.4ghz and 3ghz) but with a quad you can also run other application (eg encoding a video) without degrading the performance of the game.

And like I stated before this is an advantage because running more heavy tasks than processor cores reduces performance. (cpus (such as p4s) which had HT are an exception, although single core if you ran 2 heavy tasks they would complete faster than running one at a time on average)

If you want to say that one obsoletes the other then you have to compare them in every single possible scenario. But thats not the case here is it?

 

[Markfw]

taltamir, I still don;t get your point. The Q6600 (@3500 lets say) has more processing power than an E840 (@ 4000 lets say) using the current mix of software in 99.9% of all cases, and it costs a little more. And this won't change virtually at all anytime in the near future (say 2 years)More SSE4 code may occur, and more multi-threaded apps will happen, they canel each other out.

So what is your point ?

 

[taltamir]

actually I was comparing them at stock markfw900. The Q6600 @ 2400 vs the E8400 @ 3000. Both at stock speeds.

Take any game out right now and the E8400 performs better. Even crysis that CLAIMS to benefit greatly from 4 cores has been shows to work better on faster 2 cores from reviews I have seen. (on identical clock speeds the quad core is slightly faster).
Take most office applications and the E8400 performs better because its usually single threaded.
Take multi threaded apps... well what are multi threaded apps.
Video encoding (xvid, divx, h264): Most will perform slightly better on the E8400 because of the improvements of both SSE4 and the new archeticture.
Some encoding (mpeg2 and audio) will perform better on the Q6600 because of lack of SSE4 optimization. When they add that optimization it will be faster, but we are comparing existing tech.
Take photoshop3... it will perform better on the Q6600, because the SSE4 patch for it is not out YET.
Take distributed computing: It will be faster on the Q6600
Take benchmarking software: It will be faster on the Q6600.

Of all the programs mentioned here (and ones I knew of before) the only ones where the Q6600 has the advantage are specific (and older) video encodings, PS3 until it gets the patch, benchmarking (artifical tests don't count) and distributed computing (slower at everything else and faster at distributed computing, and more expensive... are you SURE you want to donate?).

If a person asked if he needed a Q6600 or an E6850 I would say "If you do lots of video encoding / graphics work get the quad, if you play games or anything else get the dual"
If a person asks if he needs the Q6600 E8400 I would say "get the quad if you want higher artificial benchmarks and distributed computing, as well as faster encoding on obsolete codecs, but slower on the current ones"... see, not exactly a good sale. Even if a person is a video editor I would not recommend the Q6600 over the E8400 to him. Because the E8400 will encode most things faster.

So who is left? the distributed computer... whom I will try to convince not to waste so much electricity and money on pointless endeavors. And if they insist, not to get a weaker CPU just so that it can do it faster.

I cannot find a single role for a computer in which the Q6600 makes sense over the E8400. Which is why I said it was obsoleted.

When the Q8600 arrives and offers penryn quad core it will go back to a 2 vs 4 argument with benefits for both. But comparing the old and MORE EXPENSIVE Q6600 I would tell anyone to buy the newer and faster E8400, or wait a month for the Q8600

 

[sutahz]

This thread makes me want to upgrade my Q66 to an E84, but its just not worth it. Is the CPU a real bottleneck in gaming? No. I dont care if my Q66 doesnt perform any better then an E66. I should be able to happily keep this Q66 for a year or so past the intro of nehlam(sp) and be happy. Q66 may give me 47FPS in X game, while E84 (@4GHz) may give me 62FPS, I dont give a crap. But kudos, on giving me the itch this early.
Still, at the time I upgraded, E6600 for $240 or Q6600 for $290, why the crap not pay $50 more for basically 2x as much? thats a (50/240=20.83) 79.2% discount on the "2nd same item". COUNT ME IN!
I looked at it from a completely value stand point. I agree quads are useless, but like i said, i plan on keeping this setup for awhile as realistically there is no use on upgrading it. I am envious of the 4GHz though (as my chip or myself is a crappy OC'r). But gaming is the only stress on my system, and then the census seem to be "3.2GHz is good enough" which my Q does at 1.35V ( ) I'd love to run mulitple OS's at the same time, but I dont really know how to do that (nor have i really researched it).

 

[lopri]

Well, I'm not a big fan of quads myself, but I think you guys are forgetting one huge advantage of quads: Virtualization

Try running a couple virtual OS and leave firefox open with 15 or so tabs.. and attempt to watch a heavy 1080p clip (such as this one) or play games on a dual -> stutters galore

I'm done with experimenting virtual OS so I went back to duals. But quad-cores do have a use for folks who can use them. I just don't think there are that many of them. (including myself)

 

[Markfw]

So who is left? the distributed computer... whom I will try to convince not to waste so much electricity and money on pointless endeavors. And if they insist, not to get a weaker CPU just so that it can do it faster.

Well, the distributed computing that I do (Folding@home) may very well save you life one day when they cure cancer, Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers and cancer-related syndromes., etc..., so I wouldn't put it down.

As for running at stock, first, this is a PC'ing forum. Second, to not OC either one of these cpu's is almost a crime.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

So who is left? the distributed computer... whom I will try to convince not to waste so much electricity and money on pointless endeavors. And if they insist, not to get a weaker CPU just so that it can do it faster.

Well, the distributed computing that I do (Folding@home) may very well save you life one day when they cure cancer, Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers and cancer-related syndromes., etc..., so I wouldn't put it down.

As for running at stock, first, this is a PC'ing forum. Second, to not OC either one of these cpu's is almost a crime.

Ha, true, but I have been getting a lot of flack about how they HAVE To be compared at stock otherwise its not fair .

Actually when you OC them the quad gains on the dual... your suggested speeds are quite realistic..

Folding at home does have merit. I admit. But still, 180$ MINIMUM per computer per year? (if you leave the computer on 24/7 to fold).
I would rather donate that amount to a research foundation that will hire more researchers to figure out how things work rather then aid in an attempt to brute force it.