E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
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.

my entire arguement ...

Originally posted by: Markfw900
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 ?

give up mark. if i cant convince him, you cant either.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
my entire arguement ...

same. all these dumb threads comparing things that are completely different... last i checked quad core does not equal dual core therefor they cant obsolete each other since they are both in different leagues..

 

[Zenoth]

I don't want to sound rude or anything but haven't we covered everything that was corroborative enough in this thread?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't you think Stanford university would rather do that ? The fact is, distributed comping comes around, since its what is required (a lot of computing power) and they can't afford it, so they get free assistance in DC.

And where is the flack about stock ? Realistic OC'ed speeds (not water or better, normal air colling that normal people can afford)

As for the $180 figure, I don;t know where you get that, but it may be close PER QUAD. 24/7/365.

 

[taltamir]

typical dual core computer power consumption from the wall: 200watts.

Consumptions at max CPU (when doing DC) 250 watts.

if you use the computer for say, 5 hours of gaming/maxed cpu usage scenerios a day, and 5 hours of general tasks (surving the web, etc, min CPU).
The 5 hours a day of maxed CPU don't count towards anything, its what you spend anyways. The 5 hours of general tasks would have taken 200 watts, but instead take 250.
So 50 watts x 5 hours/day= 0.25 kwh/day
The other 14 hours the computer could have been off, but you are leaving the computer on to crunch.
250 watts x 14 hours/day = 3.5 kwh/day
Total kwh/day expended beyond normal usage due to distributed computing = 3.75 kwh/day (the amount is higher the less time you would have spent using the computer...)
3.75 kwh/day x 365days/year = 1368.75 kwh/year
Assuming the absolute lowest priced electricity in texas 12cents per KWH (average is 14 + tax)
1368.75 kwh/year x 0.12$/kwh = 164.25$

If you have a beefier computer, or spend LESS time then what I described using the computer yourself every day, then the cost goes UP.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Taltamir I agree with a lot of what your saying. But others have valid points also. Lets say thaT a Qcore penryn won't O/C or very little. A wolf running @ 4.0Ghz is and will compete closely to a 4 core Intel cpu.

But why compare a Wolf to a York. It seems to me that a 4.o GHz wolf will beat a 3 core or maybe even a 4 core K10. Even if you take a K10 to 3.ghz . If its stable at that GHz which it more than likely wouldn't be. You can always gett that special wolf that does 4.5 GHz. Stable. Not many but some same applies to 3ghz K10 some will run stable but not many .

Intel vs. Intel Is fair comparsion . But is it the correct one. I would like to see reviews of K10 3core/4core O/C to max stability go up against Wolf O/C to max stability.

I pick Wolf as winner.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Taltamir I agree with a lot of what your saying. But others have valid points also. Lets say thaT a Qcore penryn won't O/C or very little. A wolf running @ 4.0Ghz is and will compete closely to a 4 core Intel cpu.

But why compare a Wolf to a York. It seems to me that a 4.o GHz wolf will beat a 3 core or maybe even a 4 core K10. Even if you take a K10 to 3.ghz . If its stable at that GHz which it more than likely wouldn't be. You can always gett that special wolf that does 4.5 GHz. Stable. Not many but some same applies to 3ghz K10 some will run stable but not many .

Intel vs. Intel Is fair comparsion . But is it the correct one. I would like to see reviews of K10 3core/4core O/C to max stability go up against Wolf O/C to max stability.

I pick Wolf as winner.

Umm, What is your point? Nobody mentioned anything concerning AMD in this thread...

 

[RussianSensation]

Some interesting benchmarks to add to this thread:

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz vs. E6850 @ 3.85ghz @ 1024x768

Quake 4
Quad = 173.6
Dual = 169.92

F.E.A.R.
Quad = 154
Dual = 147

Company of Heroes
Quad = 181.9
Dual = 182.7

Supreme Commander
Quad = 57.7
Dual = 55.28

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition without Concurrent operations enabled
Quad = 84
Dual = 80

Lost Planet: EC with Concurrent Operations enabled
Quad = 118
Dual = 80

Source

But do we play at 1024x768? No.

Therefore, for gaming the graphics card is far more important to consider. But once you run Anti-Virus, Lavasoft Ad-Aware, MSN, while listening to music in Windows Media player while playing Crysis, the dual core will be inferior to the Quad. This isnt' out of the ordinary thread scenario....imo

Fine what about non-gaming scenarios? I am sure almost everyone here at least once used WinRAR to extract/compress files.

Once again the quad is faster than the dual core in a very common utility most people use.

WinRAR benches
Q6600 2.4ghz = 180 seconds
E6850 3.0ghz = 188 seconds

Q6600 3.6ghz = 137 seconds
E6850 3.85ghz = 158 seconds

But the greatest concern is for those that want to keep their system for a while. Sure 4.4ghz E8400 is faster than Q6600 @ 3.4ghz but what about in 2 years? I don't know how that will pan out, but I wouldn't want this - Crysis - A64 2.4 ghz vs. Dual A64 2.0ghz

As has been said in this thread, there isn't 1 right answer. It all depends how the system will be used and how long a person intends to keep that system before the next upgrade.

 

[Munky]

The dual core and quad core cpu's are targeting different usage scenarios, so I don't see how one makes the other obsolete. For people who do a virus scan while encoding a movie while playing Crysis, a quad is the only choice, even with the availability of higher clocked dually's. For people like me who don't do such crazy multitasking, a quad core is unnecessary, and the newer dually only makes the older dually's obsolete.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Taltamir I agree with a lot of what your saying. But others have valid points also. Lets say thaT a Qcore penryn won't O/C or very little. A wolf running @ 4.0Ghz is and will compete closely to a 4 core Intel cpu.

But why compare a Wolf to a York. It seems to me that a 4.o GHz wolf will beat a 3 core or maybe even a 4 core K10. Even if you take a K10 to 3.ghz . If its stable at that GHz which it more than likely wouldn't be. You can always gett that special wolf that does 4.5 GHz. Stable. Not many but some same applies to 3ghz K10 some will run stable but not many .

Intel vs. Intel Is fair comparsion . But is it the correct one. I would like to see reviews of K10 3core/4core O/C to max stability go up against Wolf O/C to max stability.

I pick Wolf as winner.

"But why compare a Wolf to a York." - because that is what is currently available, that is the price comparative items. As soon as penryn quad cores hit then you will again have a very compelling reason to buy a quad core if it fits your needs.

@Russians, but that's the old dual, not the new dual... the whole point is new vs old tech tilts the balance in that quad vs dual comparison. Clock for clock the wolf is faster then the E6850.
Thank you for the info though. I learned something new.

@monkey:

For people who do a virus scan while encoding a movie while playing Crysis,

And you think this is possible on a quad? I found out very quickly that dual cores weren't the magic bullet of multi tasking I had hoped them to be BECUASE too many things are multi cored.
Crysis is gonna run code on all four cores. Your video encoding is gonna run code on all four cores, and the anti virus gonna run on one core (or four if they have multi core anti virus).
There is nothing to dynamically switch multi-threaded apps to be single threaded and run a single core and then divide up the applications between cores.

You are gonna have those three intensive tasks competing on all the cores, and they are gonna run slow, too slow. so you still can't play crysis while doing all that background tasks.

The only thing quad core gives you is faster performance while doing certain tasks. Like compression / encoding. WHICH IS GREAT.
And if I was a video encoder I would get a quad core. Except wolf is better then york at that, so for the one month period at which you have a penryn dual but no penryn quad I would say that dual is better for video editing. And after that month the penryn quad will be much MUCH better.



EDIT: I Would like it be taken for the record that I know when I Was wrong. The Q6600 is not obsoleted by the E8400 after all. As just now a THE FIRST realistic situation where the Q6600 is clearly better has surfaced. Winrar compression! Winrar compression does not benefit from SSE4 (like the typical quad bastions of encoding and photoshop). So in winrar the quad will dominate over the newer dual... I guess if your primary usage is winrar compression then it makes more sense to get the Q6600 rather then an E8400 (or wait a month for the Q8600)

 

[RussianSensation]

taltamir, I know that E8400 > E6850 by say about 10% but the reason I provided those numbers is to show you that either way it'll be fairly close.

More or less it's not like 170FPS for 1 processor or 190FPS for the other processor would provide any tangible benefits. Therefore, for the purposes herein you can most certainly say that E6850=E8400=Q6600 for most games. So for gaming alone, it doesn't make any sense to buy a Quad core and pay extra $ over E8400 even if you dont consider overclocking of the E8400. But someone can also argue that E2180/E4400 overclocked to 3.5ghz is an even better value for games than an E8400 is. That is certainly true in today's gaming evironment in terms of bang for the buck.

However, I would wager that the discrepancy in the minimum framerates could be more significant than these average numbers show us at high resolutions (which could potentially expose greater benefits of 4.4ghz E8400 relative to say 3.4ghz Q6600) I am just having a hard time finding consistent benchmarks or sites that focus on min frames.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Crysis is gonna run code on all four cores. Your video encoding is gonna run code on all four cores, and the anti virus gonna run on one core (or four if they have multi core anti virus).
There is nothing to dynamically switch multi-threaded apps to be single threaded and run a single core and then divide up the applications between cores.

You are gonna have those three intensive tasks competing on all the cores, and they are gonna run slow, too slow. so you still can't play crysis while doing all that background tasks.

Technically, that's not true. The OS has the final say on which thread runs on which core, and there's nothing stopping even a single- or dual-core cpu from running several multi-threaded apps simultaneously, with each thread allotted a certain time-share on the cpu. Performance depends on how cpu-intensive each thread is, so all these apps will run slower when combined, but that doesn't mean it will make Crysis unplayable.

 

[hans007]

i dont think so.

especially at stock.

if that were the case, we could also have said the e6850 obsoletes the q6600. the e6850 and e8400 are close enough for 95% of things.


that said, the new quads coming out in april will be better.


as it is, the highest dual cores cost the same as the lowest quads. so intel lets you have the choice for the same money i guess.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Some interesting benchmarks to add to this thread:

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz vs. E6850 @ 3.85ghz @ 1024x768

Quake 4
Quad = 173.6
Dual = 169.92

F.E.A.R.
Quad = 154
Dual = 147

Company of Heroes
Quad = 181.9
Dual = 182.7

Supreme Commander
Quad = 57.7
Dual = 55.28

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition without Concurrent operations enabled
Quad = 84
Dual = 80

Lost Planet: EC with Concurrent Operations enabled
Quad = 118
Dual = 80

Source

But do we play at 1024x768? No.

Therefore, for gaming the graphics card is far more important to consider. But once you run Anti-Virus, Lavasoft Ad-Aware, MSN, while listening to music in Windows Media player while playing Crysis, the dual core will be inferior to the Quad. This isnt' out of the ordinary thread scenario....imo

Fine what about non-gaming scenarios? I am sure almost everyone here at least once used WinRAR to extract/compress files.

Once again the quad is faster than the dual core in a very common utility most people use.

WinRAR benches
Q6600 2.4ghz = 180 seconds
E6850 3.0ghz = 188 seconds

Q6600 3.6ghz = 137 seconds
E6850 3.85ghz = 158 seconds

But the greatest concern is for those that want to keep their system for a while. Sure 4.4ghz E8400 is faster than Q6600 @ 3.4ghz but what about in 2 years? I don't know how that will pan out, but I wouldn't want this - Crysis - A64 2.4 ghz vs. Dual A64 2.0ghz

As has been said in this thread, there isn't 1 right answer. It all depends how the system will be used and how long a person intends to keep that system before the next upgrade.

Dude if this doesnt convince you.... nothing will.

 

[Munky]

One more thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread: 2-3 years from now there will be cpu's that make both the e8400 and the q6600 seem as slow as as a P4 is today. So, regardless of what you chose, neither solution is "future-proof."

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: munky
One more thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread: 2-3 years from now there will be cpu's that make both the e8400 and the q6600 seem as slow as as a P4 is today. So, regardless of what you chose, neither solution is "future-proof."

That's a fair statement and I agree to some extent. However, would you have purchased an 8800GT if you had a single core 2.52ghz A64?

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Some interesting benchmarks to add to this thread:

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz vs. E6850 @ 3.85ghz @ 1024x768

Quake 4
Quad = 173.6
Dual = 169.92

F.E.A.R.
Quad = 154
Dual = 147

Company of Heroes
Quad = 181.9
Dual = 182.7

Supreme Commander
Quad = 57.7
Dual = 55.28

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition without Concurrent operations enabled
Quad = 84
Dual = 80

Lost Planet: EC with Concurrent Operations enabled
Quad = 118
Dual = 80

Source

But do we play at 1024x768? No.

Therefore, for gaming the graphics card is far more important to consider. But once you run Anti-Virus, Lavasoft Ad-Aware, MSN, while listening to music in Windows Media player while playing Crysis, the dual core will be inferior to the Quad. This isnt' out of the ordinary thread scenario....imo

Fine what about non-gaming scenarios? I am sure almost everyone here at least once used WinRAR to extract/compress files.

Once again the quad is faster than the dual core in a very common utility most people use.

WinRAR benches
Q6600 2.4ghz = 180 seconds
E6850 3.0ghz = 188 seconds

Q6600 3.6ghz = 137 seconds
E6850 3.85ghz = 158 seconds

But the greatest concern is for those that want to keep their system for a while. Sure 4.4ghz E8400 is faster than Q6600 @ 3.4ghz but what about in 2 years? I don't know how that will pan out, but I wouldn't want this - Crysis - A64 2.4 ghz vs. Dual A64 2.0ghz

As has been said in this thread, there isn't 1 right answer. It all depends how the system will be used and how long a person intends to keep that system before the next upgrade.

Dude if this doesnt convince you.... nothing will.

none of these games are particularly quad friendly either. UT3 is particularly quad friendly. see the review at lostcircuits.com of the phenom and you'll see its one that really shows an advantage in quad cores.

 

[Nemesis 1]

. This was a good one . I agree with both sides . But really be honest guys if . SSE4 is that good . WE well see games and many other apps use it. It won't take as long as many are saying either. Its just been releasd and already apps use sse4. I know we won't see 40% increase in all apps but even 10% would be great . It would also put it over the top of Q6600.

With all that being said. Qpenryns are not a stupid buy either. I mean these babies are packing some punch. But when is it really going to be real useful. Than we got Nehalem doing 4 cores 8 threads and I really starting to think what the Hell! Intel is going in a whole new direction . Or management has lost its senses.


SO we all agree the e8500 are great, CPU. BUT QPenryn is Even better yet.

So my Question in all of this as I already stated earlier .

Were does this CPU enter the price market?

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=229337

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: munky
One more thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread: 2-3 years from now there will be cpu's that make both the e8400 and the q6600 seem as slow as as a P4 is today. So, regardless of what you chose, neither solution is "future-proof."

That's a fair statement and I agree to some extent. However, would you have purchased an 8800GT if you had a single core 2.52ghz A64?

Yes, I would. For 1920x1200 resolution, I would be better off with a single core A64 and a 8800gt than a q6600 and a x1900xt. I actually used to have a single core 2.6ghz A64 before going dual core, and back then I did not notice any improvement in gaming performance. If I didn't already have a high end s939 system at the time, I would have been better off saving the money for a new C2D build instead.

Likewise, today for gaming and regular (not DC and not crazy multitasking) use, I don't need a quad core. By the time I really need a quad, there will be newer cpu's that will easily outrun anything available today.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

With all that being said. Qpenryns are not a stupid buy either. I mean these babies are packing some punch. But when is it really going to be real useful. Than we got Nehalem doing 4 cores 8 threads and I really starting to think what the Hell! Intel is going in a whole new direction . Or management has lost its senses.

Since you initially brought up AMD... Intel is just trying its hardest to bury AMD. That may backfire bigtime however if a much larger company buys AMD.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Some interesting benchmarks to add to this thread:

Q6600 @ 3.6ghz vs. E6850 @ 3.85ghz @ 1024x768

Quake 4
Quad = 173.6
Dual = 169.92

F.E.A.R.
Quad = 154
Dual = 147

Company of Heroes
Quad = 181.9
Dual = 182.7

Supreme Commander
Quad = 57.7
Dual = 55.28

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition without Concurrent operations enabled
Quad = 84
Dual = 80

Lost Planet: EC with Concurrent Operations enabled
Quad = 118
Dual = 80

Source

But do we play at 1024x768? No.

Therefore, for gaming the graphics card is far more important to consider. But once you run Anti-Virus, Lavasoft Ad-Aware, MSN, while listening to music in Windows Media player while playing Crysis, the dual core will be inferior to the Quad. This isnt' out of the ordinary thread scenario....imo

Fine what about non-gaming scenarios? I am sure almost everyone here at least once used WinRAR to extract/compress files.

Once again the quad is faster than the dual core in a very common utility most people use.

WinRAR benches
Q6600 2.4ghz = 180 seconds
E6850 3.0ghz = 188 seconds

Q6600 3.6ghz = 137 seconds
E6850 3.85ghz = 158 seconds

But the greatest concern is for those that want to keep their system for a while. Sure 4.4ghz E8400 is faster than Q6600 @ 3.4ghz but what about in 2 years? I don't know how that will pan out, but I wouldn't want this - Crysis - A64 2.4 ghz vs. Dual A64 2.0ghz

As has been said in this thread, there isn't 1 right answer. It all depends how the system will be used and how long a person intends to keep that system before the next upgrade.

Dude if this doesnt convince you.... nothing will.

It's amazing how different people can interpret the same data so differently.

This only reinforces my opinion that quads are useless for gaming and general apps.

The gaming benches are at an unrealistic resolution to exagerate the CPU effect and the ram timings were 7-7-7-20 on the quad and 8-8-8-24 on the C2D which unfairly advantaged the quad and the result still only showed an average increase of 7.5% for the quad. Level the playing field on ram and use a resolution that anyone with modern equipment would actually use for gaming and the increase is likely less than 2% if any.

So for 2x the cores, 2x the heat and energy you get 2% maybe:roll:
And thats comparing to a 65nm dual with a 250mhz clock advantage.

Compare the Q6600 to an 8400 which aready has an IPC advantage and easily clocks 400-600mhz higher and there is absolutely no comparison, the 8400 would mop the floor with the Q6600.

I appreciate the raw computing power of quads, and I admire you guys that spend your time and resources crunching for a cure. But give the quads are always better BS a rest

 

[Amaroque]

Hey GuitarDaddy, you've been a forum memberfor a while. Remember when everyone said that a higher clocked single core CPU was better then a dual?

Well, this is basically the same thing repeated.

 

[n7]

This whole thread is a joke.

There are benefits to higher clocks duals, but also to slightly lower clocked quads.

For those heavily multitasking, working with video, playing UE3 games, etc, a quad makes more sense.
For anyone planning to keep their CPU for a long time, a quad makes sense.

For those more into non-multithreaded games (most everything other than UE3 games), general use, & benching, obviously the new Wolfdales are better, though i can't really recommend duals for longterm purchases, since just like single cores became obsolete pretty fast, it's only a matter of time before dual cores are considered low end.

Neither one is "better", as it really depends on the user.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: hans007
that said, the new quads coming out in april will be better.

That about sums it up... why do people keep comparing E6850 to Q6600 in here is beyond me.
The new quads will obviously kick its ass. And if I had the patience I Would have waited until april to buy one.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Hey GuitarDaddy, you've been a forum memberfor a while. Remember when everyone said that a higher clocked single core CPU was better then a dual?

Well, this is basically the same thing repeated.

Not the same, that arguement assumes 100% scaling and thats just not the case going from 1 > 2 > 4 cores from the crysis bench linked above.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html

At 1600x1200 res

AMD dual core at higher clock > single core by 38%
Intel quad = Intel dual 0%

Over two years since the intro of dual core and year+ after quad intro, and the latest state of the art game sees 38% increase single to dual, and 0% dual to quad at a res you would play. It seems to me we will be waiting quite some time before game engines can fully utilize 2 cores much less 4.