E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!

[Amaroque]

Because you started the thread... "E8400 obsoletes Q6600" Making some comparison.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Because you started the thread taltamir
... "E8400 obsoletes Q6600" Making some comparison.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: 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.

One of the best replies in this post.......

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'll remind you that intro, and for over a year afterward, games saw NO improvement with dual core.

Quad will be standard. I'll rehash this particular thread in two to three years again.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Because you started the thread... "E8400 obsoletes Q6600" Making some comparison.

Yeah, that title is pretty lame. Answer: No, but Q9450 will

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
Because you started the thread... "E8400 obsoletes Q6600" Making some comparison.

No... its a completely DIFFERENT comparison.
A 3ghz 2 core E8400 is completely different then a 3ghz 2 core E6850 processor.
The E6850 and the Q6600 each have their own nitch.
The E8400 and the Q8600 each have their own nitch.

The E8400 and the Q8600 completely obsolete the E6850 and the Q6600 in my opinion, and it just so happens that the Q8600 is not available for purchase yet. While the E8400 is even cheaper then the Q6600...
THIS is what this thread is about... not about E6850 vs Q6600. Not about Quads vs Dual cores.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

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.

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

Im sorry did you miss my WHOLE arguement in this thread? I made some edits of what i meant, and russian did a nice job at showing some numbers which showed that there is no 1 scenario between the two chips.


Here want a flashback?

Originally posted by: 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 ...

How about another?

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.

Ummm... want me to continue? NOT once did i ever say a quadcore is "superior". I always said you pick processor by application. If you need to do 4 tasks a the same time, you get a quadcore. If your happy with 2 tasks, which most people are, you grab a dual core. Please dont put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by: taltamir
The E8400 and the Q8600 completely obsolete the E6850 and the Q6600 in my opinion, and it just so happens that the Q8600 is not available for purchase yet. While the E8400 is even cheaper then the Q6600...
THIS is what this thread is about... not about E6850 vs Q6600. Not about Quads vs Dual cores.

What is a Q8600? Quads are Q9400 series unless you get to the QX9650.

Also, im not holding my breath on the lower end quads.

Good luck getting a good OC off 7.5x multi. And if you intend to push 450fsb on 8x on the higher bin ones, well i hope you have really good cooling on your northbridge.


As for me... i have a feeling im gonna get raped by this forum when i pick up skulltrail board this feb. I hope to drop a pair of E5440 or X5450's if i feel rich, and see how well she does.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Amaroque


I'll remind you that intro, and for over a year afterward, games saw NO improvement with dual core.

Quad will be standard. I'll rehash this particular thread in two to three years again.

2-3yrs:Q thats a lifetime in computers. By then I will be running the 8 core 24nm chip at 7.5ghz in my $175 dell astro

 

[taltamir]

I thought the point of this thread was obvious from the name and first post. But since it isn't I went and edited the name of the thread to add the following:
"Penryn makes all the difference!"
Now it says:
"E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!"

Is it clear enough now that I am INTENTIONALLY comparing different families?
This thread is a comparison of cost compatible parts from different generations and how one made much more sense. It has been HIJACKED by people who wanted to make it into a dual vs quad argument. In which I would say each has it's place.

BUT, this was never about duals vs quads. It was about penryn, and how its so awesome that not only is a dual penryn better then a dual conroe, but its also better then a quad conroe...
And that a quad penryn better come soon because that will be earth shattering for quad-centric applications.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AdamK47

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: AdamK47
There will be people with the mentality that equate more cores as being better no matter what the advantages are of a lesser core CPU. If it gives them the warm fuzzies... whatever.

I just gave my main reason for prefering 4 cores over 2 cores, DC... Perhaps you could explain how you came to this conclusion?

I'm not singling you out. There are people who will never run an application that will see the performance advantage of their lower clocked quad core to that of a higher clocked dual core CPU. Some of these people would still like to point out the hypothetical benefits of their CPU in an attempt to justify ownership. Just because it's there and not utilized doesn't make it better for them. There are also people who are heavily into encoding and other fully optimized multi-threaded applications. These people are justified in their choice of sticking with the older quad cores.

I think a good thing to keep in mind is that it is likley the benefit of multi cores will be realized soon.

The real question is,

how long before you upgrade again? If you plan on upgrading your processor again within 1 year, go dual.

If you are not going to upgrade for 2 years + I would go quad, because there is a pretty good chance you will see a benefit.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Amaroque


I'll remind you that intro, and for over a year afterward, games saw NO improvement with dual core.

Quad will be standard. I'll rehash this particular thread in two to three years again.

2-3yrs:Q thats a lifetime in computers. By then I will be running the 8 core 24nm chip at 7.5ghz in my $175 dell astro

Okey, 1-2ys.

 

[Tempered81]

i would say the e8400 is better, except mine wont boot, i think because my abit ip35e is DOA

gaysauce



whenever this damn thing works, im going to bench it. have fun arguing, cpus & overclocking is full of threads with diff names all talking about the same shit

quad vs. dual?

6600 vs 8400

8400 vs 9550

blah blah blah

i stil enjoy the read though. anyone know how to make an ip35e magically come on?

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

blah blah blah

That about sums up this thread! :laugh:

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
anyone know how to make an ip35e magically come on?

^^
this sums it up^

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
i would say the e8400 is better, except mine wont boot, i think because my abit ip35e is DOA

gaysauce

i stil enjoy the read though. anyone know how to make an ip35e magically come on?

*whistling*

Can i say i told ya so?

 

[syadnom]

to clear this up, if programs were perfectly tuned to multiple cores, cores*mhz=total cycles. so, if it were a perfect world then 4*2.4=9.6Ghz while 2*3=6Ghz giving the Q6600 a %50 advantage.

on the other hand, most applications only use 1 cpu. therefor 3Ghz > 2.4Ghz. Some programs can effectively use 2 cores so 6Ghz > 4.8Ghz.

The vast majority of programs use just 1 core and benefit from the second core in that core 2 can run the system while core 1 runs the application. so in the vast majority of situations 3Ghz > 2.4Ghz

Another point is that it is much easier to optimize a program for a new processor feature than it is to optimize it for multiple cores. Divx is my example here. divx can and will see 50-70%(according to common benchmarks floating around) plus divx only scales about 70% per added cpu so:
Q6600
cpu1 2.4Ghz
cpu2 2.4*.7=1.68
cpu3 2.4*.7=1.68
cpu4 2.4*.7=1.68
-------------------------
7.44Ghz Equiv

e8400
cpu1 3Ghz
cpu2 2.1Ghz
5.4Ghz * SSE4(%50 average according to web)
---------------------
8.1Ghz Equiv

8.1 > 7.44

additionally, the e8400 is more energy efficient and is easier to cool, giving potentially higher overclocks. people are getting 4Ghz out of e8400 while Q6600 are doing 3.2Ghz. 4*2=8 / 3.2*4=12.8 which is a %60 better overall which means that based on average overclocks, the Q6600 is better.

what it comes down to is
Q6600 is better if you:3d render, video render on non-sse4 software, some photoshop filters, raytracing, distributed computing, virtual machines.

E8400 is better if you:game, compress/extract a lot of data(single threaded), video render on updated software, office apps, content authoring, photoshop interface and all single threaded plugins, 3d render interface(not renders, just GUI, single thread) encode single mp3s.

the concept of a last gen processor that is the Q6600 being obsoleted by its new baby brother the E8400 is a bit silly considering that the Q6600 will be updated and released on the current tech. It will become the Q#### with new .45 tech and SSE4 and the E8400 will retake its intended roll as the baby brother chip.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: AdamK47

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: AdamK47
There will be people with the mentality that equate more cores as being better no matter what the advantages are of a lesser core CPU. If it gives them the warm fuzzies... whatever.

I just gave my main reason for prefering 4 cores over 2 cores, DC... Perhaps you could explain how you came to this conclusion?

I'm not singling you out. There are people who will never run an application that will see the performance advantage of their lower clocked quad core to that of a higher clocked dual core CPU. Some of these people would still like to point out the hypothetical benefits of their CPU in an attempt to justify ownership. Just because it's there and not utilized doesn't make it better for them. There are also people who are heavily into encoding and other fully optimized multi-threaded applications. These people are justified in their choice of sticking with the older quad cores.

I think a good thing to keep in mind is that it is likley the benefit of multi cores will be realized soon.

The real question is,

how long before you upgrade again? If you plan on upgrading your processor again within 1 year, go dual.

If you are not going to upgrade for 2 years + I would go quad, because there is a pretty good chance you will see a benefit.

Take a look at this photo. I'll go quad when it's native with the quad core Nahalem. I never regret sticking with a single core when every dual core at the time was two cores glued together.

 

[lilbabimac]

Let me throw in my 2 cents: Who the f$#@ cares?!? Just get what YOU WANT and get what YOU NEED... NOTHING else matters. It's your money, so spend it wisely and spend it nicely. This thread is so pointless...

 

[taltamir]

the concept of a last gen processor that is the Q6600 being obsoleted by its new baby brother the E8400 is a bit silly considering that the Q6600 will be updated and released on the current tech. It will become the Q#### with new .45 tech and SSE4 and the E8400 will retake its intended roll as the baby brother chip.

Exactly, but when that happens it will get a different name... The Q6600 is the older tech, the new chip will again take center stage. But as long as there is no new chip the old tech simply doesn't make sense...

 

[theprodigalrebel]

AT article comparing DivX 6.6 SSE4 performance, QX6850 vs. QX9650

The total performance increase from QX6850 SSE2 to QX9650 SSE4 in this test is an incredible 133%

This is what the OP is talking about. Two quad-core CPUs, both 1333FSB, both clocked at 3.0GHz...and one of them benched over TWICE as fast. Since video encoding pretty much scales linearly, the point the OP is trying (desperately) to make is that a 3GHz Wolfdale would complete this benchmark on par with a 3GHz Q6600.

......But in the same article, you see the SSE4-enabled TMPGEnc 4.0 deliver only a 31% boost (unlike the awesome gains in DivX 6.6). It all comes down to the implementation.

And OP, I haven't found any SSE4-enabled builds of Xvid and x264. Looking through Google, the guys here seem to think x264 wouldn't benefit AT ALL from SSE4. They even think something's fishy with the DivX test Intel used. You can read about it in the thread.

As for games, I think Lost Planet is the only one that delivers reasonable gains (the kind you'd expect from DOUBLING CPU computing power).

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

These gains are useless. Anyone know how Crysis scales from two->four cores?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: taltamir

the concept of a last gen processor that is the Q6600 being obsoleted by its new baby brother the E8400 is a bit silly considering that the Q6600 will be updated and released on the current tech. It will become the Q#### with new .45 tech and SSE4 and the E8400 will retake its intended roll as the baby brother chip.

Exactly, but when that happens it will get a different name... The Q6600 is the older tech, the new chip will again take center stage. But as long as there is no new chip the old tech simply doesn't make sense...

It makes perfect sense if you are heavily multitasking. Once you hit 3+ intensive apps the Dual core will not be able to process them all without lag. And like I said before a lot of application are independent of time, like games (movies etc) in which case the difference in single threaded performance is too small to notice.

EDIT: obviously when the new quads come out there will be no reason to buy the older ones

 

[lopri]

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.

Yes I remember that and a faster single-core was indeed better than a slower dual-core for a while. (talking about games) It took more than 2 years since dual-cores introduced until games started making a meaningful use out of more than one core.

 

[watek]

Seriously, with all these cpu's coming out, doesn't give game developers enough time to catch up with the technology! I don't see many games right now supporting even dual cores!

 

[zsdersw]

All of this misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) could've been avoided if the initial post and title were more general (and more precise). Something like, oh, I dunno.. "Penryn obsoletes Conroe". I suppose that was too simple for some people.

 

[waffleironhead]

OMG! SSE4 capable processors OBSOLETE non SSE4 capable processors when running SSE4 optimised programs? Damn that is a real mind bender.

Anyone with an OBSOLETE q6600 who is feeling generous and wants to unload that old pos please pm me for my address I am accepting donations of free obsolete hardware.

/end thread