E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: 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

I have some P1 chips (100-200MHz) I'm willing to donate. :gift:

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: 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

I have some P1 chips (100-200MHz) I'm willing to donate. :gift:

uhh... Ill have to get back to you on that one. I tried setting up dnet on my 386dx and it was too painfully slow...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

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?

That's not the point of these numbers. They were provided to show that a slower clocked Quad core can compete with a faster clocked dual core not that it makes sense to get a quad core over a dual core because of 2 extra frames....No one here is saying you should spend extra $ for a quad to get faster performance in games. Read the thread.

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: taltamir

E8400 should beat the Q6600 in video editing because of SSE4.

Does anyone have any definitive benchmarks comparing an E8400 @ 4 GHz to a Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz in video encoding with SSE4 on and off?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

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?

That's not the point of these numbers. They were provided to show that a slower clocked Quad core can compete with a faster clocked dual core not that it makes sense to get a quad core over a dual core because of 2 extra frames....No one here is saying you should spend extra $ for a quad to get faster performance in games. Read the thread.

those quake 4 benches are a lie

edit: nm thats a conroe, not a wolfdale. Yes a kentsfield beats a conroe clock for clock in games. they both max around 3.6-3.7ghz on the oc. A wolfdale beats a kentsfield clock for clock in games and it maxes around 4.6ghz on the oc. So i think thats the OP's point

 

[Acanthus]

Bring the E8400s on.

(see sig)

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

those quake 4 benches are a lie

edit: nm thats a conroe, not a wolfdale. Yes a kentsfield beats a conroe clock for clock in games. they both max around 3.6-3.7ghz on the oc. A wolfdale beats a kentsfield clock for clock in games and it maxes around 4.6ghz on the oc. So i think thats the OP's point

Ya but did you read what I said? Those benchmarks are at 1024x768. So for all purposes they are useless to determine which CPU is actually faster in the real world. Which is my main point.

If you play at higher resolutions, you'll see completely different results:

Company of Heroes - 1920x1200
E6320 1.86ghz = 69.6fps
E6700 2.66ghz = 74.1fps (wow 4.5 frames!)

FEAR - 1920x1200
E6320 1.86ghz = 73 frames
E6700 2.66ghz = 74 frames

X3: Reunion
E6320 = 69.4fps
E6700 = 82.5fps

These games have already been surprased by more demanding games (and their sequels). Once you enable AA, the difference will be even less evident (Other than X3 which seems to scale well but that's because it's a very old game).

So making a statement such as E8400 @ 4.4ghz is faster > Core 2 Duo at 3.4ghz is a loaded statement since you can always come up with benchmarks to prove it if you bench things at 1024x768 or 800x600 with no AA. So who plays like that with an 8800 series?

 

[Tempered81]

well the kentsfield is faster clock for clock in just about everything compared to a conroe


I dont see a need in comparing those two since hes talking about penryn.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: jaredpace

those quake 4 benches are a lie

edit: nm thats a conroe, not a wolfdale. Yes a kentsfield beats a conroe clock for clock in games. they both max around 3.6-3.7ghz on the oc. A wolfdale beats a kentsfield clock for clock in games and it maxes around 4.6ghz on the oc. So i think thats the OP's point

Ya but did you read what I said? Those benchmarks are at 1024x768. So for all purposes they are useless to determine which CPU is actually faster in the real world. Which is my main point.

why post benchmarks and say that they are useless? It would be better to just not post them in the first place.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

why post benchmarks and say that they are useless? It would be better to just not post them in the first place.

No, because they do have a purpose. They are useful for factual purposes to show that in the real world the graphics card is the limiting component. Therefore, today you can deduce that once you start comparing processors of such high speed there is no benefit that a gamer will "feel" in gaming between E8400 3.0ghz, E8400 3.5ghz or E8400 4.4ghz.

You can make a blank statement such that "My BMW M6 has a faster top speed than your BMW M3". However, since both are governed by electronic speed limiter at 155mph in US, even though factually (in ideal conditions with all barriers removed) the statement is true, in the real world (being USA road) it is not true in application.

So apply this logic to a quad core. If you need to take advantage of more than 2 applications, you will feel the difference. While in gaming, there hardly will be any difference between both overclocked versions.

 

[Magusigne]

What are the price points for the new quad cores?

QX9650 is 1.1k

Will they be under 300?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Bring the E8400s on.

(see sig)

I'll challenge your sig, what benchmark

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: jaredpace

why post benchmarks and say that they are useless? It would be better to just not post them in the first place.

Therefore, today you can deduce that once you start comparing processors of such high speed there is no benefit that a gamer will "feel" in gaming between E8400 3.0ghz, E8400 3.5ghz or E8400 4.4ghz.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=717&p=7

F.E.A.R.

e8400 3.0ghz stock - 106 fps
e8400 4.2ghz overclock - 130.4 fps

crysis

3.0ghz 44 fps
4.2ghz 51.3 fps

I'd say you're incorrect

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Powernick50
What are the price points for the new quad cores?

QX9650 is 1.1k

Will they be under 300?

Hmm I don't remember the prices but I know one of them will be $266, the rest follow the trend the current quads do though, like under 300, 550, then 1k but I might be wrong.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt

Originally posted by: Powernick50
What are the price points for the new quad cores?

QX9650 is 1.1k

Will they be under 300?

Hmm I don't remember the prices but I know one of them will be $266, the rest follow the trend the current quads do though, like under 300, 550, then 1k but I might be wrong.

Tentatively, the PP1000 price for the q9300 is $266.

q9450 PP1000 price is 316

e8400 PP1000 price is 183

http://www.xcpus.com/forums/ne...rice-cut-schedule.html

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=717&p=7

F.E.A.R.

e8400 3.0ghz stock - 106 fps
e8400 4.2ghz overclock - 130.4 fps

So you are telling me you can tell the difference between 130 and 106 average frames in FEAR? That's interesting because I know of no monitor that can display 106 or 130 frames at 1920x1200...

Not to mention Medium settings were enabled in the game not High/Ultra with 0AA. This isn't a realistic gaming scenario since if a gamer already has 100+ frames in FEAR, he/she would increase the settings as high as possible to sustain playability.

crysis

3.0ghz 44 fps
4.2ghz 51.3 fps

I'd say you're incorrect

What does that tell us about minimum framerates? 3.0ghz processor could have had min frames of 15 average of 44 and high of 55. The 4.2ghz processor could have had min frames of 16 average of 51 due to larger high of say 70. In both cases the game would be choppy. Even though the frames are higher like you said, does it really make Crysis more playable?

In any event, no AA was used and settings were Medium....

To me, CPU gaming benchmarks are almost always inherently biased since they do not show real world conditions. They simply show how fast one cpu would be if you removed all bottlenecks (such as videocard). Very few websites do proper cpu benchmarking when they test cpus at settings that we actually play games at and compare minimum framerates as well. This is far more important. However, if you find me benchmarks with everything on high with at least a resolution of 1600x1200 with 4AA/16AF in latest games (Crysis, Bioshock, World in Conflict) where it shows that C2D 4.0ghz makes a game more "playable" than C2D 3.0ghz, then I'll believe you.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Very few websites do proper cpu benchmarking when they test cpus at settings that we actually play games at and compare minimum framerates as well. This is far more important.

My benches are from the same site as yours :roll:

edit: searching for requested benchmarks!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Bring the E8400s on.

(see sig)

I'll challenge your sig, what benchmark

Pinnacle Studio 11 encoding to H.264 in 1080P

 

[myocardia]

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

Okay, I've read two completepages of this thread, and noone else brought it up, so I'll be the first. Am I the only one here who actually games? In case you hadn't noticed, there hasn't been a game released in over 6 months now that wasn't multi-core capable, at least not a major release. Sure, Crysis is as hard on your video card as it is on your CPU. So why haven't you been saying "If you own more than one video card (in a single system), you should definitely no consider anything other than a quad"? BTW, there are other games where a Q6600 blows away an E8500, not to mention the E8400, even with only one video card.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Bring the E8400s on.

(see sig)

I'll challenge your sig, what benchmark

Pinnacle Studio 11 encoding to H.264 in 1080P

Okay let me get that setup, I challenge you to Crysis flyby benchmark 1024x768 in game very high with 16x AF

you go get that setup

 

[Markfw]

A quad@3.82 in Pinnacle, vs a dual-core@4.2 ? Not a fair matchup, the quad will annialate the dual. My quad$3550 will probably do the same ! (but I don't have studio 11, just 9)

 

[Tempered81]

Yeah mark you're right it only takes about 2.9ghz to best a 4.2ghz wolfdale in pinnacle 11 with multithreaded optimization. the e8400 would best a 3.8ghz kents at about 3.65ghz in crysis

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
A quad@3.82 in Pinnacle, vs a dual-core@4.2 ? Not a fair matchup, the quad will annialate the dual. My quad$3550 will probably do the same ! (but I don't have studio 11, just 9)

Of course it will

That was the idea.

Obviously both have their strongpoints, for what i use the PC for mainly... a quad is hands down the best option as its a highly parrallel task.

Now when pinncale and premiere pick up SSE4 support, you can bet your ass im gonna be looking for a 45nm quad.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Bring the E8400s on.

(see sig)

I'll challenge your sig, what benchmark

Pinnacle Studio 11 encoding to H.264 in 1080P

Okay let me get that setup, I challenge you to Crysis flyby benchmark 1024x768 in game very high with 16x AF

you go get that setup

Err you have a vastly superior graphics card for crysis, and i havent run a game at 10x7 since 1998 or so.

 

[aigomorla]

This thread is still active?

just cuz of threads like this..

im getting a 9450 @ launch. OCing it to 4.0+ ghz and im gonna rape every wolfdale processor out on the market.

Actually i think my Q6600ES already does. :X




:T