E8400 obsoletes Q6600? Penryn makes all the difference!

[taltamir]

Doesn't the wolfdale obsolete the Q6600 already?

Even with the price gouging the e8400 costs a little less. 3ghz dual core (with the penryn giving another 5-10% speed per core per clock). vs 2.4 quad core. The only thing the quad core would be faster at is video editing.
EXCEPT. the wolfdale now has SSE4. DivX, Xvid, and h264 ALREADY support it, giving 80% speed boost with SS4 optimizations.

So I cannot think of a single case where the q6600 would actually beat an e8400.
Of course it would be nice if I actually saw some reviews running tests and comparing the two.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Rendering and games enhanced for multiple cores will benefit from quad cores but you are right, you can push the E8400 a lot further on less energy but it depends on what you want to use the processor for, besides I like my Q6600

 

[Amaroque]

Q6600 trumps the E8400 in anything using more than two cores. For example, an E8400 couldn't beat a Q6600 in any multi-core DC program.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[krnmastersgt]

More cores = More fun! In all seriousness like I said, the E8400 beats out the Q6600 for the most part, but what Amaroque said is also right, multiple core applications is where the Q6600 shines, or you could just wait till the end of Feb and get the Penryn quad cores which will beat out the E8400

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well -- it works this way for me. I'm under financial strain because I have a deadbeat tenant, and I'm awaiting a court judgment to evict . . . that person . . . that . . . . that . . . . so and so . . .

I've got these two Striker Extreme motherboards. ASUS says "45nm multi-core compatible," although we've noted there's a problem with the Yorkfield quads and the 680i chipset.

I COULD offer the spare Striker -- even both -- for sale, and flip the cash toward new mobos.

And y'all are talking about the Wolfdale dual-cores here. Which -- supposedly -- work in this motherboard.

I don't even have to unload my quad, since I could theoretically replace the E6600 in my other board.

some would ask "Why don't you get rid of those Strikers and get a P35, X38 or X48 board? Or even a 780i?"

I don't like swapping boards and chipsets TOOO often, because I have data preservation and data integrity concerns. As y'all know -- it's a P--- I- T-- A--.

But these discussions whet my appetite, while I count pennies-sans-rent-returns.

 

[AsusGuy]

I don't think its fair to say the E8400, a dual core CPU makes a Quad obsolete. The two CPUs have different strengths. The E8400 will be a better gaming CPU at this point, and will reach higher clocks per core than the Q6600. However this does not make one better than the other. It just depends on what they are used for. e.g. Applications that are not optimized for Quad core will run better on the higher clocked dual core. The new Penryn dual core and quad core CPUs don't make Conroe/Kentsfield obsolete they are just improvements to the architecture.

 

[Tempered81]

when people say "multiple core applications" they mean DC or distributed computing, number crunching, deciphering encryption algorithms. 4 cores helps running web servers, and playing the video game supreme commander. It also has a significant boost in xvid, divx, h264xx, and many other video encoding multi threaded apps like gordian knot, tmpeg encoder etc. If you want to convert a movie, or decipher DNA strains, and you have a quad core, you can brag to your friends who own dual cores. If you like combining the power of your 4 cores with other quad-core chip owners and accomplishing community tasks in distributed computing quickly, you can brag that your pc is faster than a dual-core in those tasks.

for everything else related to having a pc in your house, especially all other video games. Enjoy your dual core at its 4.2ghz+ as it will outperform the quads. the q6600 isn't going to become obsolete, but it also will not outperform an overclocked e8400. the question everyone is asking is, "should i get quadcore - is 4 cores worth it". You see this in all the forums. IF the answer was a definite yes, people wouldnt ask the question in the first place. I think in the next 5 years it will be a definite yes.

for now, unless you enjoy DC (i dont see the fun in it) E8400/8500 > quad cores

 

[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.

 

[krnmastersgt]

I don't really see the benefits of the Striker comparing price/performance ratio compared to a lot of other boards, but since you want to keep them thats your choice, and yeah it is a pain to switch boards enough, not to mention the chipsets. Hope the court approves the eviction quickly for your sake

 

[Arkaign]

Different products for different needs. Nothing is 'obsoleted' here. Anything that worked better with 4 cores, will still work better on a Q6600 vs. * Dual Core. Anything that didn't take advantage of more than 2 cores will still work better on a faster Dual core. This is the same old crap we heard about Dual-Cores obsoleting Single-Cores, only in some twisted reverse logic. Even single-cores today still have their uses.

Obsolete = replaced by something that does the same job better at the same price or close enough (hopefully less). Obsolete does not mean a totally different product with utterly different strengths/weaknesses being released.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
when people say "multiple core applications" they mean DC or distributed computing, number crunching, deciphering encryption algorithms. 4 cores helps running web servers, and playing the video game supreme commander. It also has a significant boost in xvid, divx, h264xx, and many other video encoding multi threaded apps like gordian knot, tmpeg encoder etc. If you want to convert a movie, or decipher DNA strains, and you have a quad core, you can brag to your friends who own dual cores. If you like combining the power of your 4 cores with other quad-core chip owners and accomplishing community tasks in distributed computing quickly, you can brag that your pc is faster than a dual-core in those tasks.

for everything else related to having a pc in your house, especially all other video games. Enjoy your dual core at its 4.2ghz+ as it will outperform the quads. the q6600 isn't going to become obsolete, but it also will not outperform an overclocked e8400. the question everyone is asking is, "should i get quadcore - is 4 cores worth it". You see this in all the forums. IF the answer was a definite yes, people wouldnt ask the question in the first place. I think in the next 5 years it will be a definite yes.

for now, unless you enjoy DC (i dont see the fun in it) E8400/8500 > quad cores

Right on the nose, even though I'm building a completely new system when the Nehalem stuff comes out I plan on keeping my current system for miscellaneous, and hopefully by next year a lot more games will be optimized to run on more than just 1 or 2 cores, that's when the quad cores take the stage, as it is, the E8400 is just overall a much better buy.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
when people say "multiple core applications" they mean DC or distributed computing, number crunching, deciphering encryption algorithms. 4 cores helps running web servers, and playing the video game supreme commander. It also has a significant boost in xvid, divx, h264xx, and many other video encoding multi threaded apps like gordian knot, tmpeg encoder etc. If you want to convert a movie, or decipher DNA strains, and you have a quad core, you can brag to your friends who own dual cores. If you like combining the power of your 4 cores with other quad-core chip owners and accomplishing community tasks in distributed computing quickly, you can brag that your pc is faster than a dual-core in those tasks.

for everything else related to having a pc in your house, especially all other video games. Enjoy your dual core at its 4.2ghz+ as it will outperform the quads. the q6600 isn't going to become obsolete, but it also will not outperform an overclocked e8400. the question everyone is asking is, "should i get quadcore - is 4 cores worth it". You see this in all the forums. IF the answer was a definite yes, people wouldnt ask the question in the first place. I think in the next 5 years it will be a definite yes.

for now, unless you enjoy DC (i dont see the fun in it) E8400/8500 > quad cores

Yep, that's exactly how I see it.

 

[taltamir]

Let me clarifty, I am FULLY aware of the benefits of quad cores...
I am saying that thanks to SSE4 the wolfdale dual core outperforms the conroe quad core in almost all of these.

The only exception I can see here is distributed computing... and even then, I would like to see if DC gets on the SSE4 bandwagon, and what kind of improvements it sees.

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

It also has a significant boost in xvid, divx, h264xx, and many other video encoding multi threaded apps like gordian knot, tmpeg encoder etc.

Except the only thing on that list that does NOT already have SSE4 support is tmpeg. So that means that your Q6600 will get its ass kicked by the e8400 in those.

 

[nyker96]

any benchmarks that pits q6600 against e8400? like to see some data here.

 

[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.

 

[palladium]

I like to see 4 graphs instead of 2 when I open task manager

But in all seriousness, unless you do DC/ heavy multitasking, you won't benefit much from the quad core.

 

[taltamir]

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.

I don't think overclocking has ever been mentioned in this thread.
The stock speeds of dual core are higher for the same price. 3ghz x2cores vs 2.4ghz x4cores... the 3ghz x2cores is cheaper, and comes with SSE4.
SSE4 will only help your video encoding as far as I know. But thats enough, because video encoding is the only PRACTICAL thing in which the quad core is faster (distributed computing isn't a practical thing).

Sure you could buy a 3ghz quad core and compare it to a 3ghz dual core, obviously the quad will be faster in EVERYTHING. but the 3ghz quad costs a LOT more money...

BTW, I calculated the cost of DC with the cheapest electricity in texas and assuming 10 hours of using the computer anyways a day (so you are only leaving the computer on for an additional 14 hours a day that you wouldn't otherwise...) to be 180$ a year.
If you use the computer for less the 10 hours a day then the figure goes UP. because every hour the computer is on burns more money.

 

[Zenoth]

"The more the better" as they say, even when it doesn't make sense, but for them it does.

/generalization

A Quad-Core is good for benchmarking... and, well, simply put, anything that uses from three Cores to four, isn't it simple. Even simpler: If you are a gamer, exclusively, get a Dual-Core. For anything else including (but not exclusively) gaming, get a Quad-Core. And when you're on a budget, get a Dual-Core for obvious reasons of money savings.

I myself was on a "relative" budget. I could afford a Quad, but I don't need one. I don't benchmark, if not at all. I mostly play games and I very rarely encode one or two videos to fit on YouTube and that's it. Going for a Quad would have 1) made no sense and 2) cost me more money. With the money I saved I can put it elsewhere (like other useless stuff), and finally, a very important point to me, is energy savings. The more Cores you have, the more electricity you demand, and the higher your energy bill(s) gets (at least in majority, if not always).

Ask yourself first, do you need a Quad? If so, then why go Dual? Go Quad.

Do you only play games and very rarely do any multi-tasking? Then go Dual.

Gah I'm starting to repeat myself...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
"The more the better" as they say, even when it doesn't make sense, but for them it does.

/generalization

A Quad-Core is good for benchmarking... and, well, simply put, anything that uses from three Cores to four, isn't it simple. Even simpler: If you are a gamer, exclusively, get a Dual-Core. For anything else including (but not exclusively) gaming, get a Quad-Core.

Let me ask you this. Name one program, aside from distributed computing. For which quad core is benchmarked to be faster.

The only ones I can think of are video encoding. of which most are now SSE4 capable, so the wolfdale dual is faster then the conroe quad. (the penryn quad however will ANNIHILATE thanks to its quad SSE4 capability)

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Zenoth
"The more the better" as they say, even when it doesn't make sense, but for them it does.

/generalization

A Quad-Core is good for benchmarking... and, well, simply put, anything that uses from three Cores to four, isn't it simple. Even simpler: If you are a gamer, exclusively, get a Dual-Core. For anything else including (but not exclusively) gaming, get a Quad-Core.

Let me ask you this. Name one program, aside from distributed computing. For which quad core is benchmarked to be faster.

The only ones I can think of are video encoding. of which most are now SSE4 capable, so the wolfdale dual is faster then the conroe quad. (the penryn quad however will ANNIHILATE thanks to its quad SSE4 capability)

Sostfwares like SiSoftware Sandra... Lavalys EVEREST... Futuremark 3DMark06... PCMark05... and so many other benchmarking programs. And that's not to mention other softwares like Photoshop CS3 (that one believe me LOVES Quad Cores, it probably fantasizes about those all day long).

And then you have a good number of game editing tools that will certainly use Quad Cores, for example the Hammer editor for the Source engine (Half-Life 2, etc) which easily maxes out all four Cores while compiling a map (vRAD and other such functions). And then you have others like Folding @ Home to supposedly potentially save lives, and then you have SETI @ Home to supposedly potentially spot a signal sent by the little green guys from outer space.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Seriously like aigo said, just stop comparing dual cores and quad cores, fine the Wolfdales can out perform the Kentsfields in games and whatnot but how old are Kentsfields now? You should be comparing Wolfdales to Conroes and then saying that Wolfdales are a lot better, and all you do is praise the Wolfdales taltimar, just wait till the Yorkfields are out and then see what benches better, Wolfdales or Yorkfields. Now can we please lay this topic to rest ?

 

[taltamir]

I thought you were joking until you listed the half life 2 game editor compiler..
Benchmarking software "running faster" doesn't count, its not actual software you use, it just creates some artificial tests to give you a score. I asked you to name a program where the Q6600 is faster then the E8400 and you are seriously listing BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE! Next you will tell me windows has 4 moving bars instead of 2 when you go to task manager and that makes it better.

PS3 gets a 13.8% speed boost on identical clocks from the new architecture alone, and they are currently working on an SSE4 patch that will add a further unknown performance level to photoshop when using sse4. But as of right now at this moment the Q6600 would indeed win in photoshop, but by a small margin due to its lower clock speeds and the archetictural advantage of the wolfdale.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3137

I am NOT trying to argue that quad core is slower the dual core, I am saying CURRENT GEN dual core is faster the LAST GEN quad core.
I am not trying to "praise the wolfsdale"... and what does waiting for next gen quad core have to do with anything? The whole point is that currently, the wolfdale obsoletes last gen quad cores, the quad cores are STILL more expensive, but perform worse.

Just like the 8800GT obsoleted the 8800GTS 640MB when it came out, it was cheapter, and faster.

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I thought you were joking until you listed the half life 2 game editor compiler..
Benchmarking software "running faster" doesn't count, its not actual software you use, it just creates some artificial tests to give you a score. I asked you to name a program where the Q6600 is faster then the E8400 and you are seriously listing BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE! Next you will tell me windows has 4 moving bars instead of 2 when you go to task manager and that makes it better.

PS3 gets a 13.8% speed boost on identical clocks from the new architecture alone, and they are currently working on an SSE4 patch that will add a further unknown performance level to photoshop when using sse4. But as of right now at this moment the Q6600 would indeed win in photoshop, but by a small margin due to its lower clock speeds and the archetictural advantage of the wolfdale.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3137

I am NOT trying to argue that quad core is slower the dual core, I am saying CURRENT GEN dual core is faster the LAST GEN quad core.
I am not trying to "praise the wolfsdale"... and what does waiting for next gen quad core have to do with anything? The whole point is that currently, the wolfdale obsoletes last gen quad cores, the quad cores are STILL more expensive, but perform worse.

Just like the 8800GT obsoleted the 8800GTS 640MB when it came out, it was cheapter, and faster.

Yes yes, but I think you missed my point, young Padawan.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, or subtle enough, I'm not sure.

My point was to exactly prove yours, and you said it yourself: "I am NOT trying to argue that quad core is slower the dual core, I am saying CURRENT GEN dual core is faster the LAST GEN quad core."

The only difference being that I included a potential exception, and it was about the game engine's editing tool such as Hammer (but frankly, any editing tools for 3D games released since the past two years or so CAN, technically use Quad Cores, it just depends on which features of the editing tool is being worked on, such as compiling, or creating surface overlays/textures), and many others (like SandBox 2 for Crysis).