hmmm, my other option is to spend another AU$150 and get a Q9550...I really want to get rid of the heat that is currently blasting out the back of my PC.
Simple answer to that, for your usage you don't need a quad. In terms of available performance a quad is has lot more. In terms of how much of it people actually need or can use depends on the individual and/or application.
Quads only help in Heavy multitasking or in programs which can utilise four cores.
This argument was exactly the same in single vs dual core debate. You can still do light multitasking on a single core and there are instances where it will be faster (Assuming higher clocks). As soon as you do heavy multitasking or use programs which utilised more than one core the difference becomes night and day.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,275
- 16,120
- 136
The Q9550@3.4 or more will put out the same heat. At least it sure feels that way to me (Q9450@3.5 will put out the same heat as a 9550) And an E8400 is a scorcher also.....(Not compared to a Pentium D or a A64, but warm)
At stock, all the 45nm chips seem much warmer, but you have to give them juice to OC, then they get warm.
Mine are all close in heat output. My video cards are the ones that heat my house nowadays.
Uh huh, anecdotal evidence ftw. Anyone else could just as easily say their quad machine feels smoother. I saw someone in another thread saying their P4 felt as smooth as their C2Q and C2D machines.
Hey that was me...and I stand by that comment...in terms of actual desktop responsiveness my old P4 isn't all that much different to my E4300@3.33ghz or the Q6600 in question....maybe it's just me but they all "feel" very similar..
I can't even notice the difference when I switch from my E4300 to the Quad...and they sit side by side...the only difference in the systems really is that the E4300 only has 4GB DDR2 and 2x500GB WD5000AAKS in raid 0, and the Quad has 8GB DDR2 and 2x1TB WD10EACS in Raid 0....so outside of those slight differences the real performance viarable is the processor...oh and the GFX card...but I'm talking about desktop and application responsiveness and "Feel"...although the benchmarks do tell a very different story.
Back to the thread....
Games are my main concern...except GTA4...I'm not interested in the GTA series so I'm not taking that game into consideration.
but I do play Crysis and similar titles so if an OC'd E8400 would outperform my Q6600 and do it at lower temps then I'm more than happy to replace the Quad...but if there is barely a difference, then I might just try and sort out the temp problem instead....not sure how I'm going to do that the water cooling setup is already using a large 360mm x 120mm radiator with 3x 120mm fans...I don't know how much bigger I can go?
MTDEW
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 4,284
- 37
- 91
Q6600 @ 3.6ghz
e8400 @ 4.0ghz
Nobody here can deny that both cpu's above are great choices to have in a pc today.
And although both cpu's are a good choice when looking to buy,that wasnt the question asked in the original post.
This thread kinda got off track and turned into a 4 core vs 2 core argument.
Obviously, if you're running a quad or dual core now, you've decided which you feel is more worth it to you.
And just like those old single core vs dual core threads we used to have on here, its an argument thats not going to lead anywhere.
The OP already owns a q6600@3.6ghz
The question was whether it was worth it going from a q6600@3.6ghz to an e8400@4ghz.
I just dont see how anyone can justify why he should make the switch, hes not going to gain anything from the swap.
Theres just no real reason to justify ditching 4 cores at 3.6ghz for 2 cores at 4ghz, regardless of the dual core vs quad core argument.
e8400 @ 4.0ghz
Nobody here can deny that both cpu's above are great choices to have in a pc today.
And although both cpu's are a good choice when looking to buy,that wasnt the question asked in the original post.
This thread kinda got off track and turned into a 4 core vs 2 core argument.
Obviously, if you're running a quad or dual core now, you've decided which you feel is more worth it to you.
And just like those old single core vs dual core threads we used to have on here, its an argument thats not going to lead anywhere.
The OP already owns a q6600@3.6ghz
The question was whether it was worth it going from a q6600@3.6ghz to an e8400@4ghz.
I just dont see how anyone can justify why he should make the switch, hes not going to gain anything from the swap.
Theres just no real reason to justify ditching 4 cores at 3.6ghz for 2 cores at 4ghz, regardless of the dual core vs quad core argument.
MTDEW
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 4,284
- 37
- 91
oops, i missed this post.
If heat is the main concern, sure an e8400 will run cooler.
But i would think getting an e8400 to 4.5ghz like you mentioned earlier is a rare thing.
And even if you get one that goes that high, you'll most likely be pushing the upper limits of voltage and right back to pushing the upper limits of thermals again.
thanks.... this helps me make the choice...I want to try and get the temps under control, while at least maintaining similar or getting better performance...
the main thing is if I get increase (5%+)in performance for a decent drop in temp than the E8400 might be worth it.
but if the E8400 is going to be inferior or similar in performance (less than 5%) and temps won't change a great deal then I'm going to stay with the Q6600 until i7 prices drop considerably in Australia (i'm not in to paying AU$1000+ for 940 and then AU$400+ for an x58, and don't get me started on DDR3 prices).
Although after speaking with store that I buy my bits from they can do me a E8500 for AU$10 more than the E8400...hmmm
OK, so how do you determine what is better? Benchmarks don't do it for you. My personal experience doesn't cut it. Is there some other way of assessing performance that I might be missing. Maybe I need to run seven benchmarks at a time to get a "real world experience"
Do you have an e8x00 CPU and a quad CPU to compare? Or do you just like to just pretend you know everything and everyone else is misinformed?
alkalinetaupehat
Senior member
- Mar 3, 2008
- 839
- 0
- 0
If you're looking for temp control instead of a real performance boost, I would look to your components' environment.
The room's temperature, room airflow, dust in case or WC setup, freshness of the water, fans' CFM, number of fans (got two 80's in the front of the case?), cable management, etc. Perhaps a change in PC case would be more economical and effective than a CPU swap. Better too could be a more efficient power supply, or maybe bump down the OC to 3Ghz and see how you feel.
What you need to decide is:
Are you going for a cooler-running PC, or do you want the 4Ghz street-cred?
If you want both I would go for a new case and revamping the WC setup, and I would do the E8500 since it's AU$10 more (see what your shop can do about an E8600 also, just for giggles).
The room's temperature, room airflow, dust in case or WC setup, freshness of the water, fans' CFM, number of fans (got two 80's in the front of the case?), cable management, etc. Perhaps a change in PC case would be more economical and effective than a CPU swap. Better too could be a more efficient power supply, or maybe bump down the OC to 3Ghz and see how you feel.
What you need to decide is:
Are you going for a cooler-running PC, or do you want the 4Ghz street-cred?
If you want both I would go for a new case and revamping the WC setup, and I would do the E8500 since it's AU$10 more (see what your shop can do about an E8600 also, just for giggles).
IThe case and the Water cooling kit was what I checked out first, I even did some rearranging in side the case which help quite a bit, I running a 92mm and a 80mm at the front, a 120mm at the back and 3 120mm on the radiator.
I never have the cover on so case temps aren't too much of an issue (although the last few days here have been close to 40C...godda love Aussie summers).
Everything else seems to run fine temp wise, it just this damned Q6600 that is hot running....however it is a B3 ES, which I understand aren't the coolest running of the Q6600's
Benchmarks can be used, but if they aren't reflecting real world scenarios, they aren't too useful. Personal experiences can be used, but yours alone isn't law.
most gamers know better than to have a dozen things running in the background when gaming. besides who has so many things running in the background while gaming? you're not being realistic.
2nd, i've never seen any evidence that a quad @ the same speed as a dual core will boot windows faster, can u link to evidence of this?
finally, u're talking to people that upgrade their cpu every 6-12months, so keep the question in context. We're not gonna have the same cpu for 2-3 years, otherwise yes a quad core recomendation is a no brainer. for the next 6-12 months, a dual core is more than enough.
just my .02 cents.
Are you serious? You are talking as if I'm the one that stated my experience is law? Please go back and read your first post where you basically stated that anybody who thinks a dual core can compete with a quad is an idiot.
I gave my personal opinion on how my system runs much better with my e8400 as opposed to the q6600. The additional 1ghz more than makes up for my lack of 2 additional cores. For a general use/gaming PC it is better. But, if I were able to get it to 3.6 I think I would have been happy enough with the q6600.
On a side note, I just ordered a q9550. Hopefully I'll have better luck overclocking that one.
OP: Only reason to switch to a dual would be to lower power draw and temps, as Q6600 definitely run hot with voltage ~1.4V at ~3.6GHz. Performance will be similar in most games/apps but can be potentially much worst in more intensive games or if you have anything else going on in the background. There's more games making use of more than 2 cores nowadays (any UE3.0 game, GTAIV) and also plenty that will peg a dual core so for me, I'd never consider going back to a dual core if final clock speeds are similar. I made the switch from an E6400 @ 3.2 to this Q6600 which I originally ran at 3.1 GHz (mobo limitation). At this point I'm not going to bother with a new CPU until I upgrade to i7 or i5.
alkalinetaupehat
Senior member
- Mar 3, 2008
- 839
- 0
- 0
What's in the WC loop anyhow? If it's just the CPU you should be alright, though 3/8" tubing is somewhat more restrictive than the standard 1/2".
B3's use about 10 watts more than G0's at stock speeds, and the energy gap opens up further as you OC. Since it's an ES as well, that could mean an even higher energy draw than the retail B3's, or there's a chance that it uses less.
If money's tight for ya, bump down the OC to like 3.0Ghz and see, if you don't want to spend too much I'd reccomend an Antec 300 or 900 ($60 or $120; Antec 1200 is about $200), both of which have great airflow; a friend's 8800GT SLI setup dropped 10C per card going to this case (from a $40 Xion something) and his CPU temps dropped about 5C.
If you're okay with spending the money for it, the E8400/E8500/etc. will be cooler-running compared to the Quad at a given clockspeed (like chizow & others said), but you may notice a hit on some games/apps and general responsiveness of the system may be a bit ehh.
/Thread?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter