how much difference?

[pontifex]

how much difference will i see going from a opteron 175 to a q6600? I mainly use my PC for gaming.

a lot?
a little?
none?

 

[Anubis]

on a scale from 1-10 the difference is OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!

and yes im serious

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Anubis
on a scale from 1-10 the difference is OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!

and yes im serious

are you just fucking with me or is that your way of saying i'll see a huge difference?

 

[krnmastersgt]

I literally ROFLed when I read the OVER 9000!!!! xD
But what Anubis says is quite true, the difference if you upgrade will be like night and day.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Anubis
on a scale from 1-10 the difference is OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!

and yes im serious

are you just fucking with me or is that your way of saying i'll see a huge difference?

yes the difference will be huge

 

[krnmastersgt]

Well it'll help the most in load times, imagine a game you play takes about 5 minutes to load, with a Q6600 it'll be done in seconds

 

[Markfw]

Well, I can say that my ppd on F@H was about 1000 for a Opteron 170@2.5, 2000 ppd on a C2D@3.2 and 4500 ppd on a Q6600@3.5.

So the computing power is 4.5 x a Opteron 170, but possibly only 2.25 of that can be used for many games (except Supreme Commander I am told could use 3.25 or so times the power of an Opteron170@2.5)

At any rate, probably quite the difference in many games, not solitare though

 

[MarcVenice]

The difference is like a qaudcore opteron 175 running at 3.0ghz. But, depending on the applications, the difference won't actually be that big, especially since Pontifex has overclocked his opty 175, and if he pushed it past 2.6ghz, depending on his needs, I don't think he needs a CPU upgrade, not yet anyways. But if money is burning in your pocket, having a q6600 is never a bad thing

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you do the upgrade, post what you think of it. I'm on the other side of the fence. I think it will be a definite improvement, but not as big as it's being made out to be above. I could be wrong, I haven't made the jump yet, so this is little more then a guess. But, I bet you'd see a bigger improvement from going from say a 7900GT to a 8800GT then you will if you keep your same video card and swap out your Opteron 170 for a Q6600.

 

[lyssword]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...el_core_2_quad_q6600/5 look at some of those results. Your 175opteron should be slower than athlon 5200 in that test if it's not overclocked. It also depends on resolution used, they used high res and bottleneck is vid card. At 10x7 lets say, the difference would be dramatic.

 

[Duvie]

But since he is asking about gaming which rarely uses two let alone almost never more then 2 core....I would say the real difference would be like comparing an opteron 175 (which I have owned 275's before) and an E6600....175 is 2.2ghz. E6600 is 2.4ghz but with core architecture which is 40% plus faster clock for clock against X2 chips in my opinion and another 10% clock speed I would say about 50% faster.

I can tell you in apps that used 4 cores my E6600 would beat 2x 270's.....

The quad core will be better then 50% if you multi task because the offloading of certain apps to available cores will minimize the hit on the gaming cores...which would have a drastic effect on the opterons only 2 cores...that is assuming the game uses more then 1 core, which some do not do much of that.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Depends mainly on the game in the end, but a Q6600 would never be a waste such a shame the price dropped by $70 a month and a half after I bought mine

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: lyssword
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...el_core_2_quad_q6600/5 look at some of those results. Your 175opteron should be slower than athlon 5200 in that test if it's not overclocked. It also depends on resolution used, they used high res and bottleneck is vid card. At 10x7 lets say, the difference would be dramatic.

Looking at that it explains what I was saying...little or no gain over 2 cores


Elder scrolls he would see a 40% gain with quad gaining 10% over dual core (Q6600 vs E6600)

Supreme Commander he woudl see 50-80% depending on resolution with quad gaining 5% over dual

Call of Dty and Quake 4 about 30-35% gain with little or no gain for quad core....

Now you may have to add a bit into that since that is obviously based on interpolating numbers from an AM2 platform and newer chip like the 5200+ versus the opteron.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The difference is like a qaudcore opteron 175 running at 3.0ghz. But, depending on the applications, the difference won't actually be that big, especially since Pontifex has overclocked his opty 175, and if he pushed it past 2.6ghz, depending on his needs, I don't think he needs a CPU upgrade, not yet anyways. But if money is burning in your pocket, having a q6600 is never a bad thing

2497 is where i'm at now. any higher is definitely out because it BSODs on me. i haven't really done any testing at this speed to see if its even stable here.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The difference is like a qaudcore opteron 175 running at 3.0ghz. But, depending on the applications, the difference won't actually be that big, especially since Pontifex has overclocked his opty 175, and if he pushed it past 2.6ghz, depending on his needs, I don't think he needs a CPU upgrade, not yet anyways. But if money is burning in your pocket, having a q6600 is never a bad thing

2497 is where i'm at now. any higher is definitely out because it BSODs on me. i haven't really done any testing at this speed to see if its even stable here.

well if we figure in OCing....that measly 15% OC you get now will be far outclipsed but a 30-40% OC on the Q6600.....Most Q6600's will hit 3.2ghz-3.4ghz with ease and that would give you a 28-36% gain in clock speed....

I think the gain would be more like 75% then....

 

[Canterwood]

If you're just gaming, why not go for a nice dual core 'Wolfdale' instead?

They seem to overclock really well and run cool too.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
If you're just gaming, why not go for a nice dual core 'Wolfdale' instead?

They seem to overclock really well and run cool too.

i went from a OCED opty 165 @2.4 to a 8400 which is at 4GHz and the difference was simply mind boggleing

 

[MarcVenice]

Wow Duvie, 40% faster clock for clock is a VERY HUGE BIG GROSS OVERESTIMATION. Hope that draws your attention. As far as I know, general rule of thumb is that c2d's are 20-25% faster clock for clock. Cache is important too of course, and I'm no talking about the new 45nm wolfies/yorkfields. Anyways, in the end, I don't think a 2.6ghz or higher opteron is going to bottleneck him much in gaming, save 1 or 2 CPU intensive games like SupCom.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Wow Duvie, 40% faster clock for clock is a VERY HUGE BIG GROSS OVERESTIMATION. Hope that draws your attention. As far as I know, general rule of thumb is that c2d's are 20-25% faster clock for clock. Cache is important too of course, and I'm no talking about the new 45nm wolfies/yorkfields. Anyways, in the end, I don't think a 2.6ghz or higher opteron is going to bottleneck him much in gaming, save 1 or 2 CPU intensive games like SupCom.

40% was an overall when I figured in F@H, CAD, Video and encoding etc...F@H was so huge it made 40% look small because the huge cache pool was a BIG ADVANTAGE....CAD was more around the 30%+ range....The encoding could be the flavor you choose...XVID vs DIVX vs H.264


Also remember that the 20-25% is loikely more when comparing the newer AM2 platform and DDR2 and not an opteron with DDR....

NOT A HUGE GROSS OVERESTIMATION if you actually look at it and account for factors...


The cache on the E6600 was 4mb....the allendales like E6300-E6400 were 2mb and the opterons I believe were also 2mb....That make a difference in the right programs like F@H. and some othe rnumber crunching apps...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Wow Duvie, 40% faster clock for clock is a VERY HUGE BIG GROSS OVERESTIMATION. Hope that draws your attention. As far as I know, general rule of thumb is that c2d's are 20-25% faster clock for clock. Cache is important too of course, and I'm no talking about the new 45nm wolfies/yorkfields. Anyways, in the end, I don't think a 2.6ghz or higher opteron is going to bottleneck him much in gaming, save 1 or 2 CPU intensive games like SupCom.

40% was an overall when I figured in F@H, CAD, Video and encoding etc...F@H was so huge it made 40% look small because the huge cache pool was a BIG ADVANTAGE....CAD was more around the 30%+ range....The encoding could be the flavor you choose...XVID vs DIVX vs H.264


Also remember that the 20-25% is loikely more when comparing the newer AM2 platform and DDR2 and not an opteron with DDR....

NOT A HUGE GROSS OVERESTIMATION if you actually look at it and account for factors...


The cache on the E6600 was 4mb....the allendales like E6300-E6400 were 2mb and the opterons I believe were also 2mb....That make a difference in the right programs like F@H. and some othe rnumber crunching apps...

I'm pretty sure DDR2 offered very little performance over DDR1 on the AMD platform. At least when AM2 came out that was the case. I even remember AMD themselves stating that AM2 won't offer much, maybe 0-1% more performace then socket 939 clock for clock with the Athlon64 x2's.

 

[MarcVenice]

We're talking applications that use all 4 cores. I'm talking gaming, which is his main purpose, and rarely uses 4 cores, let alone 2 !!! Honestly, you love your q6600, and sure it's a great CPU, I'm just being somewhat of a devils advocate though, and don't think he'd see much of a boost by getting a new CPU. He should REALLY try to get past 2.5ghz though, although even at 2.5ghz he should still be fine @ 1680*1050, unless gamings = rts = supcom, wic, etc etc.

 

[Duvie]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/...5&model2=877&chart=436

I stand corrected two core intel c2d versus 2 core X2(opteron) is more like 20-30%.....not 40%...I went thru several charts for that

That was thru the whole spectrum of uses and not just gaming....If you had ever saw my F@H scores you would know what I mean by doubling plus the speed over an opteron....NO F@H user should contemplate an AMD over an INtel until AMD ups the cache. That is another thread though

With quad versus dual core at same speed in same test it can be anywhere from 19%-over 110% but average looked like 40%

Looks like unreal liked more then one core...

 

[krnmastersgt]

You weren't aware the UT3 engine was multi core optimized? While it stands now that a dual core is almost the same as a quad for games, the engines are being revised/written to utilize multiple cores now, so a Q6600 is still a worthy investment if you don't plan on buying a yorkfield or nehalem cpu.

 

[MarcVenice]

Good, then we agree, clock for clock c2d beats K8 by about 20-25% on average, with some extremes here and there. And since games usually only make use of 1 core, it's quite plausible to say c2d beats k8 by about 20-25% on average in games, dualcore will only help because background apps can run on 1 core, and the game can run on the other core.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Good, then we agree, clock for clock c2d beats K8 by about 20-25% on average, with some extremes here and there. And since games usually only make use of 1 core, it's quite plausible to say c2d beats k8 by about 20-25% on average in games, dualcore will only help because background apps can run on 1 core, and the game can run on the other core.

Only one problem with that....AMD OC's to what 3-3.2 ???? And C2D (depending on the model) goes from 3.4 to as high as 4.0 (E8400, good chip) So if you add the two together, you can get as much as a 100% improvement (see above F@H scores)

Edit: and that Opty 175 is at 2.6, like my Opty 170@2.5, thats what I am comparing to a C2D@3.4 for the 100% number.