Performance Difference Between 3.16GHZ and 2.4GHz?

[Alex C]

I'm trying to decide between an E8500 and a Q6600, and I'd like to know how noticeable the .76GHz difference between them would be in applications not designed to utilize the extra cores. Since they're the same price, I'm having a tough time deciding. I'd like the extra cores to help future proof it a little, but I don't have much use for them now. If everything else will run slower if I go with the quad, I'll stick with the e8500. I think I'm leaning towards the e8500, but I'm not too sure. The system is for mild gaming, schoolwork, and maybe some ArcGIS in the future. What do you guys think?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Either one overclocked would be more than enough.

 

[Zenoth]

Well I can tell you that the performance difference from my E8400 at 3.00Ghz and at 3.74Ghz is barely noticeable. It shows up in synthetic benchmarks mostly, and there's a few number of games where I can safely say that the mere increase in the CPU frequency does help getting more performance (for example Unreal Tournament 3, Command & Conquer 3 and Team Fortress 2, amongst a few others). It's not much of a difference. I'd say it averages in the 5% to around 10% (with luck) increase, even though the actual over-clock is one of about 25% compared to the stock speed.

With all that said, keep in mind that I'm referring to games. Maybe over-clocking has more impact on other applications like audio/video editing/decoding/encoding, benchmarking, SETI@Home and Folding@Home, etc.

 

[zanejohnson]

i notice a difference even in windows from my CPU at default and overclocked... at default 3.0GHz vs 3.7GHz there's a difference in everything.

 

[tallman45]

If schoolwork is MS Office the a Dual is more than enough, the OS is optimized to balance all active apps across whatever cores are available. Even running just a browser your OS is running approx 40 tasks, that are balanced over the multi cores, go to your active tasks window and you will see that there are many tasks running in the background, thats is why at least a 2 core system shines

An E8400/E8500 even an E7200 is so fast that unless you are doing extremely CPU intensive tasks the jump to anything more will show diminishing returns in performance

Future Proof ? I bet the users who paid $500 for a Q6600 to have a future proof system 1 year ago are kicking themselves now, when they could have had a $200 then E6400 or a then $150 E4500 then swapped in a $179 Q6600 today and been $100 - $150 ahead of the game plus had a used one to sell

Also its .76 difference but not one core vs one core system, its 2 x 3.16ghz vs 4 x 2.4ghz, measuring MIPS or TAPP then the Quad has much more processing potential (using that potential is the question) If you do get an app (and they are coming) that uses all 4 cores, and you max out the 3.16 Ghz system, you will see in a blink how much faster the 4 cores at 2.4 suddenly become.

Imagine the instant sales success of the 1st game to truly use a 4 core system, it would fly off the shelves and be a runaway success day 1

 

[zanejohnson]

Originally posted by: zanejohnson
i notice a difference even in windows from my CPU at default and overclocked... at default 3.0GHz vs 3.7GHz there's a difference in everything.

also, i notice a difference in 1.6GHz to 2GHz on this old Athlon XP machine i have in the house as well.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

2.4 x 4 = 9.6
3.16 x 2 = 6.32

q6600 is 3.28 ghz faster than e8500 right talllllllmen????

Alex C: For the applications you mentioned using, you will benefit more from a faster dual core processor. Go with the E8500, or save a little money by getting the E8400.

 

[sdgserv]

Intel E8600 is out...

 

[GundamF91]

There's a diminishing rate of return on the CPU power curve. Once you exceed a certain threshold on processing power (dont' forget RAM capacity too), you'll not notice the increase unless you're doing something that's quantifiable, such as SuperPi or video conversion.

WIth the modern application and Windows, I'd say 3Ghz with 4GB RAM is a sweet spot, and anything above you won't really feel much of a difference.

Now, your original question is really about dualcore vs. quadcore. In that, I'd go with quadcore simply because more apps will use multiple cores more efficiently as time go on, so your quadcore will have much more "legs" when it comes to being useful a year or two down the road. Even if processor is not as fast as latest ones, it does not mean the system is obsolete. I plan to keep my quad for at least 2 years, and I dont' see applications that would demand more than this, except for video editing and games (but that'll be limited by GPU rather than CPU).

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
2.4 x 4 = 9.6
3.16 x 2 = 6.32

q6600 is 3.28 ghz faster than e8500 right talllllllmen????

.

If you have an App that was designed to take advantage of all 4 cores and run them on side by side systems one with an E8500 and one with a Q6600 you will see that the Q6600 will finish faster. thats the benefit of having the extra processing power

 

[Alex C]

If I go with the overclocked quad, will an 500W Earthwatt PSU be able to handle that, two hard drives, and my 4850? And will I have to upgrade from the Arctic Freezer Pro 7 to keep it reasonably cool? Thanks guys.

 

[Cheex]

It should be able to handle it but it is probably cutting it a little bit close. Let us know the rest of the specs on that PSU.

As for the HSF, good choice. By no means the best air cooler but VERY affordable and WAY better than stock.

:thumbsup:

 

[Alex C]

Here's the PSU and specs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817371007

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
2.4 x 4 = 9.6
3.16 x 2 = 6.32

q6600 is 3.28 ghz faster than e8500 right talllllllmen????

.

If you have an App that was designed to take advantage of all 4 cores and run them on side by side systems one with an E8500 and one with a Q6600 you will see that the Q6600 will finish faster. thats the benefit of having the extra processing power

And none of the tasks or applications he listed fo intended use would actually do this. Talk about the real world. If he mentioned any intentions on doing video encoding or 3D modeling, then a quad core (even running at a slower speed) would be better.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Alex C
Here's the PSU and specs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817371007

Okay Alex, here we go...

That Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU gives a total of 34A (2x 12V rail with 17A each).
$90 + $11 = $101 shipped.

I could recommend Rosewill RP600V2-S-SL 600W giving a total of 38A (2x 12V rail with 19A each).
$70 + $0 = $70 shipped.

Or my personal PSU, Rosewill Stallion Series RD600N-2DC-SL-SLV 600W giving a total of 44A (2x 12V rail with 22A each).
$65 + 11.50 = $76.50 shipped.

IMO the best bang-for-buck PSU right now is Antec TPQ-850 850W giving a total of 54A (4x 12V rail with 18A each).
$140 + $0 = $140 shipped.
I personally want one myself. I hope the price doesn't go back up before I'm able to purchase it though...


Notes:
The overall wattage is important for managing the load of your components but at the same time, the amperage on the rails play an even more important role. Without enough amps going to each component, you will end up with that component "failing" at a given time, causing lockups, freezing and BSODs.

For the setup you described, a 500W PSU is what I would recommend at the very least but you can use the links I provided as starting points (if not direct reference) as to what you should purchase. More juice is always better for future.

Hope this helps...:thumbsup:

 

[Alex C]

Thanks, Cheex. The Earthwatt PSU was in a combo deal with the P182 case for $160+shipping, and it comes with the Sonata III (which I was originally going to get, so I already did the research on it and know it's reliable) which is why I was going with that one, but I'll check out the others you linked.

I was originally going for a sub $1000 entry-mid level gaming computer, but I spent way too much time on here and now I'm up to $1200+. I don't mind spending more on parts that will last me a while that I'll reuse in future builds. How long before a PSU becomes outdated or wears out? Should current PSUs be able to be used with the upcoming i7 cores and mbs?

 

[Cheex]

I'm honestly not so sure about the durability of PSUs in general but they tend to last a few years. They last longer the more stable your electric company is...LOL.

Current PSUs with future motherboards are :thumbsup::thumbsup:. I'm sure all the new boards will still use 24-pin main power connectors. So you should be fine.

About my PSU specifically, I've had it for over a year now and this is its second summer down here in the tropics, Jamaica baby, yeah!! So I guess the heat doesn't bother it...LOL.

:sun: