quad core vs. dual core for gaming

[eddiebravo]

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770

AMD Phenom 9850 BLACK

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

those seem to be the best offerings for dual and quad core from intel and amd. why is the qx9770 soooo much more expensive than any of the other processors, even the quad core phenom? i mean, i get that it is a faster clock speed, but $1300 for a difference of 3.2ghz to 2.5ghz? which is the best choice for gaming if money is really not a concern(although if the answer is 9770, just how much better is it?)? basically, im just shocked at why the qx9770 is so freaking expensive compared to the next best options.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: eddiebravo
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
...
basically, im just shocked at why the qx9770 is so freaking expensive compared to the next best options.

The "Extreme" stands for "Extremely Expensive." Are you shocked at why a Ford GT costs many times more than a Ford Mustang GT? How about a Mercedes S Class versus E Class? How about $80 for a 500GB hard drive, $120 for 750GB and $200 for 1TB? How about a 42" HDTV at $1200, 47" at $1700 and 52" at $3000?

Basically you pay a premium for "the best." It doesn't matter that "the best" is only 1%, 5% or 50% better than the second best, to get "the best" you will pay extra for it.

 

[eddiebravo]

well, it is easy for me to understand the difference between a ford gt and a mustang, but as a hardware noob i cannot say the same about these processors. to me, it seems like the difference between a POS every day driver mustang and a 500hp exotic designed for racing is clearly huge and easily justifies the large difference in price between the two. but looking at these processors, the jump from the 2.5ghz phenom to the 3.2ghz 9770, or the jump from dual core 3.2ghz to quad core 3.2ghz, does not seem that significant, and certainly not enough to justify such a relatively enormous difference in price. but thats probably just because i dont understand everything about these processors. hence my questions.

 

[Kirby64]

Originally posted by: eddiebravo
well, it is easy for me to understand the difference between a ford gt and a mustang, but as a hardware noob i cannot say the same about these processors. to me, it seems like the difference between a POS every day driver mustang and a 500hp exotic designed for racing is clearly huge and easily justifies the large difference in price between the two. but looking at these processors, the jump from the 2.5ghz phenom to the 3.2ghz 9770, or the jump from dual core 3.2ghz to quad core 3.2ghz, does not seem that significant, and certainly not enough to justify such a relatively enormous difference in price. but thats probably just because i dont understand everything about these processors. hence my questions.

I don't see what your issue here is.. the difference between the two mercedes that Zap listed is hardly recognizable for the incredible increase in price.

The difference is similar. Quad core = better multitasking. The "Extreme" and "Black" versions of the processors are essentially the top of the line processors. They run a little faster, but that's it.

There is no reason to justify the price. The market for these super pricey processors is for the .1% of the computer users that want the "very best" at any price. That's it.

Just like you could see yourself throwing thousands of dollars away on something that provide you with very few real benefits on highway driving, some people can justify spending extra money on these extravagant processors that actually DO provide benefits (however small) for the increased clock speed and unlocked multipliers.

That said, quad cores and dual cores are in a different catagory. If you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples. Comparing the QX9770 to the E8500 isn't fair. Comparing the QX9770 to the Q6600 is.

 

[ShadowFlareX]

I'm not sure if you know this this but the "Extreme" line of Intel Processors offers you unlocked multiplier, which gives you more options on overclocking the CPU. All the normal Intel CPUs have their multipliers locked... or capped for a better term.

For instance, the Intel Q9450 vs QX9650

Q9450 is running at 2.66 GHz, which is gotten from its 333MHz FSB multiplied by its multipler value of 8, so 333 x 8 = 2664 MHz = 2.66GHz. The default multiplier assigned to this CPU is 8, and multipliers of 7.5, 7, 6.5, and 6 are also available for this CPU. It just can't go over the 8 multiplier.

Now the QX9650, it's running at 3 GHz, that's 333MHz multiplied by its default multiplier, 9. So 333 x 9 = 2997MHz, which is about 3GHz. Now, what makes this QX series CPU much more expensive than the normal Q's, is that multipliers above their default values can be selected.

So this QX9650 that has a setting of 333 x 9.... you can set it at 333 x 10 or above, well of course provided it's stable and gets enough voltage. Extreme line of CPUs have all their multipliers open for use.

Different from the Q9450 (and all other Intel's non-Extreme), which only has 8 as it's "maximum" multiplier. Different type CPU has different default multiplier of course.

Same goes for Dual core Intel CPUs.

Hope that clears things up a little.

 

[Zenoth]

If you're gaming get a Dual-Core, case closed. Oh... well, wait, unless you REALLY like UT3 and Supreme Commander, then get a Quad-Core for two or three games that uses four Cores but completely lack good game-play (yes I know, that's subjective). Seriously though, Quad-Cores are near useless for gaming... BUT... but... "in the future gaming will use Quads regularly" is the excuse/argument you'll get around here, being "future proof" with a PC in the present is something supposedly possible and desirable. In the end it comes down to your decision obviously because everyone here will give their opinions.

They can also give a fact, such as 90% of games that can use more than one Core will only use two and not three, and not four. And that 90% of the games that do use from three up to four Cores are crappy games... oh wait, my mistake that's no fact, that's heresy!

 

[Aisengard]

Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

 

[krnmastersgt]

Like ShadowFlareX said, the Extreme series of chips have an unlocked multiplier which is only useful for overclockers and enthusiasts.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

No.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

No.

Right on. Actually, today the best value in a cpu for gaming is either the e8400 ($200, 3GHz, 6MB cache) or the e7200 ($135, 2.66GHz, 3MB cache). Both should overclock nicely and will give you more than enough power to push any of today's games (other than the two mentioned previously).

Quads are pretty much a waste for gaming today.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

Yes, absolutely, in those cases where the system operator is also running CPU intensive background applications while gaming...such as an anti-virus scan, encoding, decoding, etc.

Multi-tasking, even single-threaded multi-tasking, benefits from more cores. Naturally there is a tipping-point between more but slower cores versus fewer but faster cores. Everyone's mileage varies.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Kirby64

Originally posted by: eddiebravo
well, it is easy for me to understand the difference between a ford gt and a mustang, but as a hardware noob i cannot say the same about these processors. to me, it seems like the difference between a POS every day driver mustang and a 500hp exotic designed for racing is clearly huge and easily justifies the large difference in price between the two. but looking at these processors, the jump from the 2.5ghz phenom to the 3.2ghz 9770, or the jump from dual core 3.2ghz to quad core 3.2ghz, does not seem that significant, and certainly not enough to justify such a relatively enormous difference in price. but thats probably just because i dont understand everything about these processors. hence my questions.

I don't see what your issue here is.. the difference between the two mercedes that Zap listed is hardly recognizable for the incredible increase in price.

The difference is similar. Quad core = better multitasking. The "Extreme" and "Black" versions of the processors are essentially the top of the line processors. They run a little faster, but that's it.

There is no reason to justify the price. The market for these super pricey processors is for the .1% of the computer users that want the "very best" at any price. That's it.

Just like you could see yourself throwing thousands of dollars away on something that provide you with very few real benefits on highway driving, some people can justify spending extra money on these extravagant processors that actually DO provide benefits (however small) for the increased clock speed and unlocked multipliers.

That said, quad cores and dual cores are in a different catagory. If you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples. Comparing the QX9770 to the E8500 isn't fair. Comparing the QX9770 to the Q6600 is.

buy a QX9650 if you want an extreme edition cpu. it's a lot cheaper but has the same unlocked multi that the QX9770 has. A little birdie told me that the QX9650 also oc's better

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

Yes, absolutely, in those cases where the system operator is also running CPU intensive background applications while gaming...such as an anti-virus scan, encoding, decoding, etc.

Multi-tasking, even single-threaded multi-tasking, benefits from more cores. Naturally there is a tipping-point between more but slower cores versus fewer but faster cores. Everyone's mileage varies.

quads have more cache which will often benefit the user even if the game doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores. It's not a HUGE difference, but it makes up for a little of the clockspeed disparity that is typical btwn quads and duals.

 

[Pelu]

dude is simple... the black edition and the QX9770 are exotic processors.... thats why they cost so much.... not much gain in performance at all compared to the regular ones... just exotish....

 

[Pelu]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

No.

Right on. Actually, today the best value in a cpu for gaming is either the e8400 ($200, 3GHz, 6MB cache) or the e7200 ($135, 2.66GHz, 3MB cache). Both should overclock nicely and will give you more than enough power to push any of today's games (other than the two mentioned previously).

Quads are pretty much a waste for gaming today.

How much of a waste are the quads right now?

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

No.

Right on. Actually, today the best value in a cpu for gaming is either the e8400 ($200, 3GHz, 6MB cache) or the e7200 ($135, 2.66GHz, 3MB cache). Both should overclock nicely and will give you more than enough power to push any of today's games (other than the two mentioned previously).

Quads are pretty much a waste for gaming today.

I think this is unhelpful. In a vacuum, quads don't help gaming only because there are only a few games that use more than 2 cores.

But if you want to game while, say, folding, or running a virus scan, then quads will help. Also, there is absolutely no way to know what the future holds. Dual cores looked pretty frivolous back in 2005, and the Athlon X2s didn't provide much advantage over their single-core counterparts. Now, there would be a big difference, even on old hardware.

For today, the Wolfdale provides the best price/performance ratio. But for tomorrow, who knows? And if money really isn't a concern (to a certain point), why not go with the Q9450? The junta of anti-quads is getting a little ridiculous.

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

the e7200 is 2.53Ghz btw.

Do not waste 100's of hard earn dollars on a stupid CPU that is "extreme" nothing extreme about it but price.

If you are worried about dual vs quad for gaming, dual core @ higher speeds > quads.

If you game, watch TV, surf the internet, and talk on vent. Quad > Dual

If you game in full screen and hardly ever alt tab out. Dual > Quad

See what I did? If you multi-task. Quad > Dual

Really simple, but:

If you are worried about the future, get the E7200, overclock to 3ghz+, 4gb of ram and call it a day. Since both AMD and Intel are going to release 8+ core cpu's next year. It's a little silly to even think about quad unless you multi task.

I do watch TV, surf the web, talk on vent, mp3 player open and a game. What am I getting? A e7200, because by the time my system will bog down from a core2duo @ 3ghz, it's going to be time to upgrade. Regardless, if you want to keep your PC for 3+ years, quad, not? dual.

Keep this in mind though, if you get a quad now you can just upgrade your GPU 1-2years from now and if developers continue to do what they are doing now and programing for more than one core, you would be set for a while. Of course, a quad core 2 years from now will be much faster than a quad core now. Okay I will shutup now. Just remember, buy for what you are doing TODAY, worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.



Edit: I like to upgrade every 18months or so, thus why I buy the cheap parts and overclock the shit out of em.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Um, wouldn't games that use two cores run faster on a quad core, due to the simple fact that all background processes would run on the other cores?

no, in gaming benchmarks dualcores overclocked to 4.0ghz or greater are beating all the overclocked quadcores

Originally posted by: doggyfromplanetwoof
the e7200 is 2.53Ghz btw.

Do not waste 100's of hard earn dollars on a stupid CPU that is "extreme" nothing extreme about it but price.

If you are worried about dual vs quad for gaming, dual core @ higher speeds > quads.

If you game, watch TV, surf the internet, and talk on vent. Quad > Dual

If you game in full screen and hardly ever alt tab out. Dual > Quad

See what I did? If you multi-task. Quad > Dual

this is a good point. I would also vote for E7200, E7300, E8400, E8500, or E8600. I owned an E8400, but 7300 and 8600 look very nice with 10x multipliers.

 

[eddiebravo]

Originally posted by: ShadowFlareX
I'm not sure if you know this this but the "Extreme" line of Intel Processors offers you unlocked multiplier, which gives you more options on overclocking the CPU. All the normal Intel CPUs have their multipliers locked... or capped for a better term.

For instance, the Intel Q9450 vs QX9650

Q9450 is running at 2.66 GHz, which is gotten from its 333MHz FSB multiplied by its multipler value of 8, so 333 x 8 = 2664 MHz = 2.66GHz. The default multiplier assigned to this CPU is 8, and multipliers of 7.5, 7, 6.5, and 6 are also available for this CPU. It just can't go over the 8 multiplier.

Now the QX9650, it's running at 3 GHz, that's 333MHz multiplied by its default multiplier, 9. So 333 x 9 = 2997MHz, which is about 3GHz. Now, what makes this QX series CPU much more expensive than the normal Q's, is that multipliers above their default values can be selected.

So this QX9650 that has a setting of 333 x 9.... you can set it at 333 x 10 or above, well of course provided it's stable and gets enough voltage. Extreme line of CPUs have all their multipliers open for use.

Different from the Q9450 (and all other Intel's non-Extreme), which only has 8 as it's "maximum" multiplier. Different type CPU has different default multiplier of course.

Same goes for Dual core Intel CPUs.

Hope that clears things up a little.

thank you for that explanation!

ok, so what im getting is that ignoring multitasking(do people actually fold and virus scan while playing games??) with few exceptions(supreme commander, ut3, etc), clock speed is most important for games. so if it comes down to a higher clock speed dual core vs. lower clock speed quad core, the dual core will perform better. but assuming clock speeds are the same, quad would be better. is that correct?

 

[ShadowFlareX]

I use my PC for SETI@Home crunching, UT3 gaming, video encoding, watching movies, work... eh well I do alot of things on my PC. Some of those make good use of the 4 cores in a quad, hence I got me a Q6600 (eventhough it's a crappy B3 stepping). Plus, it's good in the long run.

So in short, IMO, the quad is the way to go. Just don't get the extreme, not worth it. If you're planning to get a quad, go for Intel Q9450, a good overclocker, cooler than Q6600 too, wish I get that Q9450 myself

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Pelu
dude is simple... the black edition and the QX9770 are exotic processors.... thats why they cost so much.... not much gain in performance at all compared to the regular ones... just exotish....

Again...unlocked multiplier...With an unlocked multiplier you can attain the highest overclock possible limited only by the chip, even if you hit a fsb wall at something like 250, then you could up the multiplier to something like 16 and have the chip running at 4ghz. Board limitations do not hinder the ability of these chips to overclock.

 

[hans007]

i think the OP is saying that the cpus even have the same dies .


then again, they pay kobe bryant money to play basketball because he's the elite crop of basketball players, much more than some NBA d-leaguer who is also the same size and weight. the main thing is being the cream of the crop. and the EE is that. it may not be particularly a good value, but its there for people who dont care about value.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: eddiebravo


ok, so what im getting is that ignoring multitasking(do people actually fold and virus scan while playing games??) with few exceptions(supreme commander, ut3, etc), clock speed is most important for games. so if it comes down to a higher clock speed dual core vs. lower clock speed quad core, the dual core will perform better. but assuming clock speeds are the same, quad would be better. is that correct?

yes this is pretty much true, given you are comparing the same die shrink and mArch.

If dual core 65nm @ 2500mhz VS. quad core 65nm @ 2500mhz, then
quad core wins by about ~4% average in gaming benchmarks
history repeats itself when you drop down to 45nm penryns.



The big argument arises when you compare the common overclocks:
4.0-4.2ghz dual core 45nm chips VS 3.2-3.8ghz quad core 45nm OR 65nm chips.
The duals begin to shine.

 

[eddiebravo]

wow, i am really glad i posted here before i went out and wasted my money on a qx9770. i am definitely going to get a dual core and overclock it, and put the remaining $1300 back in my wallet where it will be nice and happy. i still cant believe how cheap these dual cores are...~$200 is awesome for something that can push 4ghz.

 

[WT]

This debate had me thinking really hard last night after reading of the 8400 at TD for $140, as I am a hardcore gamer, and I have been so confused on what to upgrade to that my Newegg wishlist now has SIX revisions for my June upgrade.
What I initially set out to do was upgrade two PCs, but when I think about it, 95% of my gaming is done on my main rig, so I have no idea why I am sinking money into the spare rig, when it would clearly be better spent on PC #1.