Quad or Dual

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
Quad is the wave of the future, dual core is the wave of now.

I don't disagree with that statement but for those of us who upgrade every year or two anyway, save your $, get a dual now and wait for what's better in a few years. By then, quads will be cheaper, more apps will be able to take advantage of the quad and then we all can PROFIT!

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Team42

I can't see the sense in this. The Q6600 is unlikely to provide much, if any, advantage for most current games and, given it's the older fab, will be replaced by much more efficient CPUs in the very near future for pretty much the same price. For gaming, as has been mentioned in this thread and many others, a C2D, particularly the E8400, will be more than sufficient for most gaming needs, and will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.

Oh I am not saying E8400 will not be sufficient, but for the same price you have the potential to get up to 80%-90% the performance increase from a C2Q 6600 @ 3.4ghz vs. E8400 @ 3.6ghz if you intend to keep the processor for a while. So for almost the same price, I see little reason to consider E8400. Very few users here have been able to get it above 3.8ghz either.

The benefit of the C2D over the Quad is the running costs. If you're a gamer mostly, a Quad is an unneccessary luxury, in my opinion, until mainstream games become more adept at utilising multicores.

Not everyone games 24/7. Not everyone pays for electricity costs (student on Rez, utilities are included in rental costs, etc.) Some of us also sell the computer system after - I do. So I know for a fact i'll be able to sell the Quad @ 3.4ghz for more than you can sell an E8400 @ 3.6ghz in 1 year -- so you also need to consider "return of" the investment.

Besides, an old Quad is not going to be as good as a new Quad, and the new Quads are out there for not that much more money at the minute. Give them a while, and they'll come down in price.

Right but most current quads are limited by motherboard FSB. Even if you get them to 3.6ghz, there is hardly any difference between the "new" and "old" quads except in SSE4.1 benches - Q9300 vs. Q6600 - both overclocked

We've had this same argument when A64 4000+ 2.4ghz cost the same as X2 3800+ 2.0ghz in 2006! Now those users with X2 3800+ @ 2.7ghz are still finding it doable to upgrade their graphics card one last time while no one would suggest keeping a64 4000+ @ 3.0ghz.

Let's even consider an example of STOCK speeds where E8400 3.0ghz will have 25-30% performance advantage over Q6600 2.4ghz -- consider A64 4000+ 2.4ghz vs. FX-60 2.0ghz:

COD4 - 1024x768
A64 4000+ 2.4ghz = 45fps
FX-60 2.0ghz Dual = 81fps (+80%)

Crysis - 1024x768
single 2.4 = 22fps
dual 2.0 = 32fps (+45%)

World in Conflict - 1600x1200 Very High
single 2.4 = 10fps
dual 2.0 = 18fps (+80%)
* Of course both of these are unplayable but I bet if you lower the resolution, FX2.0ghz will be able to handle it at least at 1024x768

Bioshock - 1600x1200 High
single 2.4 = 44fps
dual 2.0 = 61fps (+39%)

However, in the worst case you'll be comparing Q6600 3.4ghz to E8400 @ 3.9ghz (thats about 15-20% difference). Or you could end up with Q6600 @ 3.6ghz and E8400 @ 3.8ghz (<10%)

 

[heyheybooboo]

CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors

Bottom Line according to Guru 3d: At higher gaming resolutions it just doesn't matter.

A couple frames per second with the e8400 generally coming out on top with the Phenom 9850be kinda nestled between it and the 'Q'. I dare say that an e7200 (or a X2 5800+ for that matter) would provide excellent gameplay and provide a nice bump in cash toward a better video card.

But I'm a cheap date, anyway ...



(Not an endorsement of anyone who calls themself the 'Guru of 3d' 😛 )

 

[sgrinavi]

I have two q6600's and an e8400, the quad seems to run a bit better in my graphics apps, but for games I don't notice much, if any, difference

If I were just gaming I would stick to the less expensive 8400 until something affordably cool comes along.

 

[OCGuy]

As someone who just went from an overclocked E8400 to the chip in my sig now, I can tell you there is no difference. I am a benchmark whore, and 3dmark likes quads. Yes, its a sickness, I know.

 

[dakels]

I got a Q6600 @ 3.1ghz. Honestly, I would have gotten a duo if I was just gaming (50% of this comp's usage) but I do rendering which makes the quad worthwhile. The value of the quad depends highly on the utilization of the software.

With the E8500 as low as the Q6600 price I would seriously think twice about getting a quad over a duo. If my only load usage was for gaming, then I'd go duo. I'm told the E8500 will easily hit 4ghz+ which just blazes through single and dual threaded apps which most are. I'm having a hard time getting my Q6600 to run stable at the stock speeds of a E8500. Like I said, most apps running single or maybe dual core, it's essentially better to have the higher mhz and cache no?

That's my noob opinion.

Buy.com $193.99 E8500 free shipping