Useless rant about quad vs. dual

[Tempered81]

" well i sold the rig for personal reasons, to get a lappy & head back to school, and to force myself to quit gaming (ut/quake/crysis/cod4).

You know i sold it for 699 too. it was a steal, (e8400 oc'd/8800gt5120c/abitip35e/2gbpc26400/320gbsataII/thermalright ultra 120/dvdrw/cdrw/case/wifi/firewire/lan/wireless/8.1audio etc etc)

I bought an xps m1330. I could do 4500mhz easily. i could probably only pass prime at 4400mhz due to volts & temps. I needed ram that ran stable at 4 4 4 12 or 5 5 5 15 at 500mhz+ i had a VID on my chip of .0937

the abit was okay, i'd reccomend a gigabyte p35-dq6 or ds4 or ds3p/ds4p

what is the new Dfi you're talking about. I know the lanparty p35 UT/ LT/ and blood iron are all 3 excellent, what is that board you speak of?

i tell people i limit my e8400 to this: a maximum 1.45-1.49v vcore idle in cpu-z, or <85C load temps while priming for hours

with good ram i could manage 4500mhz at that on air.

I just never had the ram, and also for the reasons above, i sold out. I still recommend the e8400, as everyone knows it blows the q6600 out of the water, (wether they want to admit it or not - Just like a diesel v8 blows up a huge gasoline v10 or v12 as far as power is concerned)

the e8400 is cheaper than the ANY quad 65nm or 45nm and the quads are fsb limited way lower than the dual penryns. Mark my word, you will see people spend 400-500 dollars on penryn quads and be limited to a 7.5,8,8.5, or 9x multiplier and not be able to pass a 460mhz FSB. The highest air oc's you'll see are going to be ~4ghz on that series (not including the qx) and the cheapass $180 e8400 will be running at 4.3-4.7ghz on air oc's for months before and after that, and still slaughtering the qxxxx in video game benchmarks. Once again quad owners will force themselves to find interest in things like DC and folding because thats where their cpus will have advantage, and justify the costly purchase.



widespread implementation of multithreaded optimized games and apps wont happen for 4 or 5 years and another windows OS release. then i will go quad core on my desktop. for now its useless, funny, and overpriced

if you can afford the top of the line DFI or gigabyte, i would choose it over an ip35, or an asus offering when pairing with a penryn. You're going to need good FSB, good phase power management, and GOOD RAM.

the ip35-e will do it just fine with some pc2-8500 ram( not 4 sticks, just 2) and an e8400

the best part about that is you could outscore a (q9550 oc'd to 4ghz with 8gb of OCZ on a maximus formula) in 3d game FPS benchmarks, and you could do it for about a 3rd of the price.

ip35e- 60
2gb 8500 - 80
e8400 - 200

maximus - 300
q9550 - 500
8gb 0CZ - 250

$340 vs. $1050

either way after you spend 300 or 1000 bucks, < 2 years from now you'll want to upgrade again. In your current pc, when did you buy the cpu, mobo and ram?"


edit: this is the lanparty board
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...043&Tpk=dfi%2bdk%2bp35

 

[WicKeD]

and the cheapass $180 e8400 will be running at 4.3-4.7ghz on air oc's for months before and after that, and still slaughtering the qxxxx in video game benchmarks

Some of us use our pc's for things other than 'video game benchmarks'.

 

[NaOH]

word. I got a 3800x2 awhile back and there are barely anything besides video stuff out now that really uses it to it's full potential. I just upgraded to an e8400. Just going to be playing somes games and small video encoding, no big deal.

 

[sutahz]

I didnt read the whole post, but why the anger? I've seen how dual core beat the Q6600 in game benchmarks, but personally I dont care about your dual core doing 189FPS and my quad doing 156, because I cant tell the difference between 190 and 150FPS. When I got my Quad, the E6600 was 240 and the Q6600 was 280. So basically i bought 1 E6600 @ normal price and got the 2nd for 83.3% off, not bad if you ask me.
You can have your benchmarks, I'll take my good deal (as in my eyes).
Duals can oc better, but I dont need 3.2Ghz, let alone 4GHz.

Why did you sell it for $700, desperation?
"with good ram i could manage 4500mhz at that on air." why didn't you buy DDR-1000?

 

[aigomorla]

uhhh....

why are you making this kind of thread?

Also voltage is way too friggin high for any 45nm chip. You'll kill it from the voltage alone.

1.5Vcore should only be attempted on water or higher because you're 100% gaurentee 10C lower load temp on a decient system. Which translates to doubling the life of the processor.

That still leaves the high voltage in the equation and not heat. Which gives you about the same life as someone whose running a moderate overclock on air.

Dude... wheres the pictures of your prime? I told you 7 hour prime is manditory or you just dont make claims period. 1.5Vcore @ full load @ 7 hours you'll run into hardware error expecially on the IP35-E.

ALSO how did you pull off 1.45V+ CORE on the IP35-E. I gave up on that crap board. I need pictures of you pulling this vcore off. What bios version are you running. And how long did you get it stable.


And dude... you pick processor by application. How many times did i tell you that? Your dualcore cant put out as much as a Quadcore when multithreaded programs come into play.

In otherwords, theres NO FRIGGIN way in hell id run any dualcore processor if i had to use VMWARE or use virtual OS's ect.


And the board i talk about, and everyone talks about when they mention DFI isnt the blood iron.
At least get the boards correct. I told you many many times. It just seems your a bit bitter at your machine and gave up overclocking because you couldnt get the OC you wanted.

DFI LT LP X38-T2R <which i have now and its pretty>

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
And dude... you pick processor by application. How many times did i tell you that?

Word.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
It just seems your a bit bitter at your machine and gave up overclocking because you couldnt get the OC you wanted.

:laugh:

Kinda irks me when fanboys start proclaiming "OMG these chips are GUARANTEED to OC to X.XXGHz!!!111!" Soon after that we start seeing lots of posts from disappointed people - can be various reasons and not necessarily the CPU itself but still we get those posts.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: aigomorla
And dude... you pick processor by application. How many times did i tell you that?

Word.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
It just seems your a bit bitter at your machine and gave up overclocking because you couldnt get the OC you wanted.

:laugh:

Kinda irks me when fanboys start proclaiming "OMG these chips are GUARANTEED to OC to X.XXGHz!!!111!" Soon after that we start seeing lots of posts from disappointed people - can be various reasons and not necessarily the CPU itself but still we get those posts.

reminds me of the first batch of E2160's. Man so many people were disapointed with tem when they could only do like 3.2-3.3ghz at the highest.

And lets not talk about the second gen. E6600's. You know how many people cryed when the old ones were poping 3.6 like it was nothing, then you get a G revision and your capped at 3.4ghz.


Just dont want to see this happen again. It was a mess trying to convince people that ocing is not something thats gaurentee'd.

 

[Idontcare]

This OP is a pretty pathetic attempt at being a fanboy of anything but whiny-ville.

Better chech your "dual-core fanboy" membership card status there Jared, I don't think any good fanclub would accept such a POS attempt to prove themselves as a fanboi of anything.

If I were a conspiracy type person I'd go so far as to suspect you to be a quad-core fanboy acting like a weasle dual-core fanboy merely to make it all the easier to have the dual-core crew all the more readily discredited.

Shrugs...go back to school, let us know when you've seen a little more of the world and come to appreciate that not everyone uses their quad-core CPU for the same applications you used your dual-core chip.

 

[Markfw]

I shouldn't even bother to reply to such a BS post, for all of the above reasons. Just add me to aigomorla, Zap and Idontcare as far as my opinion

(and post count+1 for me is worth more than this thread is worth)

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i agree, hasn't this dual v quad been discussed about 1283781 times before?

 

[Cogman]

Useless rant? Correct.

First off, considering the incentive to start developing multi-threaded apps started when Amd came out with the X2 (2004?) Because Dual Cores became status quo since about 05 I believe developers have started working with a multithreaded mindset since then. With that in mind, these first few games that can completely use a quad core are the first of many. If anything, I see widespread acceptance (or support) being there by the end of this year.

On another note, There are TONS of things you can do with your computer besides games that will more then happily suck up every core you have available (encoding) and give a sizable speed increase with each core added (quads are about twice as fast as dual cores are when encoding)

Epoch Fail.

 

[Ebichan]

He's obviously trolling.

 

[n7]

Wtf.

Are you too naive to realize the benefits of quads?

You know better.

I'll stick with my quad @ 3.5 GHz over an E8400 at ~ 4 GHz, thankyou very much.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Useless rant? Correct.

First off, considering the incentive to start developing multi-threaded apps started when Amd came out with the X2 (2004?) Because Dual Cores became status quo since about 05 I believe developers have started working with a multithreaded mindset since then. With that in mind, these first few games that can completely use a quad core are the first of many. If anything, I see widespread acceptance (or support) being there by the end of this year.

On another note, There are TONS of things you can do with your computer besides games that will more then happily suck up every core you have available (encoding) and give a sizable speed increase with each core added (quads are about twice as fast as dual cores are when encoding)

Epoch Fail.

Multithreading has been around since the 1950s.

Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) rigs with 4 CPUs were developed in the early 60's ...

 

[sandorski]

meh, when Duals came out, the same arguments were made. When Octos come out, the same arguments will be made. 500 years from now when 2 Gigacores replace Gigacore, the same arguments will be made, except some dufus on Mars will spam a bitch slap over the hypernet to everyone who makes the argument! Oh to have a time machine!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: WicKeD
Some of us use our pc's for things other than 'video game benchmarks'.

ZING! :laugh:

Quads have their use.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
e8400, as everyone knows it blows the q6600 out of the water, (wether they want to admit it or not - Just like a diesel v8 blows up a huge gasoline v10 or v12 as far as power is concerned)

the e8400 is cheaper than the ANY quad 65nm or 45nm and the quads are fsb limited way lower than the dual penryns. Mark my word, you will see people spend 400-500 dollars on penryn quads and be limited to a 7.5,8,8.5, or 9x multiplier and not be able to pass a 460mhz FSB. The highest air oc's you'll see are going to be ~4ghz on that series (not including the qx) and the cheapass $180 e8400 will be running at 4.3-4.7ghz on air oc's for months before and after that, and still slaughtering the qxxxx in video game benchmarks. Once again quad owners will force themselves to find interest in things like DC and folding because thats where their cpus will have advantage, and justify the costly purchase.

widespread implementation of multithreaded optimized games and apps wont happen for 4 or 5 years and another windows OS release. then i will go quad core on my desktop. for now its useless, funny, and overpriced

if you can afford the top of the line DFI or gigabyte, i would choose it over an ip35, or an asus offering when pairing with a penryn. You're going to need good FSB, good phase power management, and GOOD RAM.

the best part about that is you could outscore a (q9550 oc'd to 4ghz with 8gb of OCZ on a maximus formula) in 3d game FPS benchmarks, and you could do it for about a 3rd of the price.

1) I'd like to see your E8400 "blow my Q6600 out of the water" at F@H SMP Client PPD.

2) People are mainly going for the Q9450, the same price spot as the Q6600, $266

3) "Good" DDR2-1066 is like $100 for 2GB. Even with DDR2-800, you could hit 3.2GHz with a Q9450.

4) People don't buy quads for gaming (with the exception of SupCom). They buy them for heavy computing (video encoding, photoshop CS3, DC, etc).

But sorry Aigo, you can pull 1.5v on a IP35-E with a E8400 because it has a WATTAGE problem, not a VOLTAGE problem.

(BTW, This thread is SO important to me that I left this reply up for about 12 hours and forgot about it and posting it now, even though it's been stated many times before. I want to hit 1000 before the end of next week so as MarkFW said, +1 POST!)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: sandorski
meh, when Duals came out, the same arguments were made. When Octos come out, the same arguments will be made. 500 years from now when 2 Gigacores replace Gigacore, the same arguments will be made, except some dufus on Mars will spam a bitch slap over the hypernet to everyone who makes the argument! Oh to have a time machine!

That gigacore needs more cowbell.

 

[bharatwaja]

Originally posted by: sandorski
meh, when Duals came out, the same arguments were made. When Octos come out, the same arguments will be made. 500 years from now when 2 Gigacores replace Gigacore, the same arguments will be made, except some dufus on Mars will spam a bitch slap over the hypernet to everyone who makes the argument! Oh to have a time machine!

oh my god! then my plans to buy a 512 mega core CPU in my next life would become outdated pretty soon enough...

LOL good one sandorski!

 

[hans007]

i really dont think the "average user" is going to have any real use for a quad core until 2009 as it is.

sadly i'd consider myself an average user. i have an e4400. it does all the stuff i normally do very fast. i mean i rip an occasional dvd, and play HD movies and such, but i am not a gamer. even if i were a gamer though i think a dual core would probably be "enough" . so basically i figure if you hav ea quad, you better be doing 3d modeling or re-encoding movies constantly or using your machine in an hpc cluster because otherwise for 99% of apps 2 or 3 cores are going to really not be doing much, or maybe giving you a 10-20% benefit. the rest of the time they will be just sitting there doing nothing.

now dont get me wrong i can see the benefit of multiple cores, and with the 45nm penryn generation they are power efficient enough that just having them sit there on the "Bench" (im thinking sports terms) doesnt seem so bad. but until apps really catch up to take advantage and we are all streaming hd video to our tvs wirelessly (and im sure some are) i think its more a luxury than anything.

whats sad is i code multithreaded apps at work. a dual core cpu has more than enough power to do almost anything except raelly compute intensive stuff. and its very very hard to take advantage of 4 different cores ... its hard to parallelize a lot of things. and well rendering frames or video seem like they would be some of the easiest so until everything in our computer is arendered frame or in super HD quality at 9000p resolution the mainstream market for quad will be small. even intel agrees.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: hans007
i really dont think the "average user" is going to have any real use for a quad core until 2009 as it is.

sadly i'd consider myself an average user. i have an e4400. it does all the stuff i normally do very fast. i mean i rip an occasional dvd, and play HD movies and such, but i am not a gamer. even if i were a gamer though i think a dual core would probably be "enough" . so basically i figure if you hav ea quad, you better be doing 3d modeling or re-encoding movies constantly or using your machine in an hpc cluster because otherwise for 99% of apps 2 or 3 cores are going to really not be doing much, or maybe giving you a 10-20% benefit. the rest of the time they will be just sitting there doing nothing.

now dont get me wrong i can see the benefit of multiple cores, and with the 45nm penryn generation they are power efficient enough that just having them sit there on the "Bench" (im thinking sports terms) doesnt seem so bad. but until apps really catch up to take advantage and we are all streaming hd video to our tvs wirelessly (and im sure some are) i think its more a luxury than anything.

whats sad is i code multithreaded apps at work. a dual core cpu has more than enough power to do almost anything except raelly compute intensive stuff. and its very very hard to take advantage of 4 different cores ... its hard to parallelize a lot of things. and well rendering frames or video seem like they would be some of the easiest so until everything in our computer is arendered frame or in super HD quality at 9000p resolution the mainstream market for quad will be small. even intel agrees.

See, that was actually a good argument for Dual Core processors over Quad Core, without all the hate. It actually made some sort of sense.

I also don't see a need for Quad Core yet, and even for multithreaded apps, you do have multiple cores; just half of them. I haven't had any noticable slowdowns with my computer, and I have a slow dual core processor. That being said, I wouldn't mind having a quad core, and might buy one when I build a new computer. It would just be to have the extra cores IF I ever needed them, as long as it doesn't come at too much of a price premium.

 

[The-Noid]

I hope you are going to school for English and that is what you bought the laptop for.

Your post may be the most poorly worded, poorly constructed post I have ever seen on Anandtech.

 

[Amaroque]

To the OP: If you only use your PC for games, you should have bought a game console. You could have saved a lot of money, and spent it on more games...

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: PCTC2

But sorry Aigo, you can pull 1.5v on a IP35-E with a E8400 because it has a WATTAGE problem, not a VOLTAGE problem.

(BTW, This thread is SO important to me that I left this reply up for about 12 hours and forgot about it and posting it now, even though it's been stated many times before. I want to hit 1000 before the end of next week so as MarkFW said, +1 POST!)

LOL... im not saying its not possible.

I want to know how he did it, because i couldnt get mine to work.

So i want to know what he did to get it to work to see if i can jump start this eyesore back to life.

 

[richwenzel]

aigo, i wouldn't begin to challenge your knowledge on pcs....(well, i dont know how old you are, my knowledge of odyssey2 and ti 99/4a is U83/2 l33+, well, not really, but i had them...)

however, the abit ip35-e is blue with nice big blue heatsinks...

i won't say you are wrong that the board is crap, but it is not a definitely an eyesore..in fact i think it looks pretty nice aethestically speaking...

i would say the ip35-v is a massive eyesore...