Qx6800 or X6800?

[Isaac_MM]

Which one is better for gaming? I was thinking of buying X6800 but since Qx6800 is going to be released soon will the X6800 drop a lot on price?

 

[RichPLS]

either is overkill, and not needed, especially if you know elementary mild OC'ng results and reliability.

 

[Wylkell]

I would imagine you would see almost no speed difference between the two since most games dont use a dual core, much less a quad core. Down the road... who knows. depends on how long your going to hold onto the system. Eventually it'll be faster, when games utilize more then 2 cores.

 

[Isaac_MM]

Any idea on how much X6800 will drop on price when Qx6800 is released?

 

[Grimmy]

If I remember correctly its 40% off on the high end, and 20% off on low end.

So if it cost around $950 (X6800) now, it should drop somewhere around $570.

 

[darkstar782]

I think you'll find the x6800 will not drop - it will be replaced with an e6800.

The e6800 will drop, but will have a locked multiplier.

 

[darkstar782]

a native quad will almost always consistanly beat a dual die quad, even if the dual die has a better overall architecture.

Based upon what info?

Depending on how the application is threaded, its entirely possible that the cores at no point need to share any data and will thus gain no benefit from being a native core.

Hell, there is evidence to suggest that even in a Core 2 Duo the two cores (which of course share a die) communicate over the FSB, anandtech did a thing on it on C2D's release.

Hell, Smithfield P4 was a single "native dual core" die, and Presler outperforms it.

 

[ches111]

Wylkell,

Care to substantiate your claims?

I would imagine you would see almost no speed difference between the two since most games dont use a dual core, much less a quad core. Down the road... who knows. depends on how long your going to hold onto the system. Eventually it'll be faster, when games utilize more then 2 cores.

It would seem that the Valve Team and the UT Engine folks would be right now MTing their engines. Hmmmmm.

First:

UT LINK

Second:

Valve Stuff

To the OP:

I most certainly would look hard at the quad. Please review many of the quad vs double vs single core threads here and I think you will find accurate/linked information which might steer you toward a quad.

 

[ches111]

Tacos,

Shame on you

You should know that based upon processor affinity you can in fact not only overcome issues known to four cores sharing a single shared cache over two dual cores sharing two shared caches.

Give me a few minutes and I can produce the linkage for ya

 

[ches111]

Linkage as promised:

ddj article

 

[ches111]

I understand that the Barcelona will have a separate L2 and it shares on the L3 thanks much for that ....

And for the OP....

Forum Entry -- started by me about this very issue.

By the way has absolutely nothing to do with AMD vs. Intel.

 

[ches111]

Tacos,

Don't get me wrong ... I do NOT think that cache is the end all beat all...

I was simply stating that the dual dual core on single die vs native quad is not so much an issue as folks would like to make it out to be.

 

[ches111]

Tacos,

Cache and Cache sizing are only as good as the arch that is using them.

You can have a huge cache and still not see the performance gains (P4/PD anyone?).

The creative/effective use of branch prediction and prefetchers can make a smaller cache more desirable over a larger less efficient cache arch.

 

[apache_lives]

Which one is better for gaming? I was thinking of buying X6800 but since Qx6800 is going to be released soon will the X6800 drop a lot on price?

does the Qx6800 feature a 1333mhz FSB? perhaps that holds the slightest edge?

 

[ches111]

We should all buy ten of these:

Cough Cough Cough

 

[ches111]

Tacos,

What makes you think the average user will NOT use 3mb of cache per core?

Just curious as to why you would make such a statement.

The way I see it even reviewing photos off of a 6MP Camera could possibly cause the cache to fill.. And if you are doing other things too.... Surely you do not think that if they have a larger cache that they will NOT push more onto it in everyday work?

 

[ches111]

Tacos,

It was a joke... You know those right

That was the reason for the Cough Cough Cough....

I do not see anyone real soon paying 54K for ten PCs...

Strange thing is they will get people who will buy them 8O 8O 8O

 

[darious00777]

but if I recall correctly, the 4mb over 2mb cache in conroes was less than 6%, and I am really wondering if it will show any gains at all

It was about 3.5% difference.

So, not much difference. Makes me wonder why stockpile cache on a chip... 8O

Hybrid CPUs for Vista, maybe? Give it that little bit more memory holding power, right on the CPU. :lol:

 

[Wylkell]

Wylkell,

Care to substantiate your claims?

If i really need to, i'll go get some benchmarks that show games with a quad core and dual core setup. Most of the THG benchmarks for those show the dual core extreme actually performing better in some cases (a fault with the code of teh application to be sure). And yes, most game companies (especially the ones that make engines) are scrambling to get multi-threaded support into thier systems, but i never said they weren't. i said most all of todays games and probably most of tomorrow's games will probably not see a difference between dual and quad setups (or will see negilible differences). Even some applications that are "patched" for dual core setups still arn't capable of running quad core setups in true multi-threading because they are still linear in code and just have the second proc do some side work via static calls in the code-base itself.

So if he's sitting here and looking at price differences and wondering what kind of performance difference he is going to see from those two CPU's, the answer is 'not alot', in most situations for the immediate future. That's why i said it would depend on how long he planned on keeping his proc. If only for a year, i wouldn't bother. For longer then 2, the quad is a good investment.

All of that said, my next CPU (which i'll probably buy in the next month or two) will be a quad core of some kind. Not because i'll go so much faster then a dual core person in an application/game, but that in a year or two my processor will be faster and i'll have less of a need to upgrade it at that time.