Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X6800 better for gaming then the QX6700 + No Prices Drops?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Benchmark
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 11, 2007 7:39:02 AM

After reading this and seeing some of the bench marks:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

I'm actually thinking about changing my mind about getting the QX6700. The X6800 did very well in the gaming side, especially in BF2 [I also do other things beside gaming like photoshop and stuff.]. Would it be better to get the QX6700 and just overclock it just a little and get the best of both worlds? Also, it says that the QX6700 and X6800 are Not gonna come down in price when their price drops come out like April 22nd, is this also true?

More about : x6800 gaming qx6700 prices drops

April 11, 2007 7:55:19 AM

Why not just wait a few weeks for the price cuts and get an E6600? Nearly all of the performance for a fraction of the price.
April 11, 2007 8:00:13 AM

the quad core is better.... a special game that will run at max settings only on a quad core will be alan wake.. and i think crysis too, in the near future the quad core will unleash his power ... take the quad core !
Related resources
April 11, 2007 8:02:38 AM

Quote:
the quad core is better.... a special game that will run at max settings only on a quad core will be alan wake.. and i think crysis too, in the near future the quad core will unleash his power ... take the quad core !


Question is Which Quad core :p 


I have over $3000 saved up, so it's not like i can't get one with the new computer i'm gonna be getting but it is always nice to save a little $$$.
April 11, 2007 8:09:18 AM

i'll buy an q6600 and overclock it to 3ghz.... i dont have the money for a better one , but with a good cooler you will be able to have the performance of an qx6700-6800 with less money.
April 11, 2007 8:24:38 AM

Wait for the April price cuts, and then get the Q6600 with maybe an R600/8800 Ultra (?).

Quote:
i'll buy an q6600 and overclock it to 3ghz.... i dont have the money for a better one , but with a good cooler you will be able to have the performance of an qx6700-6800 with less money.


There is absolutely NO REASON to overclock a Q6600, especially for gaming purposes.
April 11, 2007 8:32:11 AM

Quote:
the quad core is better.... a special game that will run at max settings only on a quad core will be alan wake.. and i think crysis too, in the near future the quad core will unleash his power ... take the quad core !


Evidence?
April 11, 2007 9:06:05 AM

Quote:
Wait for the April price cuts, and then get the Q6600 with maybe an R600/8800 Ultra (?).

i'll buy an q6600 and overclock it to 3ghz.... i dont have the money for a better one , but with a good cooler you will be able to have the performance of an qx6700-6800 with less money.


There is absolutely NO REASON to overclock a Q6600, especially for gaming purposes.

Heard of Supreme Commander? ;) 

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiws...

Anyway, to the OP, I would get a Q6600 for $530 after the April 22 price drop. You should be able to overclock it to 3.2GHz+ with decent cooling.

As they say, you can always overclock the CPU but you can't add more cores. ;) 
April 11, 2007 9:06:36 AM

As time goes on, more and more developers are going to utilize multi-core designs. Games such as Supreme Commander are already perfectly capable of using 4 cores. Half Life 2 episode 2 will also utilize quad core. I would get the quad.
April 11, 2007 9:23:45 AM

With all due respect, what you've said is pretty vague and trivially true. Any old idiot could write something that 'uses' 4 cores. Doesn't mean it's going to actually help. The question is _when_ will it actually make a difference? This is all about how the game is programmed, and thus we have to look at each one individually.

If these games fully use 4 cores, I'd like to see the evidence. Most importantly, I'd like to see what difference it made over 2 cores.

There've been many threads here where the conclusion is the same: quad-core gaming isn't here yet, and it's far from clear when it will be. Even early adopters such as Valve haven't shown us any real evidence yet, but a couple of highly specific benchmarks that cover a couple of minor in-game effects. They don't tell us a lot, basically.

Until there is some evidence, I don't see what right people have to go around recommending quads to gamers. I think the best advice right now is, if you have to build, build something cheap and get the fastest memory. Then, in a year or two (when quads might actually be useful to you), upgrade to Yorkfield, say. Hopefully, this won't involve changing the mobo.

Also, it was The Inquirer who reported that Alan Wake and Crysis will properly use quad-core. I think I'd rather not take their word for it.
April 11, 2007 9:41:43 AM

Quote:
With all due respect, what you've said is pretty vague and trivially true. Any old idiot could write something that 'uses' 4 cores. Doesn't mean it's going to actually help. The question is _when_ will it actually make a difference? This is all about how the game is programmed, and thus we have to look at each one individually.

If these games fully use 4 cores, I'd like to see the evidence. Most importantly, I'd like to see what difference it made over 2 cores.

There've been many threads here where the conclusion is the same: quad-core gaming isn't here yet, and it's far from clear when it will be. Even early adopters such as Valve haven't shown us any real evidence yet, but a couple of highly specific benchmarks that cover a couple of minor in-game effects. They don't tell us a lot, basically.

Until there is some evidence, I don't see what right people have to go around recommending quads to gamers. I think the best advice right now is, if you have to build, build something cheap and get the fastest memory. Then, in a year or two (when quads might actually be useful to you), upgrade to Yorkfield, say. Hopefully, this won't involve changing the mobo.

Also, it was The Inquirer who reported that Alan Wake and Crysis will properly use quad-core. I think I'd rather not take their word for it.


Dude... read my post... and follow the link... I hate quoting myself.

Granted, Supreme Commander is *the* first game that can truly take advantage of quad core, but it's a start, and many will follow...
April 11, 2007 9:47:08 AM

This is embarrassing (for you). Your own link made my point!!!

Quote:
First of all under Windows Vista all four cores are not fully utilized. In fact, only one core is doing most of the work, the other three are being utilized, but only at most half of each. This means there still seems to be some room for efficiency improvements in providing some positive results utilizing each core for better gameplay. Under Windows XP it seems to be even less efficient, one of the cores is almost doing nothing for this game, while the one is doing a little bit more and another is about 50% loaded. This seems to show that Windows Vista is taking better advantage of all four cores, but is still not close to its best potential.


So, where's the evidence that quad-core is going to yield performance benefits before, say, 2009?

Until you've got some evidence, STFU.
April 11, 2007 10:11:37 AM

Hmmmm... I have no idea what to get lol Has anyone on this board gone from a Core 2 Duo to a Quad and notice a big difference in gaming, etc?
April 11, 2007 10:52:01 AM

IF you're a heavy photoshop user, you'll see a big difference. On that point alone, it's probably worth going for a quad core.

I'm certainly not opposed to getting one; I just don't like people making out that it's soooo worth it for games. It isn't yet. Probably will be in a year or two, but then you've got to ask yourself whether it's better to buy something decent and cheap now, and then upgrade in a year or so when better tech comes out.

At the moment, I think it makes a lot of sense to wait for Agena to come out before buying a quad-core. Maybe Yorkfield, but that's a few months off still. Depends on how much you can stand waiting, and there's always something better round the corner so at some point you just have to take the plunge.
April 11, 2007 11:45:52 AM

Look, forgive me for being rather vague, but I didn't feel like typing an epic on the topic at 5 in the morning. Here's an article showing just how much Supreme Commander benefits from 4 cores:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html

Now, any old idiot can rightfully expect that any game built to utilize 4 cores will benefit along similar lines. The fact that Valve is utilizing heavily-multithreaded code for Ep. 2 has been common knowledge for months. These, of course, are only the beginning. 4 cores also help increase frame rates in non-multithreaded games if users have lots of background apps running.

And to the OP, Intel never drops prices on its extreme models, just doesn't happen.
April 11, 2007 12:48:03 PM

Thanks. Do you know what the numbers mean? Are they framerates?

43 compared to 38 for a doubling of cores (admittedly at a lower clock)... And that's if you happen to have an 8800gtx so that the video card isn't the bottleneck. Not exactly mind-blowing is it? And this is a beast of a game, as well, that is about as CPU intensive as anything that's on the horizon. So, if it's the beginning, the beginning of what? This is a feckin hefty game engine that almost all other games will not come close to, and even then it doesn't boast impressive performance gains.

And no, not "any old idiot can rightfully expect that any game built to utilize 4 cores will benefit along similar lines". That's true of what idiots are thinking; but they are not right to think so. It depends on how the game is programmed. Just 'using' 4 cores is absolutely irrelevant. The point is whether it really helps.

I don't see that anyone is in a position to claim that Valve have demonstrated this, or even be confident that they will. If HL2 turns out to yield impressive benefits, I will eat lots of humble pie. I will definitely be wrong then. But show me the money! Until then, it's FUD.
April 11, 2007 2:46:47 PM

So now I'm an idiot? I don't see how. A 20% increase clock-for-clock is certainly nothing to sneeze at, in fact, I would go so far as to say that, yes, it is impressive. Granted, it's one game, definately the exception and not the rule at this point, but the fact remains that this is the direction in which the developer community is moving, and they're moving more rapidly than I suspect you think. As early as the end of next year, most big-name games will benefit markedly from multiple cores. If one's goal is to build as future-proof a computer as possible, why then should one forego purchasing a quad-core? Granted, there are newer, faster quads currently in development, and in most respects a dual core of the same clockspeed will beat a quad by a slight margin, the fact remains that new titles are increasingly multithreaded.

If a game is designed to utilize 4 cores, than trying to run it with only 2 should impede its performance by some margin. Q.E.D. You seem to be the only one that doesn't take this fact for granted.

Here's a nice overview of the improvements being made to the Source engine by Valve. You should find it informative.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxNywyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
April 11, 2007 3:04:20 PM

Quote:
So now I'm an idiot? I don't see how. A 20% increase clock-for-clock is certainly nothing to sneeze at, in fact, I would go so far as to say that, yes, it is impressive. Granted, it's one game, definately the exception and not the rule at this point, but the fact remains that this is the direction in which the developer community is moving, and they're moving more rapidly than I suspect you think. As early as the end of next year, most big-name games will benefit markedly from multiple cores. If one's goal is to build as future-proof a computer as possible, why then should one forego purchasing a quad-core? Granted, there are newer, faster quads currently in development, and in most respects a dual core of the same clockspeed will beat a quad by a slight margin, the fact remains that new titles are increasingly multithreaded.

If a game is designed to utilize 4 cores, than trying to run it with only 2 should impede its performance by some margin. Q.E.D. You seem to be the only one that doesn't take this fact for granted.

Here's a nice overview of the improvements being made to the Source engine by Valve. You should find it informative.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxNywyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


No, you're not an idiot. Far from it. I'm only calling people idiots if they think that the mere fact of using 4 cores is supposed to tell us anything. What you've pointed to is a case where it actually makes a difference. Have you seen this link on Supreme Commander? - http://www.behardware.com/articles/660-3/supreme-comman...

It demonstrates that there is a significant benefit moving from 2 to 3 cores. It's not to be sniffed at, I agree. 20% benefit seems to be about right if you look at the 'simulation time'. But the same point still holds: this is a CPU (and memory) beast, and it isn't at all clear any other games on the horizon will surpass it in terms of beastiness. So is there any financial incentive for a developer to put money into fine-threading?

I've seen the Valve stuff. I just don't think it's terribly informative. In fact, it looks distinctly like a hardware site has just decorated the front of their underpants because Valve gave them some marketing spiele.
April 11, 2007 6:13:32 PM

I found the Valve stuff pretty informative, some of it is common sense, such as multi-threading the physics, but multi-threaded AI could be quite promising. The benchmarks aren't anything special, as they simply prove what one could already guess, but I don't see why Valve would go to the trouble of touting these claims for only their own benefit. I find it pretty hard to believe that they would lie, especially when that lie could be disproven so easily.

I guess I just don't understand why you seem so passionately anti-quad. You seem kind of unreasonable about the whole thing.
April 11, 2007 6:48:00 PM

So it's really not worth getting it? This is what it would like like if I did with the rest of the stuff im getting:



I'm gonna be price matching another site and Save a few hundread so don't worry about those prices. Also i'm not gonna be getting the 8800gtx, i'll be getting the Newer Nvidia one or the R600.
April 11, 2007 7:41:48 PM

No, we just have different standards...

I think very expensive equipment stands in need of a big justification in the real world. So, I would think about getting the e6400 (or the e6420 once it comes out), which is 25% of the cost of the quad, and even on Supreme Commander, would be able to attain 80% performance, and very close to 100% (maybe even more) on any other game.

It's hard not to get pissy at people when they come along and make like it's a no-brainer to buy a quad-core. Just like those who want you to get the most ridiculous memory under the sun, when the reality is that the performance doesn't justify the cost.

And that's when they say, oh, but it will... Oh yes... it will. It's hard to argue with soothsaying...

I'm not criticising without providing an alternative. The fact is that an overclocked e6400 platform with one 8800gtx will cope with anything (and then some). If you want to spend more, put it in a bank account, and spend it in a year or two's time!

And where the hell did I accuse Valve of lying? No. They just gave out some marketing crap, and people bought it hook line and sinker. The fact is that they haven't _said_ anything.
April 11, 2007 7:43:36 PM

Why not get the QX6800, it's the same price, and further optimized. The QX6800, unlike some of the earlier quads, tends to outperform its dual-core rival clock-for-clock even in single-threaded apps.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

I really think the quad-core is worth getting, especially if you want your computer to be competitive 2+ years down the road. Apps that truly take advantage of quad-cores are few and far between now outside of video/audio, but it's definately something on the horizon.
April 11, 2007 7:49:23 PM

It's clear that this person wants the best, and settling for a mid-range CPU would be pointless. Sure, the E6400 is a super CPU, but it's not top-of-the-line by any measurement. It's also clear that enthusiast computing is beyond your realm of understanding. Some people buy Maybachs. My Camry gets there and back just the same, and costs 10% as much. The Maybach doesn't outperform it by 90% by any quantified measurement, but some people still buy them.....

Your logic is sound, I'm certainly not going to argue that, but when someone wants the best available today, let them get it. It's good for the economy and hopefully intel will roll some of the money back into R&D so ordinary folks like me and you can buy good procs like 6400's at great prices.
April 11, 2007 7:54:29 PM

It's your money, dude. If you want to spend that much, go ahead. But here's what I would say.

1) SLi is a big waste of money. Therefore, you don't need a 680i. A P5B Deluxe is fine. A P5N-E Sli is fine. I personally like the look of the new 650i ultra boards coming out.
2) Quad-core probably ain't worth it yet. Get an e6400 (or wait for the e6420) and overclock it.
3) The thermalright ultra extreme 120 is a better cooler. In fact, it's ridiculously good.

Everything else I would be happy with, personally. But you should be able to build something just as good for c. $2400. Take that dosh, put it in an account, and then buy a Yorkfield when the time is right. Then, if the mobo needs updating, you won't be that upset because it cost $150, not $310.

But, it's really is your choice. Do you think you'll need quad core in the next year or so? Do you want that extra 20% on SC?
April 11, 2007 7:55:06 PM

Oh, and OP, those prices seem really inflated, is that CD? I don't see a good CPU cooler mentioned either, get one. Thermalright 120, Big Typhoon, Scythe Ninja, Tuniq Tower, or something similar. They're all roughly 50 bucks. Also, Hitatchi recently released a 1TB drive that's nearly on par with the Raptor when it comes to real-world apps, that might be worth looking into as well, as it will run circles around the seagates.
April 11, 2007 7:57:24 PM

I have the Zalman on there, i think its a good one, isn't it? lol
April 11, 2007 8:02:33 PM

Quote:
It's good for the economy and hopefully intel will roll some of the money back into R&D so ordinary folks like me and you can buy good procs like 6400's at great prices.


I think that this is called a desperate measure. The economy!!!

The e6420 will be top of the line if you OC, simply because it should OC exactly like the e6400 and will have the cache.

THAT is what being an enthusiast is about. If you must have car analogies, the enthusiast is the person who mods their car so it races like a beast but costs f'all.

Think of it like this: whatever argument you can give about it being worth it for the future, I can respond with "Fine, buy that when it will really pay off with the money you've just saved". Remember that new tech comes out and makes your cutting edge machine look rather paltry very quickly. If you want a blingin' machine, therefore, you're better off spending less and spending more often. The upshot of this line of reasoning is: don't get a quad core (yet).
April 11, 2007 8:05:27 PM

Anyway, I must say I've enjoyed this exchange. You know your stuff, and I respect your opinion. To repeat, I certainly don't think you're an idiot. My only slightly disparaging comment would be that you seem to buy the propaganda a bit too easily.

Enter the curmudgeon... (me)
April 11, 2007 8:35:45 PM

if you can afford a quad core go for it, more power has never hurt anybody.
April 11, 2007 8:38:39 PM

Quote:
It's your money, dude. If you want to spend that much, go ahead. But here's what I would say.

1) SLi is a big waste of money. Therefore, you don't need a 680i. A P5B Deluxe is fine. A P5N-E Sli is fine. I personally like the look of the new 650i ultra boards coming out.
2) Quad-core probably ain't worth it yet. Get an e6400 (or wait for the e6420) and overclock it.
3) The thermalright ultra extreme 120 is a better cooler. In fact, it's ridiculously good.

Everything else I would be happy with, personally. But you should be able to build something just as good for c. $2400. Take that dosh, put it in an account, and then buy a Yorkfield when the time is right. Then, if the mobo needs updating, you won't be that upset because it cost $150, not $310.

But, it's really is your choice. Do you think you'll need quad core in the next year or so? Do you want that extra 20% on SC?



Agree on #1,

Partially agree on #2. I'd argue to go e4300 come April 22... difference in performance, when O'C is almost nill vs. 6400. That is, if you want to go the price vs. performance route.

HOWEVER, this person wants to buy the BEST processor. Therefore, Q6700 is the best one for top performance and future proofing. If you want to save some $$ go Q6600.

Yeah, who cares that the most popular games coming out will support mulitcore??? You won't see a difference on your 2006/2007 games. :roll:
April 12, 2007 12:09:02 AM

Man, I've already made my argument (which you've ignored):

Supreme commander is about as hefty as its going to get with regards CPU. It's very much like Oblivion outdoors is to graphics. If a quarter-price dual core can do the job perfectly respectably, then what's the point? Remember that all that happens is the simulation time gets slightly longer. It's a strategy game. It's not going to be a PITA like lower framerates on a FPS.

'Futureproofing' is a fools' errand. The best way to 'futureproof' is to react to future tech as it happens, and not blow your wad every time someone issues a press release saying how great such-and-such will be.

But hell, you can get the BEST in capital letters if you wish. I'm just saying that a more sensible strategy, that will yield you better performance in line with the games as they come out, is to go with price/performance near the top end and upgrade as needs be.

And no amount of rolly eyes will dismiss that argument!
April 12, 2007 1:38:13 AM

Ok, well, "enthusiast" was a bad word choice on my part, how about connoisseur? The connoisseur would want the absolute best regardless of the cost. It may not be entirely practical, but it does provide results, just not a good cost/performance curve.

Futureproofing also isn't entirely in vain, my definition of "Futureproofing" would be: Can this machine run top-end games well in 2.5 years, albeit with some bells and whistles turned off. 2 and a half seems a reasonable lifespan for a gaming computer to be competitive. Some things like DX10 may come along and throw a wrench into it, but you get the idea.

I also find it hard to believe that Sup Com is as rough as it will get. I know you didn't mean this literally, but obviously it's not true. FPS's may soon be using the same amount of CPU resources, especially as AI, 3D sound, and physics become threaded. It's only a matter of time.

I also have enjoyed this exchange, you've made some very good points, and I hope my counter-points were enough to develop an alternative viewpoint. I may be optomistic, but you have a sort of crusty, "get-off-my-damn-lawn" vibe....hahaha.
April 12, 2007 1:52:12 AM

But that doesn't give us a solid time line or a concrete standard.
April 12, 2007 1:59:14 AM

Does anything in God's Green Earth have a solid timeline and concrete standards? Besides of course the phenomena of you showing up in threads randomly and posting sarcastic comments?
April 12, 2007 2:03:30 AM

Most of the time, when speaking about a technological advance where I'd be expected to spend money, yes, I do expect a concrete timeline and a solid definition of what will be implemented. As a person who ends up being an unwilling beta tester, I don't think its too much to ask when I'm paying the money.

*Diplomatically ignores second question since you're not worth the fight*
April 12, 2007 2:33:00 AM

Hahaha, ouch, touche... I was just messing with you. I didn't put up the article to give timeframes or such, simply, there are none. I just thought it would be an interesting read for those who don't have a good grasp on how games can be manipulated to take advantage of the cores. There's no timeframe for when a quad-core will be "mainstream," though it would be foolish to argue that it will never be thus, given the direction the major CPU producers have chosen. Game developers will undoubtably follow the CPU producers and take advantage of what performance benefits future design allows. I think 2 years is a safe bet for when heavily multithreaded apps become commonplace. Sorry I can't be more certain, but I don't design CPU's or apps, so my control on the whole situation is understandably limited.
April 12, 2007 3:03:42 AM

Which enforces the point being made about quad cores being, well, a unnecessary expense for anyone looking to do primarily gaming. If the person is running heavy apps though, then the justification factor jumps.

*shrugs*

Of course, if you've got money to burn...
April 12, 2007 8:53:34 AM

Well, if that's true (that even FPSs will be CPU demanding than SupCom), then we're going to see plenty of justification for quad-core. The FPS is typically the driving force for new hardware in PC games, no? (Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Call of Duty, Far Cry, Half-Life 2, FEAR, who knows maybe Crysis? I remember trying to play Half-Life on a computer with integrated graphics back in 2001. Oh dear, it wasn't nice.)

So if they turn out to be really CPU-needy...

I wonder how much more complicated they can make the game engines, though. As I see it, the trouble with AI programming is not processing power, but writing realistic algorithms. I guess it opens up the possibility of writing very complicated algorithms that react to more variables, but this won't guarantee anything. I think it more likely that we'll see incremental changes to AI in game engines but it will get run in a different thread. The upshot will not be much quad-core takeup, but enough to boast that it 'utilises quad-core'. The marketing boys will be happy, and it won't take too much extra time.

That'd be my guess.
April 12, 2007 9:24:19 AM

Well, the problem with AI is that it's kinda self-limiting. You can do whatever you want with it, but you have to take the time to program it. The more "intense" you want it to be, the more time you have to invest. Though I have no doubt it will be threaded in the future, I was thinking that physics would be the more demanding of the two. In essence, the code for physics has already been "written", as in the laws are constant, and it's only a matter of applying them to the game engine. That's one of the things that makes Sup Com so CPU intensive, all the projectiles and missiles and etc having thier flight-paths computed in those big battles. Now imagine a FPS when nearly everything on the screen has physics applied to it.
April 12, 2007 11:13:16 AM

Quote:
X6800 better for gaming then the QX6700 + No Prices Drop

Dual core be min e6600 (2x2.4) best price ver performace (can be overclocked very well past 3ghz quite easy)

or the QX6700 (4x2.66) (same price as an x6800 2x2.93) that should be overclocked to at least 3ghz once installed so it that is faster then an x6800 when running single or 2 threaded programs or games (that seemed to easly to respond to)

at this time there is only 1 game that supports more then 2 cpus thats Supream commander (at this time of posting mite not be right tho)
maybe half life source as well but thats limited in the way it works
there are about 5-7 games that are Dual threaded (use 2 cpus no more)
and just about every other game is single threded (BF2,2142)

as long as you bump that qx6700 up to 3ghz (just set the CPU ratio 1x more) it's faster then an x6800 then

on an small water cooling set up we had it at 3.6ghz {QX6700} should see the score you get on 3dmark 06 {17k Dual 8800GTX SLI} 8800/r600 are CPU bound on DX9

Most type video edting will go fast on Quad core (as long as the codec is 4 way threaded it use all of them)

Quote:
read on if you wish


http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2963 << is an better link as it puts every thing on one page (wish tomshardware could do this as well)

Vista+Gameing+2gb.ram=Hdd pageing on high In game settings (bf2 one e.g.)
i tryed you need 3gb ram or 4gb for match ram 4x1gb

Dual boot XP Vista as i am {install XP in first disk unplug it then install Vista on other disk then just use bios to pick with disk to boot from}

Supreme commander is unstable on Vista (2gb ram passing bug Sup com bug tho on Vista only)
any dx9 game runs slower on vista or do not work as intended, then XP

i recommend Not useing Corsair as there new line stuff does not work with asus motherboards well, me on AMD and my firend on Intel side sometimes cant boot and some times unstable system this is an common theme on asus fourms (system is stable with older Corsair stuff as that was Nvidia SLI-Cert)
April 12, 2007 12:55:04 PM

Quote:
Man, I've already made my argument (which you've ignored):

Supreme commander is about as hefty as its going to get with regards CPU. It's very much like Oblivion outdoors is to graphics. If a quarter-price dual core can do the job perfectly respectably, then what's the point? Remember that all that happens is the simulation time gets slightly longer. It's a strategy game. It's not going to be a PITA like lower framerates on a FPS.

'Futureproofing' is a fools' errand. The best way to 'futureproof' is to react to future tech as it happens, and not blow your wad every time someone issues a press release saying how great such-and-such will be.

But hell, you can get the BEST in capital letters if you wish. I'm just saying that a more sensible strategy, that will yield you better performance in line with the games as they come out, is to go with price/performance near the top end and upgrade as needs be.

And no amount of rolly eyes will dismiss that argument!


Hahaha... in one breath your saying that we have no evidence that 4 core games are going mainstream (despite us providing links to the major software engines that state they will embrace it)....

and in the other breath, you're wildly speculating that Supreme Commander is as intensive as it will get for CPUs in games...

I do agree, I'd save some $$ and go dual for now... but this person wants top end. You cannot deny that a dual 6800 is a waste of money when you can get a Quad 6700 with near similar performance (in games) and future proofing.
April 13, 2007 4:07:58 AM

hmm, this has been an interesting thread to read. Getting ready to build a new PC and money is more of an issue these days for me than in the past so it's really hard for me to figure out what to get. Part of me wants the biggest baddest, but part of me wants to go a couple steps down for price efficiency. I've built enough Ultra Mecha Super God computers to know what a complete waste of money they are and are mostly only good for temporary bragging rights. But it is fun to enjoy their benefits and the somewhat future-proofness that may last some few months past what a more economical choice may yield.

My decision on Quad vs Dual core has been decided on this thread easily enough because of my absolute love for the Half Life series and Valve group. So I'll happily make the plunge to Quad Core if they're going that route (even if Ep2 doesnt make it, the next episodes surely will) (other factors include other reviews based on app performance)

But the next step I'm faced with is the QX6600, QX6700, or the QX6800.
I'll happily rule out the QX6800 because of cost factor and the underdeveloped state it's been released in.

It's kind of a tough call for me... it really shouldn't be though. Both are very high end but one is about half the price (or will be April 22 supposedly) so it seems the more practical approach would be for the QX6600. Either route would be overclocked fully as I have a nice LCS lined up so I can't say I could just overclock the lower model to match the upper one. But rationally I can conclude with the savings I could essentially PAY FOR a $500 setup of a Case, Very Good LCS, and sweet accessories. I really dont have 500 Bucks to toss away so readily these days so I guess the 6600 really will be my decided chip.

BTW:
After researching lowest prices this is what I came up with tonight
QX6600 $629 now $530 April 22 if its true
QX6700 $967 (no price drop I'm aware of)
QX6800 $1323 ('')

Next tough decision for me is the GFX cards. I'm almost completely certain I want the eVGA 6800GTX (lowest price found $509) and I think I'm stubborn enough to stick to that (It's been a tough call since I got settled with ATI for so long) But what I'm torn between is to dual or not to dual. The comment saying "SLI is a waste of money" kind took me aback. I'm not opposed to saving the extra 500 but I have been looking forward to really setting my HL2 and other newest greatest games on full throttle. Deciding dual or not also affects my MB selection, which I had been decided for the 680i after the glowing reviews here at tom's hardware and true dual x16... I realize I can't have someone else make the decision for me but I'd like to interrupt this thread here to ask for some pointers.
April 13, 2007 5:02:04 AM

Damnit... lol on second thought I still have no freaking clue what I'm getting, be it chip, GPU, or MB... no freakin clue.

I was hopping from thread to thread and read "What have you overclocked your 6700s to?" (Basically read, "What have you uber cool guys in the 'in-crowd' overclocked your high end processors too that are better than 6600s and below") lol Just makes me wanna belong ya know?

I really wanna R600, yes I do... really bad cuz I guess I'm an ATI "Fanboy" but dangit... I'm ready to build and I want to base my MB decision to be optimal for the graphic cards, and possibly a pair.

Why did ATI merge with AMD? That just bothers me for some reason.

ahhh tired of waiting but even if I got a 8800GTX, there's another batch coming about the time of the R600 (or so I've gathered from my forum hopping here) in which case I could take my pick of the most uber, be it ATI or nVidia, or go to the 8800GTX for some sweet savings.

It was a lot easier when I had money to blow... just find the top components, find a good priced vendor and pull the trigger.

I'm ready to get rid of this 3.7GHZ P4EE (minor OC to 4.1) that turns my room into an EZ-Bake oven >: [

this is turning into a pita....
April 13, 2007 11:37:48 AM

So what do you want? If you're not going to SLI, I'd steer clear of the 680i. The 650i and P965 both overclock as well for far less. If you want to SLI your GTX's though, 680i is pretty much your only option. The quad 6600 for 500 will be a great deal, but it's not going to overclock as well as a dual core. If I were you I'd wait at least until the 23rd, when AMD demos K10 and R600. If they're competitive, prices will likely start to slide down.
April 13, 2007 5:37:17 PM

Quote:
Wait for the April price cuts, and then get the Q6600 with maybe an R600/8800 Ultra (?).

i'll buy an q6600 and overclock it to 3ghz.... i dont have the money for a better one , but with a good cooler you will be able to have the performance of an qx6700-6800 with less money.


There is absolutely NO REASON to overclock a Q6600, especially for gaming purposes.

well depends what resolutions your gaming on.. if your gaming on 19 x 14 + full detailed oblivion with sli'd 8800's.. i d say the 2.4ghz core 2 would be getting stressed out pretty bad... mite want to bump it up to 3ghz.. but for gaming at 12 x 10 or 16 x 12 2.4 should smoke anything FOR NOW..
April 14, 2007 12:10:21 AM

Yeah. I think I'll just have to wait till the 22nd and 23rd to see what goes down... problem is though I'm sure theres a million others with the same idea and it may end up being tough to build a system then trying to get the parts and what not. Think I'll go ahead and order the case and LCS setup. cuz that's about the only thing I can do right now lol

I'm tired of waiting for cool stuff lol
!