Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What memory for a new q6600 build?

Last response: in Memory
Share
June 17, 2007 2:29:23 PM

Im putting together a new system using a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3p and a Q6600. Im having a bit of trouble picking out memory for the system, there are so many choices right now and the prices are so low!! Id like to go with 2x1gig of PC6400 with good timings, ill be runing XP for now so I may pick up an extra pair of 1gig sticks so im ready for the switch to Vista in the future. What memory do you guys reccomend, I will be doing some mild overclocking to around 3ghz. Thanks

More about : memory q6600 build

June 17, 2007 3:55:36 PM

Quote:

And why Q6600? They are only useful for professional video rendering programs.


Supreme commander tells a different story sonnyboy, and so will crysis in 4 months and alot of other games.
June 17, 2007 4:29:44 PM

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwz... there u go. and i trust it and people in here who played with c2d and quad also.

''When we disabled two of the cores and were left with a dual-core CPU we found performance to suffer greatly. We had to lower the resolution to 1280x1204 and lower most quality settings. We had to turn the fidelity down to “medium” which decreased the rendering quality of the entire game.''

dont tell me twice the cpu power is useless.

yes we do know alot of things about crysis. it will support multi cores and with more cores higher fps and probably higher details.
Related resources
June 17, 2007 4:31:41 PM

I cant see why mroe isnt better in this case, Ive heard from most people that supreme commander has 4core capability to increase prformance.
June 17, 2007 4:47:41 PM

maybe u should see what people in HERE says about the game and it plays much smoother with a quad than a dual, and yes supreme commander benefits from a quad.

''And I actually thought you were smart.. Higher detail only comes from the GPU and so do higher FPS. You know nothing of computers. ''
tell me why penryn gives 40 more fps in hl2 then.. u just said it didnt.

more fps = you can decide to put more details on

i never said it requires it.. i said it would benefit from it. and so will future games. but its clearly u disagree with me, we will see in 6 months time.

and oh have you seen the game alan wake? what it does with multi cores? i guess not.
June 17, 2007 5:40:37 PM

Supreme commander DEFINATELY benefits from multiple cores.

It was designed to be multi threaded from the start, and if you set its affinity to a single core you will notice a SIGNIFICANT slowdown over dual cores.
June 17, 2007 6:40:15 PM

This is a great buy, I've had very good results from these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Don't listen to the hype, a quad core is a great processor, the price is rapidly dropping on them, and future games will be increasinly multi-threaded. If you plan on holding onto this computer for a while, a quad just makes sense. Valve's Source engine is a great example of this, they are splitting various processor-intensive portions of the engine (3D sound, physics, AI, etc) into their own separate threads. So guess what, if you crank the detail up, it definately DOES impact your FPS if you have fewer cores, especially with physics effects.
June 17, 2007 9:47:52 PM

First off Track, the motherboard Im getting is a p35 board hense the name "GA-P35". Second I passed up the 680 sli because sli is a waste of money for me. And third most of the apps im going to be running is either CAD/CAM software for work or A/V encoding and editing, most of which are multithreaded so I dont see why I wouldnt want a quad core? Performance in games are of little importance to me, my trusty AIW800xl still serves me fine for the little gaming I do. Im more worried that if I use a workstation class video card in this new build, will I still be able to play the ocasional game at decent frame rates, my expereince has been that the FireGL and Quadro cards dont do games very well. But anywaysm ive done plenty of research on cpus and since Barcelona isnt here yet, Im going with the q6600. Im just looking for some advice on memory, there are so many choices its hard to make a descision. Ive always liked OCZ and Crucial so I was thinking of one of these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

What do you guys think?
June 17, 2007 10:38:10 PM

first thing u should do is to see if the mobo support those ram and then look at some reviews of the ram.
June 18, 2007 4:27:59 AM

Quote:
Another person who wants to buy a P965 board.. What is your excuse for passing up 680i SLi and P35?

And why Q6600? They are only useful for professional video rendering programs.

Which RAM to buy? These of course - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


What makes you think he won't be editing video??? I game pretty heavily and edit tons of video for a living! LOL actually I only got paid for it once so far. :lol: 
June 18, 2007 5:10:35 AM

Quote:
Another person who wants to buy a P965 board.. What is your excuse for passing up 680i SLi and P35?

And why Q6600? They are only useful for professional video rendering programs.

Which RAM to buy? These of course - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


What makes you think he won't be editing video??? I game pretty heavily and edit tons of video for a living! LOL actually I only got paid for it once so far. :lol: 

Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense.

Video editing is not like video games where u absolutely must have the best performance. If ur video is rendered in 20 minutes or 10 minutes, there is no difference.

And I very rarely edit videos.

Anyway, did he even state what he would be doing with this build? I think a Q6600 would be awesome for just about anything.

BTW time is a major issue when rendering. When I have a deadline of a week to finish editing over 2 hours of video into a 30 minute film, I don't want to waste time watching the timeline bar slowly crawl across the screen. And when adding special effects and rendering several different projects at once, it can get pretty slow.
June 18, 2007 6:13:43 AM

For many of the people who do alot of rendering every day it will make a great difference.
yorkfield will be a beast when it comes to that.

btw Track dont you have some explaining to do?
June 18, 2007 8:56:31 AM

Quote:

btw Track dont you have some explaining to do?


And what do u want me to explain to you now?


Track your full of Sh!t, i read your post in the other thread. this time its even worse the OP didnt even make a single mention of 965 and you jumped on him then you jump on him for getting a quad when later he explains he needs it for Cad/Cam work.

im going to buy a quad soon are you going to tell me that i dont need it either without having a clue what i will use it for.
June 18, 2007 2:05:57 PM

I'm also buying a quad core. I generally only update my hardware once every few years and its clearly the more forward looking choice. Software is only going to become more and more multi-threaded as time goes on and the extra cores will continue to increase in usefulness.
June 18, 2007 3:58:50 PM

Getting a Q6600 cant possibly be any worse than getting a e6600 because they are basically 2 of those.

And after july its cheap enough to not care.
June 18, 2007 7:55:56 PM

Supposedly its bveing aimed for the same price a e6600 costs now. Or a few weeks ago when I read that.

About $266.

Not much at all...
June 18, 2007 8:51:16 PM

Quote:
Video editing is not like video games where u absolutely must have the best performance. If ur video is rendered in 20 minutes or 10 minutes, there is no difference.


That is a crazy conclusion. In the first place, having renders take over a half hour or an hour even for a fast dual core is not uncommon. Many a professional would love to cut their render times in half.

Quote:
Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense.


Ahem...

Quote:
And I very rarely edit videos.


Obviously...
June 18, 2007 9:10:58 PM

Generally 50fps or 100fps makes no difference either doesn't stop the high end gamers spending thousands though does it.

Personally id rate time higher than graphics.
June 18, 2007 9:22:21 PM

At $266 who F$%&ing cares if it's over kill right now? Games are starting to move towards multi core, it's gonna be the norm eventually. I don't think anyone could call the q6600 a bad purchase at $266.
June 18, 2007 9:48:42 PM

Well, if there was an 8-core processor that outperformed it for, say, 200, then it would be a bad purchase at 266.

I personally think that cores will be the new Ghz race. They'll be super-beneficial at first, and then once a certain point is reached it won't matter as much. My .02. The q66 is still a great buy.
June 19, 2007 6:22:08 AM

Quote:
First off Track, the motherboard Im getting is a p35 board hense the name "GA-P35". Second I passed up the 680 sli because sli is a waste of money for me. And third most of the apps im going to be running is either CAD/CAM software for work or A/V encoding and editing, most of which are multithreaded so I dont see why I wouldnt want a quad core? Performance in games are of little importance to me, my trusty AIW800xl still serves me fine for the little gaming I do. Im more worried that if I use a workstation class video card in this new build, will I still be able to play the ocasional game at decent frame rates, my expereince has been that the FireGL and Quadro cards dont do games very well. But anywaysm ive done plenty of research on cpus and since Barcelona isnt here yet, Im going with the q6600. Im just looking for some advice on memory, there are so many choices its hard to make a descision. Ive always liked OCZ and Crucial so I was thinking of one of these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...




What do you guys think?




go with the one that gigabyte recommends.
June 19, 2007 4:10:09 PM

I'd love a quad core, im getting one :D 

Infact looking at the dual core solutions theres not much reason not to get one after july 8)
June 19, 2007 5:23:06 PM

Track how could you not reccomend a quad core right now... that is what the industry is moving towards. And I do readily believe that quad core helps with minimun frame rates more than the upper end as displayed by hardocp's review with supreme comander. And honestly.... a difference of 10 fps min to ~20 fps min is huge.
June 19, 2007 5:55:10 PM

Quote:
Try not to be rude, will ya?


This coming from the guy that earlier in this very thread said:

"Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense."

I suppose that you think that the "no offense" forgives your rudeness? Try following your own advice.

Quote:
Look at what u just said. "Many PROFESSIONALS..."
Yes, professional video editors would probably like a quad-core.
Anyone else, probably not.


How about people that have digital audio workstations in their homes? Many of them are running 2x2 cores on Macs and I know a guy that has a 2x4 core Mac in his basement. Cubase is optimized for 8 cores, so there you go. In fact, my interest in quads derives from the need to upgrade from the dual core DAW rig I have now. Speed isn't really an issue but the number of simultaneous tracks and plug-ins is. But I'm not a pro audio guy and this is being done in our family room so I guess this is just another anecdote that refutes the "if gamers don't need it, nobody does" attitude.
June 19, 2007 6:20:55 PM

Quote:
I deserve to be rude, because I'm right, and I know more about computers than the lot of you who actually think they know more than me.


So Baron's toilet paper pre-launch landed in your face?

Quote:
People that have digital audio workstations in their homes = PROFESSIONALS.


That is a complete and total crock. The first time I bought one was Sony Acid Studio for my 11 year-old's guitar rig. He's never made money from it so by definition he's not a professional. The latest one I put together was a multitrack rig at home. I've never made money off of it so I'm not a pro. If you heard my drumming, you'd know why nobody pays me to play. I'm not a pro but I have three DAWs in the house. I do video editing at home, also non-professionally. Stop by places that sell this stuff and you'll find out that many non-pros get into audio as well as video and still image editing and can benefit from multiple cores. Once upon a time I posted a single vs. multicore benchmark report for Photoshop and although I do not have time to go dig it up again, large image editing in Photoshop benefits greatly from multiple cores. Stop by a book store and look at all of the DAW and video editing magazines. Many are targeted at people like me that do this as a hobby.

You're wrong on this, and by a long shot. Obviously, you have failed to keep up with current trends in household computing. Go bury your face in the sand and maybe it will all go away.
June 19, 2007 6:21:23 PM

5 page article with valve discussing multi-threading all their source engine games to utilize n cores. Link

You're crazy if you think this isn't the way the industry is headed.
June 19, 2007 6:43:31 PM

1. there is some programs who support multi cores and more will come, one of em is winrar which i use alot.
2. now ur being stupid and everybody can see that. ur talking about 50% reduction in time which would mean ALOT!
3. i dare you to try supreme-commander with 8 players on a single core cpu
4. what did u expect with twice the core, jeez.
5. most people that OC have their c2d at 3ghz or 3.2
6. maybe u should open ur eyes a little and look at the gaming industry! or take a look at moosemuffins post, or simply look at the crysis game, alanwake or bioshock.

just admit you lost and you dont know nothing about anything.
June 19, 2007 8:31:51 PM

Track, I must say, for all your claims of superiority in computer knowledge over the rest of us, your argument reminds me much more of a teenager typing away in his mother's basement. Before you continue to spew your crap on there here forum-goers, why don't you chew on this?

First, Supreme Commander. Why you're so obtuse about it is beyond me, but multiple, independent reviews have clearly shown its use of at least 4 threads with an increase in performance with quad over dual. Here:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html
(Notice the quad beats the dual handily despite the Ghz handicap)
A nice little blurb:
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/article.asp?CIID=66659

Now, explain how exactly HardOCP is lying? That's hardly a convincing argument, it is very difficult to tell a lie to this community without it being revealed quite quickly.

As for future multi-threading, it is abundantly clear that this is the direction the developer community is taking.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=237...
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2868

As for your claims about overclocking, they may be true for many people who have insufficient air cooling. But plenty are willing to spend up to 50 bucks or more on a cooling solution, which means at the least they'll get a thermalright ultra-120 or better. Then, heat is no longer the problem, but rather a bottleneck that many 680 and P965 boards seem to have when overclocking quads. Luckily, this is straightened out with the new P35 chipset, as you can see:
http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=110036
http://www.overclock.net/intel-motherboards/198970-asus...

Really, your posts leave little to be debated. Your sweeping, profoundly retarded pronouncements such as;
"A single core can handle anything"
"This propaganda that says that u need more than a single core"
"I'm listing the cons of a Quad-Core, U bleep piece of bleep."

Of course, future games like Alan Wake, Bioshock, Crysis, UT2007, Unreal 3, Quake Wars, Half Life 2 Ep 2+ 3, Portals, Team Fortress, etc etc etc likely won't need more than a single core, they sure as hell will benefit from multiples.

You need to grow up, shut up, or possibly a combination of both. Anyone who is buying a PC in the next few months and has an expectation that it will last for a few years and game well should absolutely, positively, undeniably purchase a 266 dollar quad core. Or if they want to upgrade it in a few years and save some cash now, an even cheaper C2D or X2. If you plan on a hefty overclock with your quad, invest in a decent P35 board such as the DS3 for ~$140 and a good air cooler or better cooling solution. And beware "computer experts" like Track, who has truly shown his true colors today.
June 19, 2007 9:29:19 PM

Quote:
Track how could you not reccomend a quad core right now... that is what the industry is moving towards. And I do readily believe that quad core helps with minimun frame rates more than the upper end as displayed by hardocp's review with supreme comander. And honestly.... a difference of 10 fps min to ~20 fps min is huge.


Dont believe the review of Supreme Commander by HardOCP, its a lie. Every other site and review suggest this.

Reasons not to buy a Quad-Core:
1. Nothing supports more than a single thread except things u dont want, such as video editing.
2. Nothing Needs more than a single thread. Even if a program supports more than a single thread, it does need more than a single thread to work well. If your video is rendered in 20 mins or 10 mins, it really doesnt matter.
3. The only thing that does actually NEED performance is games. And games DO NOT need more than a single thread (even though they may support more than a single thread).
4. Quad Cores require more than twice the power (135w, compared to 65w for dual-core).
5. Because of the power needs, Quad Cores cannot overclock nearly as high as Dual Cores. If ur cooler can handle a 3.8Ghz Dual Core, chances are u wont get ur Quad Core above 3.0 or 3.2Ghz. And the extra 600Mhz matters because most programs will only use the first core, and if its only at 3.2Ghz, then the program will run SLOWER with a Quad Core CPU.
6. There is also no need for Quad Core CPUs for multi-tasking (contrary to popular belief). The only kind of multi-tasking that Quad Cores are good for is "Extreme Multi-tasking", which means that if u want to rip a Blue-Ray disk, render a complex 3D scene, output a 1080p video file into un-compressed format AND at the same time play F.E.A.R, then look no furthur!

I could go on..

Track u need to get a clue.

1. who said video editing/encoding is something i don't want?? When I clearly said i do alot of editing/encoding. And if getting a quad core will save me time then why wouldn't I get it?

2. Most programs will run well on a single thread but if they are multi threaded they will run better and faster on a quad core obviously

3. hahaha the only thing that needs performance is games! thats the biggest load of crap ive heard in a long time. I guess the people who do 3d rendering or HD video editing they don't need performance? They are probably better off just sticking to 10 year old Pentium2 systems

4. Quads do use more power your right about that, but if your thinking of buying a quad core your probably looking for the best performance and not to worried about how much power it uses compared to a dual core.

5. Big deal a dual core can OC a few hundred MHZ higher, that means pretty much nothing when you consider that 95% of computer owners don't over clock. And if you are an over clocker and you can afford a quad core chances are you can afford to go with a high end cooling system, maybe water, which will probably allow you to reach 3.8ghz if you wanted to.


Obviously there are pros and cons of everything but the only real con of going quad core is more power usage. So I dunno what you have against quad cores maybe mommy and daddy wont buy you one and your mad or something. Id guess you'll probably also argue that I am wasting my money buying 2 or 4gigs of ram since most software only needs 256mb.

Well thats all I have to say for now. Id like to thank everyone who actually gave advice on memory which is what the post was about.
June 19, 2007 9:58:06 PM

Quote:
1. there is some programs who support multi cores and more will come, one of em is winrar which i use alot.


Only about 1% of all programs.


56% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :lol: 
June 20, 2007 2:49:02 AM

Quote:
1. there is some programs who support multi cores and more will come, one of em is winrar which i use alot.


Only about 1% of all programs.


56% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :lol: 

Good point. Also, smoking is the direct or indirect cause of over 39% of all statistics.
June 20, 2007 9:53:26 AM

Quote:
.. What is your excuse for passing up 680i SLi and P35?
Track, I'm glad that I could be fundamental in your understanding of the value of the P35 Motherboard.

If you continue to post comments such as these you will most assuredly be banned, assuming that it is not already in the works.

Quote:
What did i expect? Are u completely retarded?
I'm listing the cons of a Quad-Core CPU, u f*cking piece of sh!t.


Quote:
I admit that u are not only the stupidest idiot I've ever seen, but you actually think you know more than me. You deserve nothing less of being shot.
June 20, 2007 1:09:23 PM

First of all, the ExtremeTech benchmark is flawed. It's very simple, if the majority of review sites show benefits and one doesn't, it's more likely that their test is flawed, not that everyone else is part of some Intel conspiracy. How is it flawed? They used a crap video card, an X1950Pro, which limited their frames regardless of processing power. Even a 8800GTS 320 would have shown the benefits of quad (and I also agree that price/performance on the 320 is a lot better than the 2900XT). I pointed out several other sites that had nothing to do with HOCP since you equate them with the Bush administration. So obviously, I'm not the "fool relying on one site" now am I? Sorry, but in this case it appears that that fool would be you.

Next, did you even read any of my links explaining exactly how developers are implementing multiple cores? And yet you sweepingly dismiss all of it? I only posted a few links out of literally hundreds on the 'net, and there are many more in printed media as well. You can stand there with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears forever, but man, even Stevie Wonder can see that the market is moving in this direction. I won't trouble myself to find more links since it's clear you won't read them.

The 965 and 680i were both bottlenecked. The FSB links the two dual cores of the Q6600, and on these chipsets something in the implementation put an artificial limit on what the Q6600 could achieve. Again, no links, already posted a few that you didn't read. At first people assumed it was heat, but with the release of the P35, this bottleneck (~400Mhz FSB) largely disappeared. Of course, because of the extra heat they won't overclock quite as far as a dual, no arguments there, but 3.8 is easily in reach, and 4Ghz and beyond is easily possible with watercooling.

Drop your "the only programs that actually NEED performance are games" claims. That's silly, utter nonsense. There are plenty of programs far, far more important than games that require computing power. You're making yourself sound like a little kid again.

How could they not benefit from multiple cores? Seriously, read what I posted. It's not just physics, though that is a major part of it, it's AI, 3D sound, possibly even graphics effects that don't need a GPU. It's all in the articles, go back and read.

As for all the insults, after everything you've spewed I feel pretty justified and have no intention of retracting them or apologizing. You are possibly the most hard-headed person I've ever met. Your unwillingness to learn and inability to see your faults are astounding. I hope you lead a petty, miserable life.

Oh, and OP, just noticed a small price drop on these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Sorry if you've seen them already.
June 20, 2007 1:32:15 PM

So track, if intel made a single core chip that overclocked higher and used less power than the duo, would you recommend that?
June 20, 2007 3:21:46 PM

Track is the definition of a hypocrite. As cb62fcni said, he flames people for using one site as evidence. Yet when it is his turn to back up his utterly INSANE claims, GUESS WHAT PEOPLE...one site. Never mind the 8+ sites that have been listed that prove him wrong. Oh no, we are sticking with our one site.

Why do miserable kids hijack posts? This was about memory help, and track who is mad at the world cuz mommy wont buy him a quad core has to flame everything he cant get.

Before u flame me about me saying you are a kid, lets think about it.
1.You wont change you ways after being given multiple items of evidence proving you are wrong. - truly immature
2. You think that gaming is the most important thing that the computer was invented for. - i thought the same way, when i was 13.
3. You are running out of things to say, so instead of admitting you are wrong you bring the bush administration and conspiracy theories into a debate on computers. Crazy liberals :)  I read somewhere that liberal thinkers are usually the less educated people in society. Now not to bash liberals because i respect all political views... but after reading this kids posts, that report may hold some weight in his case.

If im not mistaken i believe that u " l33t gamerz" have a fitting way to sum this up.... get unicorned
June 20, 2007 3:40:40 PM

Quote:

If you continue to post comments such as these you will most assuredly be banned, assuming that it is not already in the works.

We can only hope. It's probably the only way to get him stop spreading the fud that he does.
June 21, 2007 2:58:50 AM

Quote:


Track u need to get a clue.


Oh great, another guy who thinks he knows better than me.
Well, lets see what he has to say, before we judge him too harshly.


Quote:


1. who said video editing/encoding is something i don't want?? When I clearly said i do alot of editing/encoding. And if getting a quad core will save me time then why wouldn't I get it?


Thats fine, but 99% of the market DOES NOT want to video edit. If u are one of the 1%, I consider u a "professional", in which case u can buy an Oct-Core if it makes u happy.



Quote:

2. Most programs will run well on a single thread but if they are multi threaded they will run better and faster on a quad core obviously


First off, there arent many programs like that. And the ones that do exist dont interest 99% of the martker, as I've said.



Quote:


3. hahaha the only thing that needs performance is games! thats the biggest load of crap ive heard in a long time. I guess the people who do 3d rendering or HD video editing they don't need performance? They are probably better off just sticking to 10 year old Pentium2 systems


Yes, exactly. They dont NEED performance. Whether your video is rendered in 20 minutes or in 10 minutes, it makes no real difference.
Where as, if ur game cannot get at least 30 FPS, then u cannot play it and that DOES make a difference.


Quote:

5. Big deal a dual core can OC a few hundred MHZ higher, that means pretty much nothing when you consider that 95% of computer owners don't over clock. And if you are an over clocker and you can afford a quad core chances are you can afford to go with a high end cooling system, maybe water, which will probably allow you to reach 3.8ghz if you wanted to.


So ur saying that if someone has enough money to buy a Quad-Core, then they have enough money to buy better cooling?
I think that theory will be shattered with the 266$ Q6600.
The only reason I'm even talking about Quad-Cores is because of the Q6600.

So for a person like me, who wants to decide between an E6600 and a Q6600 at around the same price, the extra 600Mhz really do matter, because I'm into emulation.




Quote:

Obviously there are pros and cons of everything but the only real con of going quad core is more power usage. So I dunno what you have against quad cores maybe mommy and daddy wont buy you one and your mad or something. Id guess you'll probably also argue that I am wasting my money buying 2 or 4gigs of ram since most software only needs
256mb.


Oh man, 256MB is such a waste of money! This shows how stupid u are.

And no, the only real con is the lower clocks which are caused by the higher power usage.


Why do I keep having to say the EXACT SAME THING over and over and over and over and over again for people who dont read what I write?!?!?

Track your arguments make no sense, your biggest argument is that the quads cant over clock, well ever consider that like 90%+ of the market doesn't over clock and dont care and if your that worried about over clocking get a decent water cooling solution if you absolutely have to have that extra 400mhz. Your other argument is that most software isnt multi threaded and the software that is doesn't interest 99% of the market, well ever heard of CAD, Rendering, HD Video...etc? This is the same stupid argument people made against dual cores when they first came out, are you gonna argue that single cores outperform dual cores? The future is in multi threaded software and multi cores not in 10ghz single cores! Then theres your argument that games are the only software that need performance and that there is no difference if your video encode takes 10minutes or 20minutes, well the difference is 10minutes and if you have alot of video to encode that could equal hours saved. This may not be a big deal to you, but for people who actually have a life it means alot to have extra time to spend with family and friends. Instead of arguing maybe just admit your wrong and go do some research and try learning something for a change.
June 21, 2007 8:28:54 AM

i almost think he left the forums :oops: 
June 21, 2007 9:28:54 AM

zeez that guy is unbelievable 8O :roll:
I'm definately gonna get a quadcore in august (takes some time for the pricedrop to get this far :p ), and if nothing else i'm gonna run BOINC on those extra cores :lol: 
June 21, 2007 12:24:54 PM

Maybe he's finally reading the links everyone posted?
June 21, 2007 3:38:47 PM

There is one thing I have taken away from the posts that Track makes, he likes to make up statistics.
June 21, 2007 4:02:19 PM

Because you're everywhere and ever lasting?

Im guessing that you'll disagree though.

-----

Q6000 all the way for anything!
June 21, 2007 5:21:10 PM

Quote:

I agree, Q6000 all the way! That is if Q6000 is the Q6600 with a much lower power consumption.


how old are you? seriously.

i dont know why you join these forums, you always attack people in here when they disagree with you.. ur gonna end up like rob with his 2 gtx's if u keep having that attitude.
June 21, 2007 5:32:04 PM

Gee Track, I have no idea why we don't shut up and just listen to what *you* say, but here's a few guesses:
1. You are stubborn, inflexible, and above all absolutely illogical
2. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
3. You consistantly fail to post any reasonably legitimate sources for your data
4. You attack people that have a much great depth of understanding of the topics that are being discussed for consistantly disagreeing with you
5. You are a kid whose high opinion of yourself and the knowledge you possess is not shared by anyone else

If I were in your position, I would apologize and go do a bit of information gathering. You certainly CAN argue that the Q6600 isn't the ideal processor choice at the moment, but you are going about it in entirely the wrong way.
June 21, 2007 7:41:07 PM

Quote:
There is one thing I have taken away from the posts that Track makes, he likes to make up statistics.


If thats the only thing youve learned, u deserve to be shot.

Why must human stupidity be everywhere and ever-lasting?
There is one thing I have learned in life though, those who can't debate result to using insults. Your arguments are illogical and can't be backed. You enjoy thinking you are smart and yet, for some reason, there is not a single person that agrees with you. How odd. You'd think someone of your extreme intellectual prowess would be able to figure out when to take the hint and shut up because you're making a fool of yourself. I'm sure you'll return with something to the effect that I'm retarded and that you probably hold the highest SAT score ever and that Intel consults you when they need expert advise that is beyond their engineers abilities. Seriously, reread your posts, they sound ridiculous.
June 21, 2007 8:26:59 PM

Let me use you as an example, Your brain acts like a CPU and has many many threads and cores. They control your heart, liver, muscle, fingers, toes, eyes simultaneously. If your brain had only 1 core and 1 thread, you can't possibly live because stuff has to happen simultaneously, not one after another at very fast speed. Comparing Q6600 and E6600, Q6600 is 2 E6600. If Q6600 is playing a tuggle war with E6600, guess who will win? Even if each core of the Q6600 isn't as strong as E6600, Q6600 has more cores thus stronger when added together. If you still think cutting the video editing time from 20 minutes to 10 minutes isn't significant, try upping the scale. Say you reduce the video editing time from 150 years to 75 years, that would make a difference. If you use a duo core, you would die before the video's done editing, where as if you use a quad core, you would still have few years to spare before you die. If you think dual core or quad core is a waste because games doesn't utilize more cores, then you would better off gettting a single core p4 and overclock it to 8 Ghz. According to your theory, it will beat any quad core or dual core in gaming anyday. If you think Q6600 is not as good performing as E6600, just turn off the 2 extra cores on the Q6600 and you'll get more stable, higher binned E6600 that can reach higher clocks than regular E6600. Games do require multiple cores, or else PS3 and Xbox 360 wouldn't sale and perform better than the shitty PS2 and Xbox original. Nobody deserve to be shot. You should learn from the majority even if they're run like you thought. Remember, majority always wins and that means you're wrong.
June 21, 2007 9:25:43 PM

Man, so much drama. Why don't you folks stop feeding the troll?

I don't disagree with Track saying most people wouldn't notice the 2-core/4-core difference right now; I don't know if I would put it at 99% but it's probably the rule rather than the exception.

What does annoy me is when someone posts a question about buying RAM and instead of offering any tips for which RAM to get Track decides to criticize the guy's build, assuming he knows more about what the computer will be used for. But then again, I could easily laugh it off if people didn't start a useless flame war over it :p 
June 21, 2007 9:35:15 PM

Oh.
If you do not want to overclock, buy 667mhz memory and overclock it to 800mhz unsynchronized to the FSB. It seems like 667mhz is cheaper than 533mhz ones so no point of getting 533mhz. If the 533mhz memory is cheaper than 800mhz and 667mhz ones and you're concerned about budget, then you should get 533mhz.

If you want to want ultimate performance and have large amount of cash, buy the fastest memory you can and run it in unsynchronized speed to get as much memory bandwidth as possible.
June 21, 2007 10:05:06 PM

Well, I would debate whether or not it's worthless. Lots of people view these posts, and if no one contradicted the crap Track was putting out there, people might be misled and go and spend money on something that's not ideal for their purposes. In this case things got a bit carried away, but you'll have that. Hopefully the OP got some good recs for RAM in between the screaming.

Overall, here's what people can get out of all this back-and-forth
1. In July Intel is cutting prices on the Q6600 to around $266 USD.
2. Most games/apps aren't currently multithreaded, but all indications are that this will become increasingly common, with many big name titles offering multi-core support. Most professional video/audio editing software currently offers very large performance gains with a quad.
3. The Intel P35 chipset is the current all-around best performer when using a quad, especially if an overclock is desired
4. If you already have a P965 or 600 series there is no major reason to upgrade to P35 unless you absolutely want more than ~400FSB with a quad-core, other than this performance gains are minimal
5. The quad uses more power, puts out more heat, and doesn't overclock as high as most duals on the market, so steps have to be taken to minimize this if an overclock is desired
6. The Penryn 45nm quadcores due at the end of this year will likely produce less heat, consume less power and possibly overclock higher than currently available quads. You need a P35 or newer chipset to use these due to volt req. changes.
!