Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Going dual or Quad for gaming? Dual is better right?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 2, 2007 1:34:22 PM

I recently have been taking interest in making a somewhat balanced system, since my last was teh ubber kittensquished. I read an article here ("The Quad core advantage?") that the quad do not necessarily perform as well as dual cores. This is because of some frequecy or threading technology. I was about to buy the Q6600 before I stumbled upon the article. Please tell me a dual core that will go with my EVGA 680i n63 mobo. I also plan on getting 2 8800gt's (evga of course).


http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/pa...

More about : dual quad gaming dual

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 2, 2007 1:47:04 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...
If you're strictly building a gaming box, you'll get more performance out of the dual-core E6850. However, if you do any encoding or 3D rendering at all, the quad-core Q6600 is a better buy. Our pick is the Q6600 and if you want to make up the performance difference you can always overclock to E6850 speeds, but the chip only makes sense if you're running apps that can take advantage of four cores. As the chart above illustrates, those applications are almost exclusively limited to video encoding and 3D rendering.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

So, we think Core 2 Quad Q6600 seems to be a much more attractive offering these days than Core 2 Duo E6850.

However, those computer users who do not want to mess with processor overclocking may think differently. In this case Core 2 Duo E6850 with 25% higher clock speed performs better in a lot of applications, including games. Moreover, it is also more economical. As a result, the most optimal choice for a system working at nominal speeds would depends a lot on the type of tasks it is intended for.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that most upcoming applications and games are being designed with multi-threading in mind. That is why Core 2 Quad Q6600 may be a more promising solution even if used in its nominal mode.
November 2, 2007 1:59:46 PM

Thanks for the help! I wonder if I should go with a dual core now, then maybe go quad core in 4 months when prices drop a little bit more. I am strictly using it for gaming, and a little movie editing for a Tech podcast.
Related resources
November 2, 2007 2:06:46 PM

I would agree that the E6850 is likely a better performer in games. Though I've read the the Q6600 is overclocked quite well, and that it is deffiently more appealing for people who don't want to upgrade for a few years. I guess It all comes down to what you want. Any dual core (Core 2) out right now will work fine with any of the new game titles comming out. I found that out with Bioshock. Though seeing as not many apps out right now are created to use 4 cores, a dual core should be able to do the job.
November 2, 2007 3:03:48 PM

Maziar said:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...
If you're strictly building a gaming box, you'll get more performance out of the dual-core E6850. However, if you do any encoding or 3D rendering at all, the quad-core Q6600 is a better buy. Our pick is the Q6600 and if you want to make up the performance difference you can always overclock to E6850 speeds, but the chip only makes sense if you're running apps that can take advantage of four cores. As the chart above illustrates, those applications are almost exclusively limited to video encoding and 3D rendering.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

So, we think Core 2 Quad Q6600 seems to be a much more attractive offering these days than Core 2 Duo E6850.

However, those computer users who do not want to mess with processor overclocking may think differently. In this case Core 2 Duo E6850 with 25% higher clock speed performs better in a lot of applications, including games. Moreover, it is also more economical. As a result, the most optimal choice for a system working at nominal speeds would depends a lot on the type of tasks it is intended for.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that most upcoming applications and games are being designed with multi-threading in mind. That is why Core 2 Quad Q6600 may be a more promising solution even if used in its nominal mode.


What he said.

Actually, some newer games already can utitlize quads, like Supreme Commander. The next wave (Crysis, UT3, QW:ET) are all going to utilize quads also.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 2, 2007 3:29:37 PM

yeah^^,but they will run well on dual cores too
November 2, 2007 4:06:07 PM

Lost Planet runs way better with a Quad (concurrent operations set to 4).
November 2, 2007 4:51:07 PM

I agree about Lost Planet on a quad core. I run it on a Q6600 at 3.0 GHz and it uses quite a lot of my CPU resources at some points in the game. I have recorded up to 80% at times and the play looks very good at 1280X1024 on a GTS-640.
November 2, 2007 6:57:40 PM

Your talking about games designed for the 360 also, if it's just for PC, not much diff.

All the UE3 engine games for example.
November 2, 2007 8:07:06 PM

no - with q6600 running 3.6ghz you get 2 partically free cores for the future
November 2, 2007 8:11:13 PM

E6850 doesn't have much headroom for ocing. Q6600 will hit 3.0Ghz easily
November 3, 2007 6:00:11 AM

with the increasing popularity of quad cores game developers will be making games optimised for more cores is just a matter of time
November 3, 2007 7:09:29 AM

itotallybelieveyou said:
E6850 doesn't have much headroom for ocing. Q6600 will hit 3.0Ghz easily



do you own one? it runs 3.6 easy?

they all run the same


all i can say is once you use a q6600 oc to 3.6ghz you understand - the qx6700 was not nearly as responsive the g stepping is a great leap
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 3, 2007 11:30:47 AM

itotallybelieveyou said:
E6850 doesn't have much headroom for ocing. Q6600 will hit 3.0Ghz easily


Wrong, most 1333MHZ CPUs (like E6850) OC very nice, i have seen many people with E6850 @ 3.6-3.8
November 3, 2007 5:46:28 PM

Wow, I just wish I knew how to oc... Well, if I get the Q6600 and oc in the future, what PS should I get? 700w quad rail fine? or will 600w Qrail suffice?
November 3, 2007 7:25:42 PM

Corsair HX620 is a good PSU that should serve you well and give you plenty of headroom for future upgrades.

EDIT: OOPS! Somehow I missed that the OP was going to do SLI although I did take a Q6600 @3.0GHz into account. The HX620 should still work but won't give you headroom like you'd have with a single card.

-mcg
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 4, 2007 12:39:22 PM

Corsair 620- OCZ GAMEXSTREAM (or GAMEXSTREAM) 600-850 or
PC&POWER COOLING SILENCER QUAD 750
November 4, 2007 8:45:06 PM

I actually bought a month ago a OCZ 600W power supply and am really liking it. It is teh uber quite..,
November 4, 2007 9:16:29 PM

I have that psu. Well take this into account: If you upgrade frequently, the E6850 is a better buy. If you want to future proof yourself for like a year, the Q6600 is the way to go. If you know how to overclock, go buy a good solid heatsink and go with the q6600. It should be able to hit 3.6Ghz in under 1.5v.
November 4, 2007 9:24:09 PM

get a q6600 for $266, and OC it to 3.0 (333x9) and be done with it.
!