Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wolfdale Vs Quad core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 18, 2008 10:43:37 AM

hiya Guys

I am due to be getting a new build started at the end of january, and I was all set to get a Q6600 Quad core processor.

However, i've heard alot about the new E8500 Wolfdale Dual core that has just come out (£184 on Scan.co.uk).

I will be using the PC mostly for Gaming, Crysis and COD4. But I also want to be able to play games for at least another year before I have to upgrade.

I am getting a P35 chip motherboard, and a Thermalright 120 Extreme cooler. And I will be overclocking a bit, as long as core temps dont go too high, as I wanna keep the noise down a bit, so a fan buzzing away on the CPU will grate on me a bit!

So, my question is this. Is it better to get the new Wolfdale chip, and overclock it to 4GHZ (Which seems quite easily done).
OR, do I stick with the quad, and overclock to 3.2GHz (Again, easily done).

Any advice is greatfully recieved!
Cheers
DB

More about : wolfdale quad core

a b à CPUs
January 18, 2008 10:52:25 AM

For gaming, your limitation is going to be much more on the Graphics side, not CPU.

Crysis is supposed to utilize 4 cores, but it appears to not make a huge amount of difference in the game. Arguably because it's so punishing on graphics, sure, but still...

I'd like to ask what else you you your computer for. If it's only gaming, I should think that an overclocked Wolfdale, combined with a one of the new dual GPU cards rumored for February would be most, most excellent.... But if you like to play with Video creation/encoding, run lots of concurrent apps, and/or other more multi~tasked and multithreaded usages, then you would be better served with the Quad. Though you could also wait a bit for a 45NM Quad... :na: 
January 18, 2008 11:08:06 AM

At present, seems a C2D @ 3.2ghz will max out a 88000GTX. Most Q6600 GOs will go 3.4-3.6 ghz on air. I guy over on XS posted his results after getting his hands on a Q9550...max stable on air was 3.8ghz. Lower Wolfies are questionable as to reaching the speeds demonstrated by the ES samples. So it really boils down to what you want to get and what you can get the best deal on or whether you are willing to pay a premium for just a little extra largely unmeasurable performance in daily performance or games. I would recommend a quad even at a lower clock over dually for longer useful life but that is simply my preference.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 18, 2008 11:15:12 AM

Q6600, great bang for your buck, easily over clock able. Future proof with 4 cores. More and more apps are going to utilize 4 cores soon and that faster dual core E8500 will be holding you back.

Not worth getting a little faster speed now, that will hold you back in the very near future.
January 18, 2008 11:50:56 AM

Q6600 FTW. Not only Crysis uses 4 cores. FSX and many others take advantage of that. You can overclock but you can't add more cores.
January 18, 2008 11:57:13 AM

Wolfie. You can OC an E8400 way higher than a Q6600 with less heat and from what ive read, save a few bux, and the gaming advantages of a quad right now are margenal at best.
January 18, 2008 12:00:11 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
Wolfie. You can OC an E8400 way higher than a Q6600 with less heat and from what ive read, save a few bux, and the gaming advantages of a quad right now are margenal at best.


Agreed unless you want to "future" proof it.

Considering the stagnation in the CPU sector I'd say the Q6600 should last long enough for things that actually utilize it to come out.

If you do encoding or rendering the Q6600 would be better.

I can honestly say I've considered replacing my Q6600 with an E8400. Why am I not? Running a 500 MHz FSB to max out the potential of the Wolfie isn't something I want to subject my board to 24/7.

You can always overclock.

You can't overcore.
January 18, 2008 12:06:02 PM

I have seen the future and it is Nehalem. :)  I believe JK when he says that Nehalem is a beast and were all gonna likely dump our systems on Ebay by this time next year anyway, so anything we get now is a stopgap. Thats definetely what Im doing. Buying something to just get me thru to then. Whatever you can buy today is likely gonna be a PIII 233 MMX by next year so why prepre for a future that your CPU will never see? Nehalem for President!!! :) 
January 18, 2008 1:40:14 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
I have seen the future and it is Nehalem. :)  I believe JK when he says that Nehalem is a beast and were all gonna likely dump our systems on Ebay by this time next year anyway, so anything we get now is a stopgap. Thats definetely what Im doing. Buying something to just get me thru to then. Whatever you can buy today is likely gonna be a PIII 233 MMX by next year so why prepre for a future that your CPU will never see? Nehalem for President!!! :) 


I'm waiting on the socket BS to be settled. I'm not going to consider it a stopgap until I see proof of Nehalem.
Anonymous
January 18, 2008 1:45:18 PM

cnumartyr is your CPU water cooled ?
3.89 ghz is a nice clock
January 18, 2008 1:52:56 PM

I dont really do any encoding, maybe once in a blue moon.
I dont really run many apps at once. Just a few web browsers and a P2P program, when i'm not gaming.

I am planning on getting a 8800 GTS 512mb. And seeing how the newer 9800's pan out, when they arrive.

but largely, i'd like to keep this system for at least a year.
So if a new processor is coming out next year that'll blow my socks off, I dont mind another upgrade then!

What are these dual GPU cards?
When are they likely to be out?
a c 327 à CPUs
January 18, 2008 2:16:16 PM

At the same price point you can get a Q6600 at 2.4 or a E8500 at 3.19. Most current games can not use more than two cores, and by the time that changes we will see what nehalem is about. At the level of the Q6600 or E8500, most games will be gpu limited, not cpu limited. Flight simulatorX would be an exception. Anyway, I would take the increased clock speed, and the cooler running E8500 chip. Only with lots of cpu intensive multitasking would I think that the Q6600 would be better.

I would look to a evga card to give you the flexibility to step-up in case a better performing card should launch within 90 days. This is supposed to be the 9800 GX2 http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQzOSwx...
January 18, 2008 2:21:50 PM

Crysis definatly takes advantage of 4 cores once you overcome the GPU. I just got my Q6600 today and clocked at 3.0Ghz with Crysis set to 1280*1024 and medium settings (DX9) it gets 80fps, compaired to 40fps with my FX60 that I previously ran the same test with. I know those settings aren't realistic for what most people use, but it shows Quad Core's potential for gaming.
January 18, 2008 3:49:21 PM

Anonymous said:
cnumartyr is your CPU water cooled ?
3.89 ghz is a nice clock


It was air cooled. It's not a 24/7 setup, it was just for Benching 3DMark06.

24/7 is 3.6 GHz with some undervolted fans so it's quiet.


To the OP:

The new cards come out in Q2/3.. 9800 GX2 won't be worth it. 30% faster than the Ultra in games that support SLI. If the game doesn't take advantage of SLI you don't get the benefit. In addition to this its two sandwiched G92s... it's going to get warm.

I'd get an 8800 GT as a "hold over" til summer. RV770 has taped out and ES's are out. Rumor is 50% faster than RV670 and the R700 is a dual chip design. I'm sure nVidia has something, they just normally keep quiet about it.

This is why I'm not getting another 8800 GTS for SLI. Waiting for the true next gen cards, my card plays Crysis at 16:10 all high no problem (no AA though).

I was thinking of going P45 this summer + DDRIII + Q9450 + 2 RV770s possibly. I think the P45 is going to be insane as a mid-range board.. 8x8 CF in PCIe2.0? Yes please. I'll wait to see Nehalem pan out before I get one.. plus I'd like to see it at the 32nm shrink before I get one.

I just hate tieing myself to nVidia or ATi. I wish nVidia would just let any board run SLI so we can pick boards based on overall performance, not platform compatibility.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 18, 2008 9:38:12 PM

cnumartyr said:
I'm waiting on the socket BS to be settled. I'm not going to consider it a stopgap until I see proof of Nehalem.


I agree about the socket BS but still. If its true and they will have quad channel DDR3 imagine what it will be like.... it will be like the sandwiches of all sandwiches. Makes me drool just thinking of 4 channels of memory.
January 18, 2008 9:39:55 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I agree about the socket BS but still. If its true and they will have quad channel DDR3 imagine what it will be like.... it will be like the sandwiches of all sandwiches. Makes me drool just thinking of 4 channels of memory.


Isn't that like only on the top end socket? My fear is that for that socket only EE's will come out for it.

Or the mobo will be like $500... I just hate the idea of all the sockets.

Edit: It's why I'm REALLY hoping AMD gets it's act together and gets out a good 45nm K10 by mid summer.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 18, 2008 9:44:13 PM

cnumartyr said:
Isn't that like only on the top end socket? My fear is that for that socket only EE's will come out for it.

Or the mobo will be like $500... I just hate the idea of all the sockets.

Edit: It's why I'm REALLY hoping AMD gets it's act together and gets out a good 45nm K10 by mid summer.


Correct but a guy can dream right? It looks to be mainly server side but I doubt it will stay that way. Wiki has a nice table of it which I don't hold them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem . But we can at least get triple channle DDR3. I am sure the mobos will probably be quite expensive to start but once they get going will drop in price to a nice area.

I too would probably wait till the 32nm Nehalems as that will probably mean less power consumption and less heat. Plus easier OC'ing too.
January 18, 2008 9:45:12 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Correct but a guy can dream right? It looks to be mainly server side but I doubt it will stay that way. Wiki has a nice table of it which I don't hold them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem . But we can at least get triple channle DDR3. I am sure the mobos will probably be quite expensive to start but once they get going will drop in price to a nice area.

I too would probably wait till the 32nm Nehalems as that will probably mean less power consumption and less heat. Plus easier OC'ing too.



Easier OC, we know what we are getting as far as performance. Well established platforms... and hopefully not DDR4.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 18, 2008 9:51:32 PM

cnumartyr said:
Easier OC, we know what we are getting as far as performance. Well established platforms... and hopefully not DDR4.


I don't see DDR 4 until probably Sandy Bridge(aka nehalems/westmere succesor). Considering it is rumored to have 64GB/s memory bandwidth thats what I would expect DDR4 to hit. And if its true that its slated for 32 cores per chip that would be a dream.

I just can't wait. I want 2008 to be over so I can see Nehalem in action. Its so aggrivating to wait... dam production...takes forever....
January 18, 2008 10:02:15 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I don't see DDR 4 until probably Sandy Bridge(aka nehalems/westmere succesor). Considering it is rumored to have 64GB/s memory bandwidth thats what I would expect DDR4 to hit. And if its true that its slated for 32 cores per chip that would be a dream.

I just can't wait. I want 2008 to be over so I can see Nehalem in action. Its so aggrivating to wait... dam production...takes forever....



Should see tapeouts by Mid Summer and some initial performance numbers if Intel doesn't delay it due to lack of competition.
January 18, 2008 10:09:37 PM

cnumartyr said:
Should see tapeouts by Mid Summer and some initial performance numbers if Intel doesn't delay it due to lack of competition.

"lack of competition"

You just had to add that in...
January 18, 2008 10:10:45 PM

Evilonigiri said:
"lack of competition"

You just had to add that in...


AMD sucks.

Edit: VIA have a quad core yet?
a c 127 à CPUs
January 18, 2008 10:11:01 PM

lol what else can Intel do? Release everything on schedule and demolish AMD to dust and have anti-trust thrown up their YAHOO?
January 18, 2008 10:18:13 PM

cnumartyr said:
AMD sucks.

Okay...but it's entirely possible to delay them even with competition.

Perhaps there could be WW3?

"Should see tapeouts by Mid Summer and some initial performance numbers if Intel doesn't delay it due to World War III."
January 18, 2008 10:21:55 PM

In my humble opinion I think that only Nehalem will be worth it for a gamer when it comes to Quad Cores. For now, and for a gamer, the current Dual Cores are well worth it, until Nehalem comes out. That is what I am planning to do myself. I do have the financial capacities to buy a good Quad Core system (Q9450 for example), but I don't see myself honestly multitasking everyday or even some times. I mostly do one thing at a time, and very rarely two things in one shot.

However with Nehalem the Quad technology will be better implemented, will be faster and cooler too, not to mention that by the end of 2008 and early 2009 there will be more games and applications definitely using Quad Cores. But today and in the short term future I don't see myself, or rather I should say my system using even three Cores at half their capacity. I mean even the games I have that do use two Cores are in fact using maybe 70% of one, and about 25% of the second.
January 18, 2008 10:24:42 PM

Lol.....VIA making a quad core, it would run on leaves and my old 3000+ would stomp all over it.
January 18, 2008 10:26:02 PM

yay said:
Lol.....VIA making a quad core, it would run on leaves and my old 3000+ would stomp all over it.



But put 50 of them together and they'd put out less heat than a Phenom, run on half the power.. and be MUCH faster in multithreaded apps....
January 18, 2008 10:30:44 PM

lol... its funny cos it came from someone with a intel core 2 quad for a pic, 50 of them would kick any intel in heat/energy/performance too.
January 22, 2008 7:45:46 AM

Thanks for all your replies guys.

The feel I am getting, is people are not convinced the Q6600 would be the way to go at the moment.
As not alot of games use the quad core technology.

The higher clock speed of the Dual cores, means that my CPU will never be the bottleneck in my system, but the GPU will.

So. I am now thinking. If I get a quad core, OC'd to say 3.2GHz, surely this will be enough to not be the bottleneck after my 8800GTS?

If so, why not just plump for the extra cores, so my everyday usage of browsing and downloading etc, is much faster?

I have no problems upgrading again in another year / 2 years. But I want this system to be as future proof as I can.
Anonymous
January 22, 2008 12:39:26 PM

cnumartyr said:
AMD sucks.

Edit: VIA have a quad core yet?

I heard Cyrix is beggining work on there new CPU and chipset line =P
January 22, 2008 12:59:02 PM

2 Thoughts

1st- I heard rumors there is a possibility of moving the memory controller to the CPU. This would negate the future proof of getting a Quad Core. I don't put much faith in future proofing Tech as it has a way of going in a new direction, not always based on the best solution, when ever something new comes on the scene (EX: Blue Ray vs HD).

2nd - I would look at getting the most bang for my buck today. My son built a killer machine this past December and it's already being obsoleted.

Why not have a MB that allow Multi-CPUs to be dedicated to the varied function for the home PC. Drop in a couple of dual cores for main CPU, another dual core for Video, another Dual core for I/O, etc. Also, wouldn't it be nice to have the OS support 64 bit and the applications support multi-threads?

Just my 2 cents ...
January 22, 2008 1:11:16 PM

I would get the E8400 right now so long as you plan to upgrade in the next 1-2 years.

The E8400 should break 4.0Ghz fairly easy for regular setup.
This chip is also about 5% faster clock for clock due to various improvements.
Most games, even the ones that support over 2 cores, do not put nearly as much load on the other cores so the speed of the 1st two is very important.
Also the extra SSE instructions may help more in the future almost as much as the other cores in some cases.

Finally, it's a bit cheaper ($70 or so.)

I suspect that in late 'Q4 most folks will be hungering for the Nehalm.
If you might be one who will be looking for the upgrade, go dual now.

If you are not going to upgrade for a while then the quad may be better.
January 22, 2008 2:03:50 PM

Quote:
"future proofing"
and
Quote:
"But I also want to be able to play games for at least another year before I have to upgrade."


Come on now. How many games in one year will start to utilize 4 cores, or at least make it beneficial. I doubt many will. Probably only a few you can count on one hand, maybe both hands at best.

Go for quad if video/audio/rendering, otherwise dual core is enough. You can o/c a dual core more than a quad, so most apps currently use only 2, so that will help more.

Then again, it's all user preference. Good luck on deciding.
January 22, 2008 2:31:36 PM

my Q6600 runs at average 20% load when playing crysis. Max 40%. Going with the fast dual core is a no brainer. Only idiots with no brains would by a q6600. (Never mind the fact that i have a q6600...)
January 22, 2008 2:35:44 PM

shadowmaster625 said:
my Q6600 runs at average 20% load when playing crysis. Max 40%. Going with the fast dual core is a no brainer. Only idiots with no brains would by a q6600. (Never mind the fact that i have a q6600...)


So you are using a game that only uses 2 cores as a basis to call people stupid?

You tried SupCom on it yet with 8 players and the max pop cap? Yea...
January 22, 2008 2:46:29 PM

Expecting the Quad to be future proof due to the fact that games "should" be optimized for 4 cores is, IMO, flawed logic; Counting ones chickens before they hatch. I'd go with the E8400 as "most" but not all games are NOT optimized for dual cores let alone a quad. Get the quad if you are sure the apps you want to run are optimized for them, which would be video/audio editing/ripping, etc. Power consumption, higher cache and OC-ability sells me on the E8400.

The CPU is just as important in gaming as Video. I wouldn't get too crazy with the "Crysis" numbers, as it is "in the want" now. Even the latest and greatest 3-Way SLI and a C2X could barely get out 40 FPS on everything at max.

In this market there is no such thing as "future proof"
January 22, 2008 3:33:48 PM

Quick question about the Quad Core:

Assuming you are running 64-bit XP, and you are running either multiple copies of a game, or a game + aim + firefox + winamp + ventrilo + (insert relatively low cpu usage program here), all at once. Would the quad core be a significant improvement over the dual core becuase of the four cores? Or would the faster clock of the dual core make the difference in this situation somewhat moot?

This is assuming the game is set on average settings, and is not Crysis(which seems to be more of a benchmark than a game, when reading these boards =P).
January 22, 2008 3:41:29 PM

Hozer said:
Quick question about the Quad Core:

Assuming you are running 64-bit XP, and you are running either multiple copies of a game, or a game + aim + firefox + winamp + ventrilo + (insert relatively low cpu usage program here), all at once. Would the quad core be a significant improvement over the dual core becuase of the four cores? Or would the faster clock of the dual core make the difference in this situation somewhat moot?

This is assuming the game is set on average settings, and is not Crysis(which seems to be more of a benchmark than a game, when reading these boards =P).


I play Crysis with stuff running in the background all the time. Steam, AIM, MSN, Yahoo.. I alt+tab out to chat in it. I normally have 2-3 internet windows open, Ventrilo, Windows Media, and have one core doing movie encoding 24/7.

My quad handles it fine.
Anonymous
January 22, 2008 3:54:35 PM

Hozer said:
Quick question about the Quad Core:

Assuming you are running 64-bit XP, and you are running either multiple copies of a game, or a game + aim + firefox + winamp + ventrilo + (insert relatively low cpu usage program here), all at once. Would the quad core be a significant improvement over the dual core becuase of the four cores? Or would the faster clock of the dual core make the difference in this situation somewhat moot?

This is assuming the game is set on average settings, and is not Crysis(which seems to be more of a benchmark than a game, when reading these boards =P).



The Quad core will perform better if more than 2 apps are run. I'm still sticking to my recommendation of getting the Q6600 over the dual E8400. Clocking your Q6600 to 3.0+ is the most you need for anything now or in the near future. With the Q6600 you can go into task manager and dedicate a core to each program, as well as a dual core can, but here you get 4 cores vs 2.

And for heat issues, there are none if you keep you Q6600 around 3.0 or less.

In this day and age of computers there is NO future proofing. All you can do is buy what you can afford and the items you want to meet your needs for the next hopefully year or 2 (hopefully more if we are lucky).

Really all you can do is research and ask all the nice people here in the forums for there input and base your decision off of that.

Good luck on your purchase whatever it is.
January 22, 2008 4:12:04 PM

Awesome.

I have a P5B and E6600 right now, but I am going to be giving that to my brother and getting a new system for myself.

I'm pretty much looking at:

Q6600 G0
8800 GTS G92 512MB
GA-P35-DS3R
WD7500AAKS x2
RC-690
OCZ Reaper 4GB(2x2GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Arctic Cooling FREEZER 7
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 EPS12V
January 22, 2008 5:11:59 PM

I would hold out a few more months and get the new 45nm chips .. Quad of course.. so much more overclockable than the Q6600 (old schoool)
January 22, 2008 5:22:57 PM

rhysee said:
I would hold out a few more months and get the new 45nm chips .. Quad of course.. so much more overclockable than the Q6600 (old schoool)


Fail.

QX9650 and QX9770 maybe.

Q9300? No.
Q9450? Equalish.
Q9550? $500+
January 22, 2008 5:32:16 PM

I stand corrected.. Cheers Resident Jerk
January 22, 2008 5:42:56 PM

rhysee said:
I stand corrected.. Cheers Resident Jerk


No problem, it's just unfortunate most people equate enlightenment with being a jerk. I'm just here to correct ignorance when I can.
January 22, 2008 5:54:33 PM

I appreciate the input cnu, he may have been referring to your title though!

cnumartyr
Resident Jerk
Profile: Honorary Poster


Thanks again for the input.
January 22, 2008 5:55:18 PM

cnumartyr said:
No problem, it's just unfortunate most people equate enlightenment with being a jerk. I'm just here to correct ignorance when I can.


Word, Playa.
January 22, 2008 5:55:46 PM

Hozer said:
I appreciate the input cnu, he may have been referring to your title though!

cnumartyr
Resident Jerk
Profile: Honorary Poster


Thanks again for the input.


Wow, that one went right over your head didn't it?
Anonymous
January 22, 2008 5:57:53 PM

Hahaha cnumartyr... enlightenment thats great.

Also telling everyone to hold out for a month here, a month there. a few months etc.... everything is changing so fast you will always have to wait. Get something you are happy with now.
There is always a something new around the corner and you may regret getting this or that, but you ALWAYS will cause something bigger and better comes out right after.
If what you have takes care of your business/games/graphics etc... don't ever feel ripped off.. because it would cost a fortune to always stay on top of the newest releases. Don't get me wrong to wait a few days or a week is obviously worth while but months... no chance.


cnumartyr wants the title Resident Monk LoL !


PS wether you like it or not and whatever anyone is telling you. a Q6600 is a good bang for its buck.
January 22, 2008 6:01:51 PM

Anonymous said:
Hahaha cnumartyr... enlightenment thats great.

Also telling everyone to hold out for a month here, a month there. a few months etc.... everything is changing so fast you will always have to wait. Get something you are happy with now.
There is always a something new around the corner and you may regret getting this or that, but you ALWAYS will cause something bigger and better comes out right after.
If what you have takes care of your business/games/graphics etc... don't ever feel ripped off.. because it would cost a fortune to always stay on top of the newest releases. Don't get me wrong to wait a few days or a week is obviously worth while but months... no chance.


cnumartyr wants the title Resident Monk LoL !


Lets see....

Wait til March because Quad Core 45nm will be out! In March.. oh man G100 and RV770 are out in a couple months don't waste money on a Video card now! During the summer... Phenom at 45nm might be out soon and Larrabee is taping out, don't waste your money now! During the fall, NEHALEM WILL BE OUT SOON.
Anonymous
January 22, 2008 6:36:48 PM

cnumartyr said:
Lets see....

Wait til March because Quad Core 45nm will be out! In March.. oh man G100 and RV770 are out in a couple months don't waste money on a Video card now! During the summer... Phenom at 45nm might be out soon and Larrabee is taping out, don't waste your money now! During the fall, NEHALEM WILL BE OUT SOON.



Thats my point exaclty to all these people saying wait wait wait... its a damn hard race to win with soooo much coming and going at the pace this industry is going its getting to be a damn EXPENSIVE hobby now.

And come fall you will buy that NELAHAM and after 2 months of sales another GREATER CPU will be the buzz word. This also applies to every component.
!