Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad or Dual Core processor?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 17, 2008 10:02:27 PM

I recently decided upon the Q6600 quad core processor at the stock speed of 2.4

(found here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)

But after reading the performance comparison article on Tomshardware.com (I'll post the link when I find it) I am giving my choice a second thought. Would a faster dual core processor be better than a Q6600?

An example dual core would be similar to this one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The CPU would mainly be used for gaming. Any clarification why one would better over another is greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot!
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2008 10:09:31 PM

Well, if it is mostly gaming and there aren't a lot of background processes, a higher clocked dual core will be better in most cases. Most games currently out can only utilize two or fewer cores. The can, however, use every MHz you give them.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2008 10:11:34 PM

Oh, and I wouldn't buy the dual core you listed. It seemed a little pricey. You could get one for a lot less and OC is well into the 3-3.6 GHz range.
Related resources
March 17, 2008 11:02:02 PM

Most games out there use 1-2 cores, so they would perform better with a dual core at 2.6Ghz then a quad at 2.4Ghz. On the other hand some professional tools are made to take advantage of any available cores, in that case a quad core will finish a job in nearly half the time it will take a dual core.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
3D Studio Max
Q6600 = 43 seconds
E6600 = 86 seconds
Unreal Tournament 2004
Q6600 = 93 fps
E6600 = 76 fps
Prey
Q6600 = 113 fps
E6600 = 109 fps
March 17, 2008 11:07:13 PM

wellp, if you take into account alan wake and far cry 2 on which the game developers are bragging how those games would fully utilize four cores... then id say it makes sense to invest on a quad now. Forget about crysis, its a poorly coded game. And im sure later on the year patches would be bent on utilizing more cores... although slim chance but still :D  Buying an e8400 isnt bad either, given that youre the type of person who upgrades ever so often (i.e. lots o money). But if youre a student like me... looking up ahead is a better choice.

I mean, people say e8400 is better for gaming, yeah but q6600 can game too. All the current games it can play very well already, so i dont see why you need to step up for a faster dual core when your quad can already do it. And once games are optimised for your quads, its good bye duals
March 18, 2008 1:24:30 AM

if you not overclock or not encoding then use a dual core at a higher speed.

a q6600 runs at 3.6ghz i ship one a week and everyone runs at 3.6ghz - every q6600 i have bought oem or box will run 3.6ghz. some run at 3.8 or 4.1 - my point is if not going to take advantage then use a dual core.

you should run a 3ghz dual core if you game or do normal pc stuff that is not 4 core optimized your system will run faster on dual core.

intel sets up the cpu's for a 7-10 life as a server chip using stock cooling and poor air flow - take the same cpu and use it a home pc that runs 20% full out per year and its life is 35-50 years

take the same cpu and add a good case and a cooling solution now you have a 50 year chip - now will you be using that chip in 50 years?

take the cpu and crank the voltage to 1.45 under load and cpu life drops 20-50% add good cooling and your cpu will last 5-10 years under normal home usage.

will you need the cpu that one that is running at 3.6ghz in 10 years? if you say "no" ok then crank it up to 4.1`ghz it might last 2-3 yrs under high load. probably alot longer

lets say the cpu fails in 5 years - extrapolate the cost? it around $25

yes that q6600 in 5 years will cost around $25

now ask yourself is it worth $25 for 50% or even double performance?

not overclocking is poor decision from both a cost point of view and a performance point of view

----------
now if your running a google server your going to trun off and leave when it dies - skip overclocking!
March 18, 2008 2:02:27 AM

Well actually, I already have the Q6600 I was just curious as to whether I had made the right choice. As it is too late for me to RMA the product and get a higher clocked dual core that is 45nm like gamecrazychris mentioned I'm stuck with my Q6600, which isn't a bad thing.

What I was mainly concerned about was my CPU's longevity (not having to upgrade again in maybe 2-3 years) and ability to perform well when I want to play a system intensive game.

Also, I'm reading up on 45nm but I'm not quite sure what makes it so much better than 65nm?
March 18, 2008 2:09:50 AM

Its supposed to run more efficently then the 65nm, use less power, more cache, which means your using your fsb less. Personally any game i have installed on my comp right now only uses 70% of my processor speed off of one core@3.0 gigs right now so i dont really see the need personally to get a higher performing chip when the chip you have isnt even being fully utilized.
March 18, 2008 2:41:49 AM

wart thumbed said:
I recently decided upon the Q6600 quad core processor at the stock speed of 2.4

(found here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)

But after reading the performance comparison article on Tomshardware.com (I'll post the link when I find it) I am giving my choice a second thought. Would a faster dual core processor be better than a Q6600?

An example dual core would be similar to this one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The CPU would mainly be used for gaming. Any clarification why one would better over another is greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot!


The Q6600 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi Chip Module that contains two dual cores placed side-by-side in a package. The q6600 is a Multi Chip Module and suffers from a memory bandwidth bottle neck. Because of that, it will never match the performance of native quad core. The Q6600 is a poor investment.

March 18, 2008 4:11:14 AM

enigma067 said:
The q6600 is a Multi Chip Module and suffers from a memory bandwidth bottle neck. Because of that, it will never match the performance of native quad core.


Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Q6600 beats the 'native quad core' Phenom in pretty much every benchmark other than memory bandwidth (which is rarely of great importance to real applications).
March 18, 2008 4:11:40 AM

enigma067 said:
The Q6600 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi Chip Module that contains two dual cores placed side-by-side in a package. The q6600 is a Multi Chip Module and suffers from a memory bandwidth bottle neck. Because of that, it will never match the performance of native quad core. The Q6600 is a poor investment.

The Q6600 outperforms native quad-core phenom CPUs clocked at higher frequencies. Hardly a "poor investment" - this coming from an AMD supporter.




March 18, 2008 6:08:22 AM

if you ship q6600 at 3.6 all day can we have a howto. do you think it wood werk on a foxconn x38a
March 19, 2008 1:14:28 AM

enigma067 said:
The Q6600 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi Chip Module that contains two dual cores placed side-by-side in a package. The q6600 is a Multi Chip Module and suffers from a memory bandwidth bottle neck. Because of that, it will never match the performance of native quad core. The Q6600 is a poor investment.


Wow what a foot in mouth predicament, but on the other hand Ill take my "multi chip module" and put it against a phenom any day. And i dont have to underclock a core in order to get it to run stabily, i actually got ALL 4 overclocked :whistle:  @3.0 gigs.
March 19, 2008 1:53:04 AM

Foot in mouth indeed. The intel quad core design may not be the perfect for efficiency, but check it out - Its faster than the other options. if you think its slow, you may be crazy. Its not suffering for performance in any way. doesnt matter if you run at my 3.2, or stock 2.4. you will not feel the bottleneck in any app.
March 19, 2008 3:28:36 AM

The Q6600 is a fine option. If the e8400 dual core was easy to find for $200, it would have given you more for the money now. But you will not be held back at all gaming on a Q6600. With tri SLI 8800 Ultras maybe, but not with a single GPU. Plus they do OC you know. ;)  Once your games are tweaked for max playable settings, typically your video card will be you most limiting factor. For an example, look at all three games in this review and notice as resolution and eye candy get cranked, things get GPU bound with even high end cards like these. CPU's way slower than the Q6600 still feed the 8800GT very well. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page8.asp

Plus there are already games that the Q6600 beats a higher clocked e6850. This is sure to happen in other games down the road. What do you notice in Supreme Commander and updated Lost planet? http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
What I notice is an e6850 overclocked to 3.85GHz can't surpass a stock Q6600. And you surely don't have to keep the Q6600 at stock 2.4Ghz either.

[H] takes a look at single vs dual vs Quad core in supreme commander. looks like Quads make a difference in that game to me.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw2...


Don't let anyone get you down about your purchase. Both the Q6600 and e8400 are excellent gaming chips. Enjoy it.
!