Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (45nm) OR Intel core 2 quad q6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 12, 2008 8:16:03 PM

i will be building a computer to play games on but not extreme gaming. im not going to do any video editing but probabley multi-tasking while im playing games. in the future will games be adapting to quad cores or duos?

I have my mind on the Q6600 but the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is 45nm saves power, and a good price. but i dont think its as good as the q6600. what should i get.
E8400: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

May 12, 2008 8:20:14 PM

If you plan to keep the computer at least 2 years without upgrading (CPU) take the Q6600. If you upgrade every year or every 18 months take the E8400. Games are becoming more QC friendly but it's a slow process. The QC will last longer.
May 12, 2008 8:39:05 PM

Like Andrius said, the E8400 should suffice for your needs if you upgrade frequently. The Q6600 suits my needs though. I used to have my computer encode late at night after gaming or working, but with my quad core I can do everything at once with no slowdown. If I wasn't doing that I would have gone for the E8400.
Related resources
May 12, 2008 8:41:21 PM

It so much fun to see this question get asked nearly every day in every way. Each time it gets answered I learn something new and the education is often entertaining. So, for today's episode of E8400 vs. Q6600 what'll we have?

If you're likely to overclock your processor (even if you aren't familiar with doing so now, folks here will help you) you can overclock that Q6600 well into the more-than-enough-for-gaming-for-a-long-time league and have the best of both worlds today. If you're not going to overclock than the E8400 has a higher stock speed which today's games will appreciate more than the 2 extra cores of the Quad.

Personally, I think the Q is the better investment, because as you're gaming you can be doing other things, like virus/spyare scanning or whathaveyou and have you games still run smooth. You'll likely hear that games will be written to take better use of the Quad cores.

So, as Andrius wrote, if you upgrade kind of often go with the raw speed today and get the Quad later, when games better exploit them. If this is a longer term investment then I'd recommend the Quad.
May 12, 2008 8:59:37 PM

halcyon said:
It so much fun to see this question get asked nearly every day in every way.


agreed. Asked and answered a million and one times before :pt1cable: 
January 19, 2009 9:52:47 PM

I am asking the same question about the E8400 vs. the Q6600, but I don't play games on the computer. This is for a business application. Mostly Work, Excel, etc. I tend to keep lots of files & Web pages open at the same time (10-15). I may set up two monitors at the same time, but not playing games. I don't want to upgrade, however, every year. Don't know how to push the speed, but that may not matter.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Marc
a c 83 à CPUs
January 19, 2009 11:40:42 PM

mdsiegel said:
I am asking the same question about the E8400 vs. the Q6600, but I don't play games on the computer. This is for a business application. Mostly Work, Excel, etc. I tend to keep lots of files & Web pages open at the same time (10-15). I may set up two monitors at the same time, but not playing games. I don't want to upgrade, however, every year. Don't know how to push the speed, but that may not matter.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Marc


I see no benefit using a quad for those simple tasks. Just to prove myself accurate in saying it I've got excel open, 13 instances of microsoft office word open, 20 instances of internet explorer, and 10 instances of firefox. Also using AIM, MSN, and Xfire. Browsing around switching between files and windows I've got zero lag. I'm only running a 2.0Ghz Core Duo with 2Gb ram in this computer. CPU usage hasn't gone over 15% And I do have 2 monitors running as well.


As far as the OP's question of the E8400 or Q6600 for gaming. I do recommend a Quad, but I'd get a newer 45nm Quad instead of the aged Q6600. Intel just cut prices, by the end of the week the Q8300 should be the same price as the Q6600 online, Q8200 will be cheaper. You did mention power consumption as a concern and they will be more power friendly than the Q6600. However I'm not sure how well the Q8300 overclocks compared to the Q6600.
January 20, 2009 2:22:39 AM

Lol , this is the never ending question, asked every day. 2 cores vs 4 cores.

And the answer is simple. For future proof and greater lifespan, go with quad, more and more games and programs are being optimized for multicore designs. For the majority of today's software, get a high clocked dual core, since most apps will benefit more from this, instead of having extra cores. Nuff said.

In your case, i think even a low-end dual core can get the job done, since Excel, for example, runs even on a damn PIII machine...

So if u really plan to use your pc just for that, u can save money and buy a even a cheaper proc, lets say like the E6750, for example.
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 2:32:43 AM

honestly get a dual core and overclock it. dual cores are better optimized for games and general multi tasking. its only when you encode video and audio at the same time that you really need a quad. don't let the quad core fan boys come and tell you that quads are this quads are that. quads are just basically slower dual cores at the moment until they start making programs use all 4 cores simultaneously for a given task.
January 20, 2009 5:16:23 AM

loneninja said:
I see no benefit using a quad for those simple tasks. Just to prove myself accurate in saying it I've got excel open, 13 instances of microsoft office word open, 20 instances of internet explorer, and 10 instances of firefox. Also using AIM, MSN, and Xfire. Browsing around switching between files and windows I've got zero lag. I'm only running a 2.0Ghz Core Duo with 2Gb ram in this computer. CPU usage hasn't gone over 15% And I do have 2 monitors running as well.


As far as the OP's question of the E8400 or Q6600 for gaming. I do recommend a Quad, but I'd get a newer 45nm Quad instead of the aged Q6600. Intel just cut prices, by the end of the week the Q8300 should be the same price as the Q6600 online, Q8200 will be cheaper. You did mention power consumption as a concern and they will be more power friendly than the Q6600. However I'm not sure how well the Q8300 overclocks compared to the Q6600.

January 20, 2009 8:31:56 AM

Its challenging to believe that people are still asking this question. Quads have been out for a long time...even if you don't think you need all of the power they have to offer would you really buy a dual-core right now when you could have at least a simple quad? I mean...geese, the i7's are out...it's hard to believe that a Q6600 could be overkill for anyone that does any multi-tasking...and they overclock to extremes...so???

...or do people just ask this question to start a conversation? ...as a watch my core meter in Vista show 8 cores routinely active on the 920.
January 20, 2009 1:47:11 PM

Halcyon,
Not all of us are as comfortable with the inside of a computer as most of the people on this thread. I have never overclocked a computer chip. I wouldn't even know where to find the 'core meter'. The response to this question has been pretty inconsistent. I read an article that put each chip through its paces (http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/568/1) and it said that the E8400 was hands-down better for the average user. What I can't get my hands around is whether I would know the difference between the E8400 and the Q6600 for what I do (as previously described). If not, then the Quad chip might have a better future and is currently far less expensive (as part of a Dell package). Do you understand better my question?
M
January 20, 2009 2:06:07 PM

Well... for gaming the E8400 is better for non-overclockers. However, the quad will be better in every other instance at stock speeds. Of course if you overclock the Q6600 to 3.2 Ghz+ it will run everything the best so It is a complicated problem and there is no easy answer. My answer? Quad.
January 20, 2009 2:08:46 PM

8 threads halcyon, not 8 cores... big difference...
January 20, 2009 2:32:55 PM

I've own these two processors. While you dont see much of a difference in gaming, the q6600 pwns in all other tasks..
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 3:32:21 PM

Having 10-15 files and web pages open at the same time is not really multitasking, because only the one that is active on the desktop is using any CPU power. When you switch to another window then it starts using CPU power and the other window goes dormant. Even if you switch to another window to work on a document while a web page is loading in the background window, that doesn't require much CPU power.

Multitasking is if you are encoding a movie in one window, burning a DVD, downloading in a third window, and playing a game all at the same time. Then you have concurrent processes that all need CPU power. I have a single core and it is real easy for me to get the computer bogged down with downloading, copying folders, etc. to the point that I can't do anything else with it. I think dual cores would work out fine for me.
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 4:01:18 PM

+1 for the E8400, I sold my Q6600 because I felt that it was slow, would run multiple threads on one core whilst leaving the other cores idle, created too much heat used too much power and had been superseded by the Q9xxx series.
January 20, 2009 6:27:36 PM

Blood, while I should have said 8 threads, the core meter does indeed show 8 cores...yet I know this is "virtual" as a result of hyperthreading.

I guess it does indeed have a lot to do with what you do with your rig, but it just seems to me that unless you replace your CPU once a year (as do some of us) that a better investment is a quad. If you replace your CPU often, then yes, a nasty-fast-nasty clocked dual, may be the better investment for time being.

I didn't intend to sound arrogant, ...too much caffeine at the time of my post.
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 7:31:00 PM

Do not listen to all this quad core hype in this thread. Yes they are great IF YOU USE ALL 4 CORES. The E8400 is way faster than the q6600 in everything you stated you want to do with the machine.

As stated before running all those instances of a webrower and aim/irc or any other common task is not multitaking. That is childs play for a cpu. Any cpu released this decade would not be phased by those tasks.

The q6600 does not pwn the 8400 in all other tasks nerdic. Its the other way around for the majority of people using a computer. The e8400 pwns the q6600 in everything but apps that take advantage of all four cores. Like certain video enocders.

To the folks that say oh just get a q6600 and overclock it 3ghz for mainly single threaded tasks. What most of leave out is you can just overlcock the e8400 just as easy to around 4ghz.

Again the only time the q6600 wins is when all of it cores are being loaded. The 45nms are faster than the65nm parts clock for clock and the e8400 has a 600mhz advantage. The q6600 is a GREAT cpu for those that overclock and actually use the 4 cores. If you dont overclock and use programs that take advantage of all 4 cores its basically just a e6600. Which NOBODY would buy today.


a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 7:55:38 PM

someguy7 said:
Do not listen to all this quad core hype in this thread. Yes they are great IF YOU USE ALL 4 CORES. The E8400 is way faster than the q6600 in everything you stated you want to do with the machine.

As stated before running all those instances of a webrower and aim/irc or any other common task is not multitaking. That is childs play for a cpu. Any cpu released this decade would not be phased by those tasks.

The q6600 does not pwn the 8400 in all other tasks nerdic. Its the other way around for the majority of people using a computer. The e8400 pwns the q6600 in everything but apps that take advantage of all four cores. Like certain video enocders.

To the folks that say oh just get a q6600 and overclock it 3ghz for mainly single threaded tasks. What most of leave out is you can just overlcock the e8400 just as easy to around 4ghz.

Again the only time the q6600 wins is when all of it cores are being loaded. The 45nms are faster than the65nm parts clock for clock and the e8400 has a 600mhz advantage. The q6600 is a GREAT cpu for those that overclock and actually use the 4 cores. If you dont overclock and use programs that take advantage of all 4 cores its basically just a e6600. Which NOBODY would buy today.


exactly.

*waits for silverion to come and flame against dual cores*
January 20, 2009 9:42:15 PM

So...an i7 is just a waste of silicon for all but a very select minority. Ok. Thanks for info and clearing that up for. Just get an e8400...it's the best processor out there for everything you're doing now and will do for the next 4 years...besides, its way better than any quad could ever want to be.
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 10:17:55 PM

^ it will be amazing for the next 1-2 years then by the time its outdated and multi threaded apps are the norm, there will be 6-8 core processors so why waste money on a quad core right now? logic seems to fail.
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 11:02:00 PM

Waste of silicon? No.
Waste of money in this case? Yes.

Best 4 years from now? Save that nonsense. 4 years from now most people will do same kind of stuff with there machines. If you built a AMD single core system 4years ago to run office apps and browse the net it will still perform the same.

4 years from now its going to the same ol crap. 32bit single threaded apps. Ever since the quads came out its been the same old jazz. In another 6-12 months everything will be coded for quads. Thats pure BS. There are very a limited amount of apps that use 4 cores. Then a good portion of those programs/games dont scale well at all on the quads.

If you actually do stuff that works all 4 cores then its a no brainer to go for a c2q/i7/pII If you dont its a waste of 2 cores and the MHZ hit and 45nm improvemnet differnce in the case of e8400 vs q6600.

Quads have been out for a while now. So has 64bit. Both are hardly taking advantage off. There arent even a great deal of apps that make use of dual cores. Alot of benefit of dual cores is the OS being able to have a cpu intesive task use one core while loading the other backround task or light cpu task to other core. If you're mulitasking with cpu intensive tasks than a quad also exels. The thing I see from browsing the forums is people think running multiple browers,itunes,aim,utorrent,watching video is multitasking. When its actually nothing. If intel/amd still made single cores they wouldnt break a sweat handling those tasks. If there was a single core e8400 or a high clocked x2 single core or a PII single core it would handle them with ease. But if you ran a program that max loaded to single core everything else you try to do would come to a crawl. With quads instead of one app at full load bring'n the system to crawl you would need 4 apps for a quad. The thing is none of tasks the OP is going to run will even be enough to max load a single core except for the light gaming.

The q6600 was/is a great cpu. One of the best of all time. The i7 is a frickin monster. The PII are good but cant be used in this discussion because they are faster clock for clock and have about = clocks than AMD's dual core options.

There is just so many people getting quads to show off there e-penis. Benchmarks and cpu-z screen shots.
January 20, 2009 11:16:55 PM

someguy7 said:
Do not listen to all this quad core hype in this thread. Yes they are great IF YOU USE ALL 4 CORES. The E8400 is way faster than the q6600 in everything you stated you want to do with the machine.

As stated before running all those instances of a webrower and aim/irc or any other common task is not multitaking. That is childs play for a cpu. Any cpu released this decade would not be phased by those tasks.

The q6600 does not pwn the 8400 in all other tasks nerdic. Its the other way around for the majority of people using a computer. The e8400 pwns the q6600 in everything but apps that take advantage of all four cores. Like certain video enocders.

To the folks that say oh just get a q6600 and overclock it 3ghz for mainly single threaded tasks. What most of leave out is you can just overlcock the e8400 just as easy to around 4ghz.

Again the only time the q6600 wins is when all of it cores are being loaded. The 45nms are faster than the65nm parts clock for clock and the e8400 has a 600mhz advantage. The q6600 is a GREAT cpu for those that overclock and actually use the 4 cores. If you dont overclock and use programs that take advantage of all 4 cores its basically just a e6600. Which NOBODY would buy today.


You missed the entire point and thanks to that you failed spectacularly at supporting your opinion. The reason quads are better is because the Apps that are quadcore optimized are much faster on quads. You are absolutely right that those Apps are few and far between. You are also right that just general multitasking wont even put a dent into a dualcore. You are right, you can overclock a Q6600 to 3.0 Ghz to gain the lost performance but can also overclock an E8400 to 3.2 Ghz (going by the average OC without voltage change) which will gain some performance.

Where you fail is here: At 3.2Ghz+ any larger overclock is irrelevant in anything but gaming so that the Q6600 and the E8400 will atleast tie overclocked in most Apps, but the quad will win in a select few. The main reason dualcores are NOT a good investment now is that the future wont be centered around dualcore optimization, it will be centered around quadcore optimization. What does this mean? This means that in the coming months and years there will be more and more programs that run better on quadcores because they are optimized, not to mention that Windows 7 will be quadcore optimized as well. Again what does this mean? Today, the dual and the quad will be equal at 3.0 Ghz+ for most things, but in a year or 2 years the quadcore will pull ahead and will last much longer than the dualcore. Yes, the classic counter argument for this is that gaming requires frequent upgrades. Do you know what the last thing a gamer upgrades is out of the big 4 components? Yes, the CPU. In 2 years the quadcore will still be able to run modern games without largely bottlenecking the future GPUs, the dualcore wont be able to and will need to be upgraded.

A Q6600 and an E8400 cost virtually the same. Knowing this let us assume that the consumer will upgrade frequently. In 2 years time the gaming industry might not have changed much. The graphical improvements might go on as they have or they might change to focus on something such as Physics. GPUs might become much more powerful with a large technological breakthrough, or we might have some more rebranded 8800 GTs. The future is UNCERTAIN. So which would you choose, the dual which does everything a quadcore can in normal day use and might do better in some older or less demanding games than a quad? Or will you choose the quadcore which can match the dual in normal day things, will run newer, more demanding games better, and will likely not need upgrading for a much longer time than the dual? Did I mention they are the same price? Yes, the quad is better in this instance, the same instance you used in your argument.

So are dualcores useless? Absolutely... NOT! An E5200 can overclock higher than an E8400, perform equally clock for clock, and costs less than half the price at $70-$80 allowing the consumer to put more money into other areas. Also for those who are deathly afraid and are too stubborn to spend the time learning how to overclock, or for those that for one reason or another can not overclock their CPU, the duals can be better. That said if they can afford a Quad at 2.8 Ghz (Q9550) or the recently made very affordable Q9650 at 3.0 Ghz stock speeds than they can reap all the benefits of quads listed above without raising a Mhz. Dualcores are still relevant because they CAN compete with quads and can be found for reasonably cheap. However, with overclocking an option and the ability to atleast afford a Q6600 the quadcore is the king of CPUs, and that is that.
January 20, 2009 11:27:13 PM

someguy7 said:
Waste of silicon? No.
Waste of money in this case? Yes.

Best 4 years from now? Save that nonsense. 4 years from now most people will do same kind of stuff with there machines. If you built a AMD single core system 4years ago to run office apps and browse the net it will still perform the same.

4 years from now its going to the same ol crap. 32bit single threaded apps. Ever since the quads came out its been the same old jazz. In another 6-12 months everything will be coded for quads. Thats pure BS. There are very a limited amount of apps that use 4 cores. Then a good portion of those programs/games dont scale well at all on the quads.

If you actually do stuff that works all 4 cores then its a no brainer to go for a c2q/i7/pII If you dont its a waste of 2 cores and the MHZ hit and 45nm improvemnet differnce in the case of e8400 vs q6600.

Quads have been out for a while now. So has 64bit. Both are hardly taking advantage off. There arent even a great deal of apps that make use of dual cores. Alot of benefit of dual cores is the OS being able to have a cpu intesive task use one core while loading the other backround task or light cpu task to other core. If you're mulitasking with cpu intensive tasks than a quad also exels. The thing I see from browsing the forums is people think running multiple browers,itunes,aim,utorrent,watching video is multitasking. When its actually nothing. If intel/amd still made single cores they wouldnt break a sweat handling those tasks. If there was a single core e8400 or a high clocked x2 single core or a PII single core it would handle them with ease. But if you ran a program that max loaded to single core everything else you try to do would come to a crawl. With quads instead of one app at full load bring'n the system to crawl you would need 4 apps for a quad. The thing is none of tasks the OP is going to run will even be enough to max load a single core except for the light gaming.

The q6600 was/is a great cpu. One of the best of all time. The i7 is a frickin monster. The PII are good but cant be used in this discussion because they are faster clock for clock and have about = clocks than AMD's dual core options.

There is just so many people getting quads to show off there e-penis. Benchmarks and cpu-z screen shots.


Ok to be fair I agree with a lot of this post. The thing is money is money and when we are talking about the same thing then any difference, even a slight advantage is better when it is the same price. I do believe that if you plan on gaming then Quads are better, not a must but better. Games will be the first thing to be quadcore optimized because games are so demanding. The games that are not will almost certainly be the games that don't require as much horsepower. That said even with the games that only use 2 of the 4 cores, you can do other things in the background like converting videos or encoding videos while playing games without a performance hit because you have that backup. I totally agree that an E5200 overclocked to 4.0 Ghz, which is extremely easy, for $70-$80 is a value no quadcore, no, no other CPU can beat. To say that he should get the E8400 over the Q6600 is not correct unless he will NOT overclock no matter what, and that is not very wise to begin with. This is all coming from a guy who is still running an E8600 but also has over $1000 in computer components such as watercooling systems that he doesn't use much for the pure fun of it. i7 is EASILY affordable, but I just want other things now and I'm not naive enough to think that I will notice much of a difference with i7 over an E8600 @ 4.3 and can go to 4.8 on air!
January 20, 2009 11:53:53 PM

I appreciate all of your thoughts. Is it difficult to overclock?
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 12:00:23 AM

No. After 3.2ghz you dont the gain in games. The higher the clockspeed the better performance you will get in just about everything but games. You got that completely backwards. And therefor you failed spectacularly.

My point is simple. For what the OP and others who have come into this thread with similar concerns is the dual core will perform better. My other point is also dont believe the hype that some people are tossing around like this one.

I've own these two processors. While you dont see much of a difference in gaming, the q6600 pwns in all other tasks.. From nerdic.

If you arent going to use those apps that fly on the quads(q6600 since it the quad this is the same price as the dual) then its just slower period.

To answer your 3rd paragrapgh. What would I do? I would get the dual core. I do not game at all. I do not use anything that is optimized for quad. I would get the dual core overclock it.

And also in your 1st statement you mention overclocking the q6600 to 3ghz. Which is easy. But then say overclock the e8400 to 3.2ghz as the average OC without a voltage change. Thats a farse. You would have to work to find a e8400 that couldnt hit 3.2ghz with a UNDERVOLT.

Do I think the q6600 is/was the king of cpus YES. Its changing now with the new price cuts a bit. Does everybody need the king of cpus? NO.

And about the e5200 and the overlocking yes I agree. But I stick to the e8400 and q6600 since they are the same price. I would pick one of those up or a 7400 and overclock the heck out of it.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 12:06:17 AM

Overclocking is very easy mdsiegel. There are plenty of guides out there and there are good stickys on it on these forums. Give them a read to get familar with it.
January 21, 2009 12:11:18 AM

bc4 said:
agreed. Asked and answered a million and one times before :pt1cable: 


third it. :p 
January 21, 2009 12:38:12 AM

someguy7 said:
No. After 3.2ghz you dont the gain in games. The higher the clockspeed the better performance you will get in just about everything but games. You got that completely backwards. And therefor you failed spectacularly.

My point is simple. For what the OP and others who have come into this thread with similar concerns is the dual core will perform better. My other point is also dont believe the hype that some people are tossing around like this one.

I've own these two processors. While you dont see much of a difference in gaming, the q6600 pwns in all other tasks.. From nerdic.

If you arent going to use those apps that fly on the quads(q6600 since it the quad this is the same price as the dual) then its just slower period.

To answer your 3rd paragrapgh. What would I do? I would get the dual core. I do not game at all. I do not use anything that is optimized for quad. I would get the dual core overclock it.

And also in your 1st statement you mention overclocking the q6600 to 3ghz. Which is easy. But then say overclock the e8400 to 3.2ghz as the average OC without a voltage change. Thats a farse. You would have to work to find a e8400 that couldnt hit 3.2ghz with a UNDERVOLT.

Do I think the q6600 is/was the king of cpus YES. Its changing now with the new price cuts a bit. Does everybody need the king of cpus? NO.

And about the e5200 and the overlocking yes I agree. But I stick to the e8400 and q6600 since they are the same price. I would pick one of those up or a 7400 and overclock the heck out of it.


The dualcore wont outperform quads when they are both at the same clock speed... at that point they are basically the same thing, except that the quads will have higher caches. A Q6600 can hit 3.0-3.2 Ghz without voltage increase and 3.6-3.8 easily and an E8500 can hit 3.2-3.4 Ghz without voltage increase and 3.8-4.0 Ghz easily. After about 3.4 Ghz there is no performance difference in anything, except multi GPU gaming. The only dualcore that can overclock to heights that a quadcore can't even get close to is the E8600 and after 4.0 Ghz there is absolutely NO difference, even the slight synthetic difference. What you do today might be optimized tomorrow and what you do today can benefit from quads if you do enough of it.

Look if you have a decent dualcore @ 3.4 Ghz or more then you are perfectly fine I totally agree. But to say that dualcores outperform quadcores in many instances is partially wrong because the dual only has an advantage in clocks which can be fixed, but lacks in cache. If you buy a CPU for $180 or more than there is no reason not to get a quad just because they are so close and there is a chance that quads will pull ahead instead of just tying, that's good money management.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 1:06:07 AM

I disagree with the overlclocking/volts on the wolfdales with you. At the same speed yes they do peform the same for the most part. The 45nm parts are a tad faster than 65nm's clock for clock

I also disagree with after 3.4ghz there isnt a performance increase. In gaming there isnt a difference but for other stuff there is.

And you're a bit mislead with the cache. The yorkfields have 12mb of cache. The wolfdales 6mb. But the 12mb is not available to all the cores like the newer IMC Intels or AMD. One pair of cores on the intel q series quads can not use the other pair's cache. So having more total cache than the duals doesnt have effect

I do agree with you that if you match the clocks from with a quad to the dual they perform the same in single threaded apps. That is clear.

I also disagree and I think you kinda of do yourself about the E8600. You mentioned how much a beast is the 5200 is before. The entire line of wolfdales and even more so with the new steppings can overclock to just about the same speed. With that in a mind I dont see why anybody would pay the price premium for a 8600.

And I agree that the q6600 to 3-3.2ghz is a breeze. But I disagree ALOT about 3.6 to 3.8. That OC is a not a breeze.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 1:48:56 AM

someguy7 said:
No. After 3.2ghz you dont the gain in games.


i get ~ 30-40 fps in insurgency mod on average with max settings at 3.2 gighz. when i raise that to 3.8 i get around 50-60. how is that not gaining?
January 21, 2009 1:59:51 AM

werxen said:
*waits for silverion to come and flame against dual cores*

:lol:  :lol: 
and i just happened to just look y this had 31 posts...
Werxen u just make this miserable school week even better....Thanks a lot (im serious). I need a good laugh when im home

And as for ur gain to 50-60....thats because Insurgency is a Source based game that basically FEEDS off cpu power and is in a class of its own. My friend with a E8400 stock and 9800GTX gets 500 fps in CSS whereas i get 350-400 on a stock Quad and GX2. Unlike other games that actually get bottlenecked by a gpu, Source is just an exception.

@ OP: IMO if ur going to overclock ur cpu...then grab the Quad. Overclocking is really easy. On my first go i got the puny E2180 to 3.0+.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 2:04:56 AM

Silverion77 said:
:lol:  :lol: 
and i just happened to just look y this had 31 posts...
Werxen u just make this miserable school week even better....Thanks a lot (im serious). I need a good laugh when im home

And as for ur gain to 50-60....thats because Insurgency is a Source based game that basically FEEDS off cpu power and is in a class of its own. My friend with a E8400 stock and 9800GTX gets 500 fps in CSS whereas i get 350-400 on a stock Quad and GX2. Unlike other games that actually get bottlenecked by a gpu, Source is just an exception.

@ OP: IMO if ur going to overclock ur cpu...then grab the Quad. If not, stay dual



stock E8400 and 9800gtx and 500 fps in css = BS. even if i overclock my E8500 to 4.3 i still wont break 300 average FPS even when my gpu is heavily overclocked. you = full of crap like always.

and btw: source is NOT an exception. i also see those improvements when i run games like crysis. please, stop posting your bullcrap. thanks.
January 21, 2009 2:08:17 AM

HAHAHAH ROFLMAO
I love when u rage
well right there my quad even beats ur OCed dual. but yes E8400 + 9800GTX its around 450-500 in certain maps.

So for Crysis ur dual core beat my quad?! What frames u get?

Edit: Sry OP for divergence. But this guy is as funny as Thunderman to me
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 2:12:38 AM

Silverion77 said:
HAHAHAH ROFLMAO

well right there my quad even beats ur OCed dual. but yes E8400 + 9800GTX its around 450-500 in certain maps.

So for Crysis ur dual core beat my quad?! What frames u get?

Edit: Sry OP for divergence. But this guy is as funny as Thunderman to me



jesus silverion you are just made of fail arent you? explain to me with your logic how your friends dual core of less caliber than mine can get higher FPS than you yet you claim your quad gets most fps than my dual? are you mentally challenged?

as for crysis i get around 30-50 fps depending on the action with all settings on high @ 1680 x 1050 resolution no AA. and this is not my e peen is bigger than your e peen thread so keep that to a minimum.
January 21, 2009 2:18:33 AM

Ok so according to ur knowledge...ur cpu should beat my quad. But WHOA it doesnt. I get 50-100 fps in Crysis maxed with some AA (2 or 4). Reason....the game is already Bottlenecked by the GPU. HOLY CRAP!!!! I swear thats what most of us with quads have tried to explain for....idk whenever that thread with Habitat was.
I mean srysly. Quads are a bottleneck?? 300+ fps at least in CoD4 (locked to 250 anyways...yay PB). I get great frames in L4D. DS was around 100. So i dont get what sort of "amazing Performance boost over a quad" you are talking about....

And for Source...idk and idc. U can explain that to me. I have numbers and he has numbers. Net_graph 1 :D 

Edit: And also u talk about 4.0 GHz like Quads dont kno what it is when its been shown that E0 stepped Q9550s and 9650s have hit 4.0-4.2

Agree with Raven below
January 21, 2009 2:22:50 AM

werxen said:
i get ~ 30-40 fps in insurgency mod on average with max settings at 3.2 gighz. when i raise that to 3.8 i get around 50-60. how is that not gaining?


What resolution do you play at? Going from stock to 4.3 Ghz only made a slight difference in my setup and only in a few games that were already maxed out. I am open to other results, but this is what I have seen.
January 21, 2009 2:29:35 AM

Yeah this thread has turned into a farce... duals are faster clock for clock than quads?! Quads are bottlenecks in gaming?! Anything above 3.6 Ghz actually makes a difference in anything?!

I own a dualcore and I don't have to lie about it's performance to make myself feel better so why do other people have to?

Just lock the thread... I'm done
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 2:31:53 AM

A friend of mine built a new computer about a year ago. He used a QX9650, oc'd to 3.82GHz. Here is what he says about his machine:
"Good news, I can do system back ups, system updates, video editing, virus scans, burn DVDs, print large files and open 10 apps all at the same time without the system missing a beat."

This sounds like multitasking to me, and any significant amount of this at any one time would justify a quad core. I doubt if I would ever be in a situation to need more than 2 cores, but I keep this in mind when I'm thinking about it.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 2:47:41 AM

Silverion77 said:
Ok so according to ur knowledge...ur cpu should beat my quad. But WHOA it doesnt. I get 50-100 fps in Crysis maxed with some AA (2 or 4). Reason....the game is already Bottlenecked by the GPU. HOLY CRAP!!!! I swear thats what most of us with quads have tried to explain for....idk whenever that thread with Habitat was.
I mean srysly. Quads are a bottleneck?? 300+ fps at least in CoD4 (locked to 250 anyways...yay PB). I get great frames in L4D. DS was around 100. So i dont get what sort of "amazing Performance boost over a quad" you are talking about....

And for Source...idk and idc. U can explain that to me. I have numbers and he has numbers. Net_graph 1 :D 

Edit: And also u talk about 4.0 GHz like Quads dont kno what it is when its been shown that E0 stepped Q9550s and 9650s have hit 4.0-4.2

Agree with Raven below



lol... 50-100 fps in crysis maxed out WITH anti aliasing? 300 fps COD 4?

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-sli-tripl...

if you are going to lie about your FPS at least look at benchmarks with superior systems before you even claim your figures. you are just a typical nub as i suspected. claim ridiculous figures to support your BS. sorry i had to burst your bubble with facts.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 3:13:50 AM

Yeah its full of farce. Like the average e8400 doesnt go past 3.2 on stock volts. Overclocking a q6600 to 3.8ghz is a breeze.

Clockspeed past 3.4ghz is irrelvant in anything but gaming.

I feel that the dual is faster than quad clock for clock was directed towards me. Since if I'm not mistaking I'm the only one that mentioned anything of the sort. Well let me clear that up. Even though it was clear the 1st time. I said a 3ghz wolfdale is faster in single threaded apps that a 3ghz kentsfield. Because the 45nm core is faster clock for clock than a 3ghz 65nm core. Its not much but its there.

Bottleneck in gaming? Any core based cpu can be a bottleneck with a lower clock speed. So at STOCK the most popular quad of all time will cause a bottleneck @2.4ghz

300FPS in COD 4 50 to 100 FPS in crysis maxed out

Yeah full of farce.

January 21, 2009 9:38:27 AM

I dont get how ur doubting my Crysis numbers....

On Guru they have 1 GTX 280 AVERAGING 49 fps. 0AA and 16AF
Now i think every review showed that the 9800GX2 is better than the GTX 280 in a single card setup. When Im indoors i sit just under 100. Outside depending on action i sit at high 40s-50.
The only time this doesnt happen is when im on some of the highly vegetated maps with all the floating particles or staring straight at the sun (dumb glare)....

Edit: Crap, i just realized i was using Crysis Wars....xD my bad. I havent even tried the original crysis...
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 2:26:38 PM

Silverion77 said:
I dont get how ur doubting my Crysis numbers....

On Guru they have 1 GTX 280 AVERAGING 49 fps. 0AA and 16AF
Now i think every review showed that the 9800GX2 is better than the GTX 280 in a single card setup. When Im indoors i sit under 100. Outside depending on action i sit at high 40s-50.
The only time this doesnt happen is when im on some of the highly vegetated maps with all the floating particles.....

Edit: **** i just realized i was using Warhead xD my bad. I havent even tried the original crysis...


shut up noob. your numbers are bogus and thats that.
January 21, 2009 11:54:57 PM

You guys are funny.
January 22, 2009 1:04:32 AM

I try my best halcyon :kaola: 

i love seeing what ppl on the internet do
I mean Noob?! Thats used in gaming...and only idiots use it. Good players lay it down flat "U SUCK"
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2009 1:56:08 AM

Silverion77 said:
I try my best halcyon :kaola: 

i love seeing what ppl on the internet do
I mean Noob?! Thats used in gaming...and only idiots use it. Good players lay it down flat "U SUCK"


silverion you are officially banned from quad core topics seeing as how 99% of the stuff you say is crap. next time look at benchmarks before making ridiculous claims. :hello: 
January 22, 2009 1:59:05 AM

ur an admin??

Impressive dude....didnt think it would ever happen
Suggestion...i think u have some PMs
January 22, 2009 7:19:36 AM

LOL
January 22, 2009 9:33:44 AM

HE FINALLY LOOKED AT HIS PMs

Congrats Werxen
The flashing "U have 1 Private message" finally caught his attention"
Hope u enjoyed the pic werxen
!