Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Stuck Between two CPU's...and a game?!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 15, 2008 9:56:04 PM

here goes another Q6600 vs E8400 post, but this time, with a twist? :pt1cable: 

E8400 offers future proof gaming and i guess will last me a good long time, but, as i have read in a topic somewhere, supreme commander (a game) works better on quads than duals, thats where im stuck, i have supreme commander and guess what? i wanna play it =P any suggestions on what i sould do?

More about : stuck cpu game

May 15, 2008 10:28:31 PM

the graphics card is going to matter more than q6600 vs e8400 imo

i'd get the 6600 because of the huge improvements in video editing and 3d rendering, but for straight gaming either is good
Related resources
May 15, 2008 10:30:53 PM

I'll say E8400 to annoy everyone else, and to say you can overclock the bejesus outta it so it almost performs like a stock Q6600 :p .
May 15, 2008 10:36:28 PM

closed_deal said:
I'll say E8400 to annoy everyone else, and to say you can overclock the bejesus outta it so it almost performs like a stock Q6600 :p .


dont they have the same stocks lol? and yea i heard the E8400 can OC like a"bejesus" im guessing 2 things

1. less cores, less heat?

2. is it more stable?

oh right forgot to ask my stupid question, what the hell is FSB on CPUs and MBs?
May 15, 2008 10:40:47 PM

It's 2008, not 2005...get a Quad. :) 
May 15, 2008 10:46:15 PM

halcyon said:
It's 2008, not 2005...get a Quad. :) 



by the time duals get outdates itl be like in 2 years, by that time my whole comuter will be outdated anyway, same with the Q6600, itl prolly be the slowest CPU on the market in 2 years, the way technology is advancing....
May 15, 2008 10:47:37 PM

People use Supcom to justify the money they spent on a tech that is ahead of its time still. Even if you actually play supcom, the gains are minimal.


And BTW, according to that link, a 4ghz wolfie will smoke a 3ghz quad, even in the infamous Supcom (crappy game anyway)
May 15, 2008 10:53:14 PM

eh, i wouldnt be suprised to see games coming out this christmas or around there that will start utilizing multiple cores, it might be a little sooner then everyone thinks, also yes supreme commander has been optimized to multithreading, and ive read that quite a few people seen a huge diffrence going from a dual core to a quad, i choose the quad because a. its more horse power for the money, even a oc'd e8400 can only net you around 8.8 gigs total horse power, and b. multithreading is starting to come online, sure im going to have to upgrade in 2 years or so to have something competitive on the gaming side of things, but by then the dual cores will be having there issues with both cores being used in most things, also i still havent seen anyone with a dual core, that can show me anything besides benchmarks, that a higher clock brings about better game play vs quad with a mild oc.
May 15, 2008 10:55:05 PM

if you read the latest article regarding what gets you better gaming, its your GPU thats going to boost your gaming the most, not you CPU
May 15, 2008 11:04:37 PM

The OP is getting ready to drop up to $2K. For some that's significant $$. I'm sure the OP will do more on this new rig than play games. Is an OC'd E8400 going to give him 20+ fps more than an OC'd Q6600? I doubt it. ...but I could be wrong. Perhaps the OP may experiment with video editing or virtualization. Perhaps the OP will experiment with virtualization while gaming. ...or running a viruscan/spyware scan while gaming. Cases in which case a quad would, how do they put it..."wipe the floor" with a dual-core. I tested this 2 days ago just for the fun of it. I took out my Q9450 and put back in my E6850 and OC'd it to 3.7Ghz. Fired up Lost Planet and tried to do my standard virtualizations...XP and Ubunto simultaneously. My rig simply rebooted. It didn't cry, beep, or sneeze, it just rebooted. Fair enough. Tried again, ...BSOD. Last night I put my Q9450 back in and mildly OC'd it to 3.4Ghz and ran the same test. I tell you I was able to play Lost Planet @ 1600x1200 (@ 19-21fps) while I had Ubunto and XP VMWare virtual machines running in Vista 64. So, I'm sorry, but I'm sold. I may sound arrogant, forgive me if I do, but for ~same money I just can't see buying a dual-core when an OEM Q6600 can be had at MicroCenter for $180US.

So I stand on, "It's 2008, not 2005...get a Quad". No need to stress that this is my opinion any more than I need to say the Earth orbits the Sun.
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2008 11:05:38 PM

warezme said:
if you read the latest article regarding what gets you better gaming, its your GPU thats going to boost your gaming the most, not you CPU


Agreed. GPU is more important in most games (there are always exceptions such as the case of FSX). Try and get a good/better GPU.
May 15, 2008 11:15:16 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Agreed. GPU is more important in most games (there are always exceptions such as the case of FSX). Try and get a good/better GPU.


Yeah, but what else you are capable of doing while gaming is a function of CPU, not of GPU.
May 15, 2008 11:25:46 PM

halcyon said:
The OP is getting ready to drop up to $2K. For some that's significant $$. I'm sure the OP will do more on this new rig than play games. Is an OC'd E8400 going to give him 20+ fps more than an OC'd Q6600? I doubt it. ...but I could be wrong. Perhaps the OP may experiment with video editing or virtualization. Perhaps the OP will experiment with virtualization while gaming. ...or running a viruscan/spyware scan while gaming. Cases in which case a quad would, how do they put it..."wipe the floor" with a dual-core. I tested this 2 days ago just for the fun of it. I took out my Q9450 and put back in my E6850 and OC'd it to 3.7Ghz. Fired up Lost Planet and tried to do my standard virtualizations...XP and Ubunto simultaneously. My rig simply rebooted. It didn't cry, beep, or sneeze, it just rebooted. Fair enough. Tried again, ...BSOD. Last night I put my Q9450 back in and mildly OC'd it to 3.4Ghz and ran the same test. I tell you I was able to play Lost Planet @ 1600x1200 (@ 19-21fps) while I had Ubunto and XP VMWare virtual machines running in Vista 64. So, I'm sorry, but I'm sold. I may sound arrogant, forgive me if I do, but for ~same money I just can't see buying a dual-core when an OEM Q6600 can be had at MicroCenter for $180US.

So I stand on, "It's 2008, not 2005...get a Quad". No need to stress that this is my opinion any more than I need to say the Earth orbits the Sun.


Shadow703793 said:
Agreed. GPU is more important in most games (there are always exceptions such as the case of FSX). Try and get a good/better GPU.


halcyon said:
Yeah, but what else you are capable of doing while gaming is a function of CPU, not of GPU.


try running a pentium 4 with a 8800 and see what happens? ill bet you that you'll see some smoke com'in out with playing some top-notch game, CPU's definetly affect your gameplay online, in many ways which im to lazy to explain, or just type =P.

still i have known some facts but no one has told me he stability in these two CPU's!
May 15, 2008 11:28:47 PM

does the earth really revolve the sun? or is it our imagination wooohohohohohohoohohohohoh

no-one answered my stupid question "what is FSB"?
May 15, 2008 11:31:29 PM

el Greenie said:
does the earth really revolve the sun? or is it our imagination wooohohohohohohoohohohohoh

no-one answered my stupid question "what is FSB"?


front side bus
May 15, 2008 11:44:17 PM

halcyon said:
front side bus


lmao i meant what it does XD
May 15, 2008 11:51:31 PM

Crysis plays better with a quad too. :) 
May 15, 2008 11:55:37 PM

ryanthesav said:
Crysis plays better with a quad too. :) 




so...more FSB more download rate? crysis runs faster on quads means alot since crysis has like...best graphics? idont know

OC'ing FSB is nice =)
May 16, 2008 12:04:28 AM

Quote:
stop asking questions and just get a quad you wont regret it


and if i do? lol
May 16, 2008 12:13:52 AM

el Greenie said:
and if i do? lol



Dont worry....people with slow-clocked quads only want everyone else to get one too so they feel better. Its like the console wars, or Ford V Chevy, or AMD V Intel.


Except people cant post up ANY stats where a high clocked dual loses to a quad. All they do is say things like "Its better" or "X game plays better", yet no data. (Talking about gaming, of course)
May 16, 2008 12:14:44 AM

el Greenie said:
and if i do? lol



higher FSB typically means higher performance. Not that this matters, but if you want to imrove Vista's Windows Experience Index scores one of the known ways to do that is to increase your computer's FSB. Another way to do that is to buy a ....


...Quad. :hello: 
May 16, 2008 12:22:21 AM

ocguy31 said:
Dont worry....people with slow-clocked quads only want everyone else to get one too so they feel better. Its like the console wars, or Ford V Chevy, or AMD V Intel.


Except people cant post up ANY stats where a high clocked dual loses to a quad. All they do is say things like "Its better" or "X game plays better", yet no data. (Talking about gaming, of course)


Again, quads aren't better for today's games (except a few)...I think we all know and accept this. Quads are better when you want to DO something WHILE gaming. Quads are better for multi tasking. Quad's are better for video editing.

Yes, a higher clocked dual-core is better when the only thing your computer is going to be asked to do while gaming is...gaming. If you want your computer to be able to multi-task while gaming...get a quad. That's not an opinion. I've seen it for myself. I love my E6850, especially overclocked. ...but it can't keep up with what I'm regularly doing on my rig. I don't know, maybe an E8400 @ 4.2Ghz can out multi-task my quad @ 3.4Ghz...I've not tested that.
May 16, 2008 12:22:44 AM

fight, fight, fight!
May 16, 2008 12:26:27 AM

ryanthesav said:
fight, fight, fight!



LOL, no fight. I'm almost 40 years old, I've no interest in that. ...and I know I'm just stating my own experiences and my opinion.
May 16, 2008 12:27:03 AM

The problem with that example is Lost Planet is one of the few games
that use all 4 cores in a quad. So it's natural for a quad to wipe the
floor with a dual. Supreme Commander is another one, although it didn't
scale quite as well.



Right now, a faster dual can outperform a quad on typical games today.



Judging from the time between when dual first came out and dual
optimization becomes norm for games, compared to when quad first came
out, dual should still have 2 more years of useful lifespan for gaming.



Once dual optimization rolled out, the performance gap became so huge
older single cores that used to be on top due to exact the same reason
cited for duals now quickly became useless. The quad vs dual contest
now is exactly the same as single vs dual a few years back. Today, a
two years old dual is still usable for gaming, while a two years old
single core is completely worthless for the same purpose.



So basically, within 2 years, dual will give you better performance.
For 2+ years, there is no option other than quad. Dual just won't cut
it once quad optimization becomes the norm. Although quad will give you
fine performance within 2 years as well.
May 16, 2008 12:30:15 AM

if you could put down an extra 50 bucks take a look at the Q9300 too
May 16, 2008 12:34:01 AM

dagger said:
The problem with that example is Lost Planet is one of the few games
that use all 4 cores in a quad. So it's natural for a quad to wipe the
floor with a dual. Supreme Commander is another one, although it didn't
scale quite as well.



Right now, a faster dual can outperform a quad on typical games today.



Judging from the time between when dual first came out and dual
optimization becomes norm for games, compared to when quad first came
out, dual should still have 2 more years of useful lifespan for gaming.



Once dual optimization rolled out, the performance gap became so huge
older single cores that used to be on top due to exact the same reason
cited for duals now quickly became useless. The quad vs dual contest
now is exactly the same as single vs dual a few years back. Today, a
two years old dual is still usable for gaming, while a two years old
single core is completely worthless for the same purpose.



So basically, within 2 years, dual will give you better performance.
For 2+ years, there is no option other than quad. Dual just won't cut
it once quad optimization becomes the norm. Although quad will give you
fine performance within 2 years as well.


Dagger, wise one, I'm not arguing that a quad makes a game run faster than a dual does. I'm not arguing that at all. My point is that a quad allows you to do more while gaming than a dual does. My own tests (which no one cares about but me, I know) prove this...for me.

Its people's $$, and I know many people don't virtualize and game while doing other tasks in the background so its smarter for them to get a dual-core for better gaming. I was never trying to state anything else. My grammar may be bad and I may have miscommunicated. I apologize.
May 16, 2008 12:36:52 AM

Quote:
naw the q9300 will clock lower than the Q6600 yea it has a faster fsb which also gives you less headroom to increase the fsb to match the OC of a Q6600 you will need very fast ram and very good mobo to push that thing as far a Q6600 can go since it has a higher multi


The Q6600 is great bang for the buck right now.
May 16, 2008 12:42:10 AM

...besides the Q6600's don't have the stuck DTS issues that cause inaccurate temp readings that the C1 stepping 45nm Wolfiies and Yorkies have. ...but the 6600's also don't have 2 x 6MB L2 Cache (do it make a difference?)
May 16, 2008 12:43:31 AM

lmao in two years well be having six cores lmao

i really think im gonna go with the quad cores, solely because

1. i am still in school, will be doing lotsa multi tasking while playing games (lol takes me all night for 1 page of practacly nothing)

2. supreme commander is fun yaaaaaaaay lol
May 16, 2008 12:45:00 AM

Heres a question to the dual core folks, who also have ran a quad, they claim a performance diffrence in games, how big of a diffrence? I really have never seen anyone specify this in any posts, so lets get some remarks here.
May 16, 2008 12:48:23 AM

halcyon said:
...besides the Q6600's don't have the stuck DTS issues that cause inaccurate temp readings that the C1 stepping 45nm Wolfiies and Yorkies have. ...but the 6600's also don't have 2 x 6MB L2 Cache (do it make a difference?)

On typical applications, the larger cache make little difference. But depending on motherboard fsb bottleneck, the q9300's 7.5x can be a major downside, especially considering at the same clock rate, q9300 and q6600 perform about the same. It's better to either get q6600 for best bang for the buck or upgrade to q9450 for best performance, at a cost. Skip q9300.
May 16, 2008 12:52:11 AM

blacksci said:
Heres a question to the dual core folks, who also have ran a quad, they claim a performance diffrence in games, how big of a diffrence? I really have never seen anyone specify this in any posts, so lets get some remarks here.

Small, and not noticable in games right now, as they're gpu bottlenecked, not cpu bottlenecked.

The performance gain of quad over dual on quad optimized programs are far larger.
May 16, 2008 1:07:42 AM

since were a little offtopic, whats better, X38 or X48 and which one do you think is the best?
May 16, 2008 1:09:41 AM

el Greenie said:
since were a little offtopic, whats better, X38 or X48 and which one do you think is the best?


Some feel that they're the same and you just pay more for the X48.
May 16, 2008 1:11:47 AM

el Greenie said:
since were a little offtopic, whats better, X38 or X48 and which one do you think is the best?



Of course x48 is better than x38, but by such a small amount it's not nearly worth the price increase. If price is no issue, get x48.

X48's stability is just about identical to x38, at any fsb.
May 16, 2008 1:15:28 AM

If you're not planning on extreme overclocks remember you can likely do better than 1600 FSB on an X38. I'm @ 1700 FSB and think it could push harder when my Reapers arrive on Monday.
May 16, 2008 1:19:02 AM

Quote:
:ouch:  lol well i learned somthing today


well i learned alot today, looks like imma gettin the Q6600, with some kind of X38 board, any tips on which one? im looking for one that can support DDR3 with some high FSB =)
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2008 1:37:54 AM

halcyon said:
Yeah, but what else you are capable of doing while gaming is a function of CPU, not of GPU.

Agreed. But can't you just end the random resource hogging programs (ie BitTorrent (which also effects internet bandwidth) at least during gaming?
May 16, 2008 1:57:14 AM

Shadow703793 said:
Agreed. But can't you just end the random resource hogging programs (ie BitTorrent (which also effects internet bandwidth) at least during gaming?

No, we want that torrent keep downloading. No rest for the pirates. :na: 
May 16, 2008 9:20:31 AM

Quote:
hey halcyon so much money on that Q9450 how come you only took it to 3.4? cooling issues? did you get a high vid cpu? or is it just so powerfull you dont need to take it any higher :D 


I think it may be my RAM, doesn't want to do more than 853Mhz. I'm hoping the 1066 Reapers will take care of that, they got pretty good reviews.
!