Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Quad processors and future PC games

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 1, 2008 6:18:14 AM






Hello,


I am about to buy a new Intel Quad Q6600 PC with ATI HD 4870 video card but before deciding to buy I wish to know how long would the Quad processors continue to support the coming PC games. As you know the Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) processors are due by the year's end do you think I would be able to play the future PC games with my Quad when the Intel Core i7 would be released? Also which Quad should go for, Q6600, Q9550 or Q9400? I mean which is the best in performance and is the most mainstream. Kindly inform. Thanks :) 
September 1, 2008 6:31:41 AM

Definetly. From what ive seen on this site, Nehalem isnt designed for gaming (but im sure it will outperform todays stuff). But if you were to build this soon, I would go for the Q9550 at $330. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... The large L2 and higher stock clock will give you a little more catching up room than the Q6600 will to Nehalem. But beware as the prices on this stuff will probably drop come the i7 launch.

But, if you do go with the Q6600 you will be fine as well really.
September 1, 2008 9:06:33 AM

global said:
Hello,


I am about to buy a new Intel Quad Q6600 PC with ATI HD 4870 video card but before deciding to buy I wish to know how long would the Quad processors continue to support the coming PC games. As you know the Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) processors are due by the year's end do you think I would be able to play the future PC games with my Quad when the Intel Core i7 would be released? Also which Quad should go for, Q6600, Q9550 or Q9400? I mean which is the best in performance and is the most mainstream. Kindly inform. Thanks :) 


The correct designation for the Q6600 is "Core 2 Quad" which refers to a Multi-Chip Module and not a native quad-core processor.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q6600

You'll see an illustration of the Q6600 on the above linked page.

Related resources
a c 126 à CPUs
September 1, 2008 9:18:53 AM

^What the hell does that have to do with anything related to the OPs question?

Thats right nothing.

As for the OP, depends on if you are willing to wait. If you can wait for Core i7 then do it. If you can't wait, like myself back a year ago, then build one now and it should last you 2-3 years easily. Most games now are barely taking advantage of 2 cores at most. 4 cores will probably take anothe 2 years or so before games truly use the power they have and by then there will be 8+ core CPUs out.

The Q6600 is a great chip, I have one and love it, and the Q9550 is great as well only for a bit more. Both can easily OC, my Q6600 is @ 3GHz which is a 25% OC on lower than stock voltage, and lengthen the life of your system by a bit too.
September 1, 2008 2:51:21 PM






Thanks a lot guys for the useful information. I will get the best of the Core 2 Quad for my system. I think that it would take some time probably an year for the prices of intel core i7 to come down to the level of the the mainstream public. I will get the core 2 quad in the meantime and would upgrade to core i7 when its prices as well as the prices of the associated hardware comes to an affordable range. I think the associated hardware would be the memory, motherboard for me as I would be getting the ATI HD 4870 video card. If I am missing any other associated hardware it would be kind enough of you if you inform me. Thanks a lot again. :) 
a c 309 à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 1, 2008 3:10:03 PM

At the level of the E8500 or Q9450, the vga card is much more important for gaming than the cpu.
At that level, overclocking is good for bragging, but it will not net you as much increase
in FPS as a better vga card will. Today, very few games can make use of more than two cores.
Flight simulator X is an exception. It is not a trivial matter to code multi threaded programs,
and game vendors will not sell too many games that require quads to run.
I don't see this changing in the next couple of years.

Net: E8500 for the increased clock speed.

September 1, 2008 10:08:12 PM

You can pickup a Q6600 now for $190 from newegg, that saves you $140 on the Q9550 to spend on a better GPU can get you a 9800GX2 or even a GTX280 both have a bit more grunt. Or you could go a different path and get a HD4850 to crossfire with the HD4870 or save a few more dollars and get another HD4870 down the track.

If you need to or want to later on you can easily get 3ghz out of the Q6600 which will give you a bit more longevity.
September 2, 2008 1:48:51 AM

Or even better, get a 4870x2, which would allow the best performance for gpus. The newer 9 series is better for gaming, the older 6 still good and cheaper too. Id like to add, if youre doing this anytime soon, the 4850x2 is coming out soon, will be priced nicely, and be a great card as well, and will beat any card except the 4870x2
September 3, 2008 7:23:08 AM





About Q6600 I read somewhere that the Q6600 is based on the original Core2 so it has 2 dual cores placed under a single die so it not really a true quad core, it is more like 2 dual cores under a single heatspreader. Also that Q6600 is 65nm technology while Q9550 and Q9400 are 45nm. And if one does not intend to overclock they should get Q9550. Is that right? I too do not intend to overclock but want a reasonable true Quad processor which could run all the games since I am getting a good video card ATI HD 4700. And I intend to wait for the proper intel i7 processors to become mainstream and then I would get a good i7 processor. So which one should I select while the intel core i7 becomes mainstream and affordable? Please advise. Thanks :) 
September 3, 2008 8:04:44 AM

Which quad? Which i7? To me, a quads a quad considering desktop. The main purpose for Intel going to a "true" quad is mainly for server apps, as bandwidth and scaling are important for it. The multi threading we will see with i7 may not be seen in gaming for awhile, but when it does show up, itll give great gains.
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2008 8:35:33 AM

a true quad is 4 cores on one package, I think you are referring to a native quad. While a native quad is a more eloquent design, the current native quads just don't keep up.
September 3, 2008 9:22:46 AM

Intel is finding that out too. Even tho its a new design, i7 isnt that great as for improvements with single threaded apps, as the IPC just isnt there, unlike the C2D over the old pentium designs. I know that wasnt their main drive here, but Im also under the impression, as when they moved to "true" quad, theyll have all the restrictions AMD has found, even tho Intel has better trannys and better process. The main thing to look forwards to from i7 will be the MT
September 3, 2008 9:30:49 AM

Multi die, on the same package, CPU's are cheaper to produce - fewer bad chips from the press...

If AMD were smart they would quickly figure how to get 2 x quads onto a single package... ie give each a 64bit memory path, and link them with a screeming fast HT3.1 link - should work out quite well...
a c 126 à CPUs
September 3, 2008 9:35:20 AM

^they are planning that (or were) with their six core CPu. It will be naitive 6 core (like Intels Dunnington 6 core CPU coming out this year) and then a 12 core MCM based.

But I have heard it is harder to do with the IMC than with the FSB, probably also why Intel will be doing naitive 8 core next year.
!