Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8600 beats Q9550? Help Quick!!!!!! Must send back.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 15, 2008 7:35:58 AM

This cant be so is it? According to this benchmark http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q... the E8600 is way better then the Q9550 that I just bought for more money.

I can only assume its because the E8600 is at 3.3Ghz and the Q9550 is at 2.83Ghz and Crysis doesn't utilize more then two cores.

So if I OC mine to 3.4Ghz which I have it at right now stable, does that mean now mine is better and would perform better on that benchmark? Please tell me it is, or please just tell me the truth quickly so i can send it back and get the E8600 instead. Hurry I only have a few days left to send it back to Newegg.

What I am trying to figure out is, is it just the Ghz that is making the difference? If it is then I guess I will keep it for the future quad games and keep it OCed to 3.4Ghz.

Please let me know right away!!!!!
November 15, 2008 8:09:29 AM

stay with your quad, oc'd would make it equal.
November 15, 2008 8:22:53 AM

Just overclock your quad, it is a better processor. Plus with the Q9950 you should be able to hit 3.4 pretty easily.
Related resources
November 15, 2008 8:52:07 AM

Yep, just overclock it.
a c 111 à CPUs
November 15, 2008 11:02:25 AM

You quad will not win on single threaded and even dual threaded apps, but will crush in apps designed to use all 4 cores.

If you are going to multitask, encode video, compress files allot the extra cores will help. Future games are supposed to take advantage of more cores soon, but they have been saying it for a while and most do not take more then 2.

In the end it is your choice, but for running multiple demanding apps, quad core is the way to go.
a c 111 à CPUs
November 15, 2008 11:22:31 AM

Quote:
if your using a demanding app that already requires it's own large amount of memory. How you run several is beyond me

Well, 8 gigs of ram tends to help. Some apps are just cpu demanding not always memory either(video encoding).

Where do you come up with your stuff?

have you ever run 2 video encoders or a video encoder and a game on your dual core? chances are no. I have BOTH right here beside me(at the same clock) and the quad works WAYYYY(faster encoding, smoother games) better for that.
November 15, 2008 1:47:38 PM

Spitfire, a Q9550 just can't compete against an E8600. Only in the most demanding multicore enabled programs does the Q9550 not get crushed, and even then the E8600 is damn close thanks to it's overclockability. habitat has seen countless E8600s at 4.5 Ghz, because they can do a lot more. On air I can achieve 4.890 Ghz, and with my overclocks I am confident that with watercooling and faster RAM 5 Ghz + would be pretty easy, and yes a lot of people are achieving that as well. Your Q9550 is "future Proof" they say, but for atleast a little over a year your CPU will be crushed by a cheaper CPU, the E8600, and it can only hope to balance the scales after that. If you can send it back then, well go for it I suppose. However, it really does not matter since both CPUs are great performers and while there is a difference it is hardly noticeable, but hey you could get some money back I guess. If I were you, I would stick with the Q9550 out of laziness and since the difference is not huge and the money you would get back is not all that much.
November 15, 2008 3:21:15 PM

Quote:
If I were you, I would stick with the Q9550 out of laziness and since the difference is not huge and the money you would get back is not all that much.


Agreed, stick with the quad
November 15, 2008 5:23:39 PM

If its all about gaming, I would have never messed with a quad in spite of all the "future proofing" remarks. The only way I would go quad is in a multi-gpu environment providing I could find anything factual to show me the benefits. That 9550 is a nice CPU but I would send it back myself. Just my .2 cents.
You dont need a quad to play games ported from consle to PC lol. Developers arent going to swell their expense because people bought 4 core cpu's instead of dual cores.
(here we go with the list of about half a dozen games that benefit from the quads)
November 15, 2008 5:26:58 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Spitfire, a Q9550 just can't compete against an E8600. Only in the most demanding multicore enabled programs does the Q9550 not get crushed, and even then the E8600 is damn close thanks to it's overclockability. habitat has seen countless E8600s at 4.5 Ghz, because they can do a lot more. On air I can achieve 4.890 Ghz, and with my overclocks I am confident that with watercooling and faster RAM 5 Ghz + would be pretty easy, and yes a lot of people are achieving that as well. Your Q9550 is "future Proof" they say, but for atleast a little over a year your CPU will be crushed by a cheaper CPU, the E8600, and it can only hope to balance the scales after that. If you can send it back then, well go for it I suppose. However, it really does not matter since both CPUs are great performers and while there is a difference it is hardly noticeable, but hey you could get some money back I guess. If I were you, I would stick with the Q9550 out of laziness and since the difference is not huge and the money you would get back is not all that much.


Thanks for the comments guys. To be honest all I mostly do is gaming (COD4, Crysis, GRID, FSX) and general internet surfing. Do you still think I wouldn't notice that much of a difference in gaming by getting the E8600?
November 15, 2008 5:30:59 PM

roofus said:
If its all about gaming, I would have never messed with a quad in spite of all the "future proofing" remarks. The only way I would go quad is in a multi-gpu environment providing I could find anything factual to show me the benefits. That 9550 is a nice CPU but I would send it back myself. Just my .2 cents.
You dont need a quad to play games ported from consle to PC lol. Developers arent going to swell their expense because people bought 4 core cpu's instead of dual cores.
(here we go with the list of about half a dozen games that benefit from the quads)


Roofus,

Thats all I do are games like Crysis, COD4, GTA4 when it comes out, FSX, etc. Would I notice a difference in my games with the E8600 instead of the Q9550? To be honest with ya, with my Q9550 at 2.83Ghz, I haven't noticed a bit of improvement when overclocking to 3.4Ghz. That just doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is. I mean the benchmark charts prove it, but will I even see it?
November 15, 2008 5:50:19 PM

ok 1) why the hell did u need to post a thread twice srysly.....

Just overclock the damn CPU.....ur GPU blocks u anyways. Sure an E8600 at 4 GHZ will beat the Quad at 3.4 but u think ur actually gonna see the difference? I mean sure if the 1-5 frames matter to u, then send it back, we could care less what u do with ur money Its urs for a reason. But if u can see that 5 frames lost than u have amazing eyes
November 15, 2008 5:58:22 PM

Relax Silverion77. Newegg has given me a full refund deadline of Monday to decide. That's why I am running around asking. I dont know these things and thats why I ask and thank you all for your insight. I didn't know that there wouldn't be that much of an improvement with about 1-5 frames. So that changes things up a bit.
November 15, 2008 6:03:49 PM

Yea im sry just at times these type of threads make me flare....cause theyre stupid with ppl that just talk cause some articles say that a dual is better or a quad is etc.

Just check out my posts in the overclocking section

I mean, I kno and admit. The dual wins when overclocked cause they have faster clocks. Its fact

Having a quad though is a luxury. U pay more for the luxury of having 2 more cores and atm that doesnt matter in games but with 4 core Nehalem coming i see the push more for quad cores to be greater but thats just me
November 15, 2008 6:06:47 PM

Silverion77 said:
Yea im sry just at times these type of threads make me flare....cause theyre stupid with ppl that just talk cause some articles say that a dual is better or a quad is etc.

Just check out my posts in the overclocking section

I mean, I kno and admit. The dual wins when overclocked cause they have faster clocks. Its fact

Having a quad though is a luxury. U pay more for the luxury of having 2 more cores and atm that doesnt matter in games but with 4 core Nehalem coming i see the push more for quad cores to be greater but thats just me


I have an 8800GT is that being a bottleneck for the full potential of my Q9550? Like I said, to be honest I didn't really notice a difference in games going from the e6600 to the Q9550. I was wondering if it was my GPU.
November 15, 2008 6:09:37 PM

Silverion77,

Its all good, I appreciate the help. You have a link to your thread? I looked and couldn't find it.
November 15, 2008 6:11:00 PM

Its the thread u started lol just in the OC section :kaola: 

And i would say yes. Ur 8800GT is ur first bottleneck before u have to worry about ur quad
November 15, 2008 6:13:53 PM

Copy that, in the market for a GPU now.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 6:59:11 PM

Why? Just because it is a bottleneck doesn't mean that your performance won't be adequate. However, it is true that a quad overclocked to 3.5+ GHz (which should be achievable on air on yours) will not bottleneck any but the most ridiculous of graphics setups. I'd stick with the quad.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 7:16:01 PM

Keep the E8600
When it finally shows its age or the NEW intel processors are becoming mainstream then switch. there is NO point in getting a silly quad core right now. save your money.
November 15, 2008 7:17:53 PM

Spitfire7 said:
Roofus,

Thats all I do are games like Crysis, COD4, GTA4 when it comes out, FSX, etc. Would I notice a difference in my games with the E8600 instead of the Q9550? To be honest with ya, with my Q9550 at 2.83Ghz, I haven't noticed a bit of improvement when overclocking to 3.4Ghz. That just doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is. I mean the benchmark charts prove it, but will I even see it?


Probably not Spit. Overclocking definitely holds merit with the newest higher end graphics cards from ATI and Nvidia. I guess you just have to ask yourself if it is doing what you want it to do at a satisfactory level. Dont get yourself going crazy chasing numbers if it plays all your games great and no issues with apps. Anything above 60 is bragging rights but as jaydee has mentioned in other threads here, it isnt about achieving a higher max, its about brining up the minimum. I could care less about 200fps if it drops down to 15 in heavy action. I want stability and that is something benchmarks dont really tell the whole story on. Your graphics card is probably playing into that more than your CPU. Good luck in whichever way you choose to go here.
November 15, 2008 7:20:19 PM

cjl said:
Why? Just because it is a bottleneck doesn't mean that your performance won't be adequate. However, it is true that a quad overclocked to 3.5+ GHz (which should be achievable on air on yours) will not bottleneck any but the most ridiculous of graphics setups. I'd stick with the quad.


Well if my Quad is not bottlenecking my GPU then it is at least allowing my GPU to run at full potential which in my opinion is not enough for Crysis or FSX. Hence at this moment my CPU capability is more powerful then my GPU's. I tested this with Crysis. I added a second 8800GT to run in SLI. Increased frames all around by 15fps. So I think I will keep the Quad and look for a GTX 280 on sale. Hopefully there will be some sales at Christmas time or right after. I cant wait... I think.
November 26, 2008 10:46:28 PM

I am amazed at how fast blood started to flow over something like this. Anyways I do realize that Spitfire's deadline is over I just wanted to reply to this for my own sake. Everyone knows that dual cores are capable of reaching higher frequencies. I admit I have no experience with why one is superior to another, but having just finishing up my own shopping for computer parts, my decision of going with the Q9550 was the l2 cache. for $50 more over the E8600 you get double the l2 Cache, and I don't know if 12MB is any more advantageous over 6MB there is an article on here that shows that even at the same frequency more cache equals more performance. Basically the frequency you can change to that of the E8600, but no matter how fast you clock the E8600 it is never going to get the 12MB cache of the Q9550.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 6:07:15 AM

1880057,28,369520 I don't know if 12MB is any more advantageous over 6MB there is an article on here that shows that even at the same frequency more cache equals more performance. Basically the frequency you can change to that of the E8600, but no matter how fast you clock the E8600 it is never going to get the 12MB cache of the Q9550.[/quotemsg said:


If you're not using the 3rd and 4th cores, you don't get to use their cache either.
November 27, 2008 7:07:47 AM

habitat87 said:

Isn't multitasking the idea of switching between apps and using them freely? Only single cores suffer greatly from this. This was already solved by the dual cores. As far as having the "power" to push those apps.


It is funny how a few sentences from another user makes it clear you should simply ignore the rest of his posts.

Dual core solved the problem of multitasking... LOL, I guess you don't understand the meaning of multi.


@Spitfire7
Relax... Take a deep breath. Is it really worth all these posts and all that time to make sure you don't lose a frame or two in a few older games compared to the e8600? Enjoy what you have and go on with your life. Stop wasting ours.
November 28, 2008 9:56:17 PM

Just a suggestion:

If you are into overclocking anyway, why wouldn't you go with an E8500, save another $80 and then just push it to the same or close to the E8600?
November 30, 2008 11:33:10 PM

u love reviving dud threads dont u??

this ur hobby?
November 30, 2008 11:41:02 PM

LOL! LOL! (trademark i might use it more)

Whats ur definition of Multitasking so we can justify that first?

Im not in any hole. Ur contradicted by everyone on this site except maybe 3 ppl. No one uses ur info as facts...ur worse than a AMD fanboy accepting the defeat by Intel or Nvidia fanboy not accepting the 4870 as a good card. Srysly.

Games are moving to quad. FSX, Left 4 Dead uses 4 cores. GTA4 has a minimum of a quad... u just dont give up....

Edit: Go back to reading ur essays to ur teachers LOL!
December 1, 2008 12:11:48 AM

u still didnt answer the question....what do u call multitasking?

Cause in a earlier post by u, u definitely had no clue
To me Multitasking is Kaspersky scan, windows defender, internet (i kno that does nothing), Photoshop, some emulators running and Call of Duty 5 and i get no problems. I right click and assign it to separate cores and I can say as a fact that my friend who has a E8400 cannot do that cause hes tried

And what facts? U showed us all one benchmark with a dual at 3.53 and compared to 4.4 about... That 1 GHz increase gave an average of what?!? 3fps? So u showed us that a 4.5 GHz OC does absolutely nothing for gaming. Thx for that.
Now if im correct still based off ur twisted facts. A Q9550 at 3.5 should do the same as a dual at 3.5....thats a good start. So ur saying that a E8500 or 6 at 4.5 beats the crap out of any quad when ur "facts" showed us all a 3fps average change. Thats great, ur "facts" make perfect sense
December 1, 2008 12:22:51 AM

Was that too hard?? Ill dumb it down for u

Fact 1: Most games now dont take a huge advantage to higher clocked processors. Most are bottlenecked by GPU power. So u have no change between a dual and quad
Edit***: that should say performance Loss by switching to a quad from a dual. Just so u dont twist it to what u want to say

Fact 2: Games and software are moving to quad support. Windows 7 makes it easier for quad processing by making it easier to encode and the OS itself benefits from quads.

Fact 3: U still have not justified what u call Multitasking. In a past post i believe u said it is running a program and then turning it off and switching to another. I dont remember the exact wording but it was like gaming, turning it off and then running internet which is wrong

But anyways...i gotta finish my AP work. So if i dont respond its cause im busy
December 1, 2008 1:07:17 AM

lol u mad? starting to swear?

and yes a lotus is better cause a Mustang is a terrible American car, but no cpus are american. 300HP on a V8 makes me laugh
HAHAHAHA u deleted ur car analogy!!! didnt work for u? revised it after u read it aloud?

1) U still have no justification of this. I have a stock quad atm and run all my games better than my friend with a higher dual. Y better gpu...but thats not our argument. Show me the benchies, srysly u say that duals kick the **** (i assume thats the other word for poop) out of duals but u dont even have one how can u make that judgement

2) Windows 7 is already in Beta testing and they announced that its quad supported and makes encoding easier. We knew everything about i7 before it came out didnt we? Well same idea

3) i cant seem to find it...u must of edited it out like every post u make
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2008 6:54:58 AM

like i said... no reason to get a quad as of right now unless you do video encoding or image work. stick with a dual for another year then switch to quad when everything is getting ironed out. its like switching to 64 bit right now... DUMB decision especially when you have to use 32 bit programs like firefox because 64 bit flash is not out yet. but atleast you can still brag that you run a 64 bit os eh Silverion77?
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2008 7:07:55 AM

I run a 64bit Vista Ultimate SP1 and it works fine with Firefox in 32-bit mode. I love the extra memory it recognizes, as my laptop has 4GB. So switching to 64-bit isn't that much of a loss, and I'm speaking from personal opinion.

By the way, I support Silverlion's statement that Windows 7 will be more multi-core optimized. Hell, I've installed Windows 7 Build 6801 onto my laptop and my friend's Quad system, and it runs fast!

But I don't see why you guys are arguing over something so trivial. Soon we'll move to i7, and that will give us a minimum of four cores. When i7 matures, software vendors will realize, after all this time, that Quad is the new Dual. And Octa will be the new Quad in another two years. It's just the way of life, how hardware evolves. Arguing over something like this isn't worth the time IMHO.

P.S. Prescott dual processor multitasking = fail with modern specs. The programs back then were less stressing to the processor, remember. Try to do that now and it will die a horrible and painful death...
December 1, 2008 4:32:52 PM

wait a while quad core will soon be properly utilised but just not a the moment
December 1, 2008 7:18:44 PM

werxen wtf are u talking about

Windows Vista should only have come out in 64 bit as that was what it was intended for. They switched to 32 cause drivers werent ready (not like any were ready :na: )

32 bit programs work fine on 64. Ever heard of WoW (and not the game). Its a built in Emulator for 32 bit programs in 64 bit OS. So yes i can brag i have 64 bit OS not that it means much. Everyone who gets Vista are told to get 64 on this forum. Maybe u just missed that
December 2, 2008 10:00:45 AM

Dual>Quad
Quad>Dual

The debate rages. People with dual cores usually say that quads are a waste and aren't utilized. People with quads say that duals are yesterdays news and quads will soon come into their own. I guess both are true, so who cares.......I DO!

I have both. E8400 at 4.6GHz on the "family" computer, or my old gaming rig. Q9550 @ 3.825GHz on my "New gaming rig". Both are air cooled with Xigmatek HDT-S1283 coolers because they are cheap and work great.

E8400 Vcore = 1.4v
Q9550 Vcore = 1.31v

idle and load temps are very similar with both with the quad running about 2C cooler during 24hr run of Prime95.

Clock for clock: Q9550 > E8400
Overclockability: E8400 > Q9550 (Easy one there) Reached 4.2Ghz on Q9550 but without H2O I won't trust the vcore and associated temps or the required North Bridge voltage for 24/7 operation.
Multitasking/multi-threaded apps: Q9550 > E8400 (I won't get into what I mean by multitasking/multi-threaded apps because if you know then great......if you don't....search for Google on the internet thingy.

My eyes were opened earlier in the year when my buddies Q9450 mildly OC'd @ 3.2GHz destroyed my E8400 @ 4.5GHz on Cinebench R10 on the multi-threaded bench.....by 39.85%. The fact that my Dual spanked his in the single thread bench was of little comfort and here is why:

Quad is a step forward. From here on single threaded apps will slowly but inevitably disappear while more apps become multi-threaded and utilize more cores,2,4,8,16...etc.

Cinebench R10 is a great example of where multi-threaded apps are headed and I think it's under utilized in demonstrating the true power and potential of multi-core cpu's beyond dual core.

If you don't believe it that's just great. How many Dual cores are running the Multi-threaded Cinebench R10 CPU rendering benchmark at over 15,000 on a 24/7 set-up.......I haven't seen one yet. You would have to run that thing over 6GHz on liquid nitrogen to do what an inferior quad can do at a lazy 3.825GHz on air!

I love my E8400, and it does me proud........but my Q9550 it's just amazing and will only get better with age while the E8400 will slowly but inevitably fade away.
December 2, 2008 7:17:41 PM

Corvette is heavier than an Elise or Exige, thats the difference. And the last i knew, weight doesnt really play into cpu performance.
To tell u the truth, a real analogy would be taking the EXACT same car, putting a V4 in one and a V8 in another. Thats exactly like cpus. U can even break it down more. V8 uses more gas (electricity) and produces more heat. But lo and behold a feel a V8 would win. Just a thought though. Like a friend of mine, took a Nissan 350Z, took out the V6 and put in a V8...and holy crap, it went faster.
Lastly, Nissan GTR > Corvette

One thing....u cant be sarcastic with writing. Just doesnt seem to work

Actually no one says u have to OC anything. Overclocking is not done out of Need, its done out of want. Either to gain (as you have shown) 3-5 fps, pushing a cheap cpu farther (like my E2180) and bragging rights. Thats all overclocking is for. When u show those Benchmarks with those XS members with 4.5 OCs, u think they HAD to do that? I doubt it was bottlenecking them...they did it to brag. Thats all.
Cpus play almost no role in game performance in most situations but for some reason that doesnt get through to u. I admit spend less on CPU and get a better gpu, but if said person has the budget to get a good gpu and still has money left over for a quad, then get it.
For example, a friend wants to build a budget build (700-800) and wants to use a Q6600. I told him to get a E2160 and OC it. That was my personal opinion so he could buy what really counts. A better GPU. But for someone like me with a $1200-1400 budget, I got the card i wanted. I couldve saved and gotten a 4870x2 but the price didnt justify it to me so i got a better cpu hence the quad

As for Windows 7, it leaked and its out. Its Prebeta builds but it utilizes quad cores. Now i rly feel since they have quad utilization in, they wont go and take it out. But in ur world Habitat Windows might just do that.

And i see quad utilization in 6-8 months (gotta say in 2050 u wont be gaming, have a job, be very old, or dead. Also cpus wont exist)
U just dont want to accept that everything is moving quad. Nehalem is starting with quads. Westmere wont even have quads last time i checked. The push of new hardware pushes software.
December 2, 2008 11:02:52 PM

habitat87 said:
first off, whatever, it was just a comparison with cars. Hence why I left it out. Duh. Second, yeah, I'm sarcastic in that post aren't I?...

No one says you have to overclock anything? Really? It's advice moron. Another captain obvious. Thanks.

Proves my point quad isn't needed either. How could you tell the difference if it's bottlenecked by graphics? You think those people had to get a quad? Pffft. Whatever...

Wow, if you can't tell the difference with a higher clocked cpu, you got issues. Oh wait, you have a quad, that's right, you don't know what high speeds are like. Hell I even felt my cpu at 4.3 ghz. Computer booted and was working so fast it made me laugh at how stupid it was.

There's a difference between getting cheap and utilizing hardware. The 2160 is just getting really cheap. Your pretending like nothing would be an upgrade from that crappy e2180. I would have gone AMD in that case. Is that what you got as your comparison? I can see why you think the way you do then. Understandable and it's becoming clear now.

2050? That was a joke but you missed that. No, I will accept it, when it happens... So uhhh, we are still waiting arent we?

***Quoting just in case he changes it...but he already did once. So this is just a precaution***

And right there u totally unjustify ur claim. U stated that Duals were kicking the ass out of Quads in gaming because of higher clocks and right there u agree u cant see a difference if its bottlenecked by graphics anyways. And thats the difference. Dual vs Quad in games u see no difference, but in CPU intensive programs the quad wins. Encoding, anything of that sort that uses quads and can easily transition to quads take advantage.

And ur judging part of ur performance by how fast it boots...thats great. Then i must be Rolling on the floor laughing by mine

And Crappy E2180?? Ur kidding right. At 3.4 GHz i was supposed to complain? AMD has absolutely nothing that can compete with the 2160 when u OC it.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2008 7:18:47 AM

Silverion77 said:
Corvette is heavier than an Elise or Exige, thats the difference. And the last i knew, weight doesnt really play into cpu performance.
To tell u the truth, a real analogy would be taking the EXACT same car, putting a V4 in one and a V8 in another. Thats exactly like cpus. U can even break it down more. V8 uses more gas (electricity) and produces more heat. But lo and behold a feel a V8 would win. Just a thought though. Like a friend of mine, took a Nissan 350Z, took out the V6 and put in a V8...and holy crap, it went faster.
Lastly, Nissan GTR > Corvette

One thing....u cant be sarcastic with writing. Just doesnt seem to work

Actually no one says u have to OC anything. Overclocking is not done out of Need, its done out of want. Either to gain (as you have shown) 3-5 fps, pushing a cheap cpu farther (like my E2180) and bragging rights. Thats all overclocking is for. When u show those Benchmarks with those XS members with 4.5 OCs, u think they HAD to do that? I doubt it was bottlenecking them...they did it to brag. Thats all.
Cpus play almost no role in game performance in most situations but for some reason that doesnt get through to u. I admit spend less on CPU and get a better gpu, but if said person has the budget to get a good gpu and still has money left over for a quad, then get it.
For example, a friend wants to build a budget build (700-800) and wants to use a Q6600. I told him to get a E2160 and OC it. That was my personal opinion so he could buy what really counts. A better GPU. But for someone like me with a $1200-1400 budget, I got the card i wanted. I couldve saved and gotten a 4870x2 but the price didnt justify it to me so i got a better cpu hence the quad

As for Windows 7, it leaked and its out. Its Prebeta builds but it utilizes quad cores. Now i rly feel since they have quad utilization in, they wont go and take it out. But in ur world Habitat Windows might just do that.

And i see quad utilization in 6-8 months (gotta say in 2050 u wont be gaming, have a job, be very old, or dead. Also cpus wont exist)
U just dont want to accept that everything is moving quad. Nehalem is starting with quads. Westmere wont even have quads last time i checked. The push of new hardware pushes software.



lol... one of the funnier posts i have seen on toms... quad core wh0res unite!

first off your car analogy blows. taking the same car and putting a bigger engine in both cars? who woulda thunk the one with the bigger engine is faster!?!?! too bad comparing car engines and cpus is like comparing apples with nuggets of deer crap that has been fossilized and found on mars 200000000 years later. how hardware is used is completely software dependant. case in point: my wolfdale rapes your quad core in 99% of games. v4 beating a v8? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!!?ZZOSIA!...>/?

second to all you quad core fanboys i have one simple question: what do you use your quad core for? crysis? unreal tournament? left 4 dead? lol. whats funny is most quad core owners on this site are enthusiest gamers, not image processors or video editors of any kind. the only real advantage of quads now, and i will guess 1 year from now, will be for those 2 things explicitly. save yourself the trouble of getting new quad core technology and wait till it gets figured out properly and the prices drop. (notice how people got the duo core quads and even the extreme editions get raped by the core i7.... $1,000 down the drain baby)

third :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  at your reasons for why people overclock. i also made a post asking why people here overclock and they said they overclock just to overclock. rarely will you ever seen an improvement on anything between a 3.16 gighz stock E8500 and a 4.6 oc'd max E8500. at those speeds everything else is the bottleneck, mostly your HDD and GPU if you game.

just lawls at your reasoning behind your judgment. but to each his own brother and as long as you are emotionally content with your setup thats all that matters.
December 3, 2008 10:26:44 AM

werxen said:

second to all you quad core fanboys i have one simple question: what do you use your quad core for? crysis? unreal tournament? left 4 dead? lol. whats funny is most quad core owners on this site are enthusiest gamers, not image processors or video editors of any kind. the only real advantage of quads now, and i will guess 1 year from now, will be for those 2 things explicitly.


Right.... I'll go call Rockstar Games and Ubisoft and tell them that their games don't exists.

Anyway, keep going guys, this is hilarious.
December 3, 2008 2:54:47 PM

Do you actually game. You think an E8500 at stock speeds and one OC'd to 4.6GHz will rarely show an improvement? OK.....sure, if your using a 256MB GPU from the '90's!

If your using anything of substance (GTX280, GTX260, 4870, 4870x2 9800GTX+...etc.) you will for sure see a significant improvement in fps in many games if you OC a dual core past it's stock speed.

Nobody needs to overclock a dual core? Wrong! If you want to run the latest and greatest GPU's to their full potential you have to overclock duals and quads or the cpu WILL be the bottleneck. Don't even get me started on SLI or Crossfire! Those configurations always show the cpu to be the bottleneck in the end.....even OC'd to extremes. Look it up on Google.....damn, my whole post just got disregarded! ;) 
December 3, 2008 8:08:25 PM

For once i agree with u Habitat...
"Overclock just to overclock" just sounded stupid

@wexen: what the hell does i7 have to do with this? If i recall correctly i7 beats any Core 2 system, dual or quad. And westmere will beat that, then SandyBridge...then for all we kno well have optical processors (read something about it in newspaper having to do with IBM). New architecture/die shrink will always beat the predecessor. I wanted to wait for i7 but didnt feel like waiting a month w/o a computer. Im skipping right to West or Sandy depending.

And lastly, i dont disagree fully with u Habitat. There are things that i agree with but some of ur views i disagree with.
For one, i agree duals are faster, its fact, clock beats clock. Hell, if i had a E8600 and put that into my coming H2O system (that i hope im getting) id go to town...be fun as hell...I love Overclocking.
But what i dont agree with is that i believe quad utilization is coming faster than u think. U might not think so but i do. It probably will do absolutely nothing for gaming (unless its Source or heavily cpu dependent game), but for some programs it will definitely help. And i intend on keeping this processor awhile (and after this it will become a server cpu, so the quad helps there), thats why i went quad (Also my parents owed me the money, so w/e i didnt spend would just disappear).

If i can ill grab a friends E8400 for a bit and run some benchies to the quad. Stock and OCed as far as each can go.
Ill talk to him, in the meantime, PM me some benchies u want me to run. Games, some freeware, video, anything

Otherwise im done with this thread :kaola: 
Plz let it die guys. The blue flag is annoying
Good lols :lol:  i needed them. Too much work this past month
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 12:56:44 AM

daskrabbe said:
Right.... I'll go call Rockstar Games and Ubisoft and tell them that their games don't exists.

Anyway, keep going guys, this is hilarious.



LOL yea you're right cuz san andreas, gta4, vice city, and all other prior rockstar games utilize quad cores! idiot. the dumbest thing you can do right now is predict quad core utilization in future games... which is EXACTLY what you're doing and thats exactly what im arguing against. thanks for proving my point.
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 1:02:50 AM

Kaninja said:
Do you actually game. You think an E8500 at stock speeds and one OC'd to 4.6GHz will rarely show an improvement? OK.....sure, if your using a 256MB GPU from the '90's!

If your using anything of substance (GTX280, GTX260, 4870, 4870x2 9800GTX+...etc.) you will for sure see a significant improvement in fps in many games if you OC a dual core past it's stock speed.

Nobody needs to overclock a dual core? Wrong! If you want to run the latest and greatest GPU's to their full potential you have to overclock duals and quads or the cpu WILL be the bottleneck. Don't even get me started on SLI or Crossfire! Those configurations always show the cpu to be the bottleneck in the end.....even OC'd to extremes. Look it up on Google.....damn, my whole post just got disregarded! ;) 




Nobody needs to overclock a dual core? Wrong! If you want to run the latest and greatest GPU's to their full potential you have to overclock duals and quads or the cpu WILL be the bottleneck. Don't even get me started on SLI or Crossfire! Those configurations always show the cpu to be the bottleneck in the end.....even OC'd to extremes. Look it up on Google.....damn, my whole post just got disregarded! ;) 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  i really cant believe i just read this... i'm not even going to comment on such a ridiculous statement. oh well for funs sake i will throw in a couple more lol's at you. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  .

on a side note, they didnt have 256 megabyte video cards in the 90's so... fail.
December 4, 2008 2:04:37 AM

Since we are on the topic of CPU overclocking, I have my Q9550 OCed to 3.83 stable. Does that mean that it would beat a E8600 at 3.3 and then be equal if E8600 OCed to 3.83 or is there something else at play here?
December 4, 2008 2:43:13 AM

nope thats right

its only clock (some cache but not rly)
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 2:45:11 AM

Spitfire7 said:
Since we are on the topic of CPU overclocking, I have my Q9550 OCed to 3.83 stable. Does that mean that it would beat a E8600 at 3.3 and then be equal if E8600 OCed to 3.83 or is there something else at play here?


That's correct for single threaded apps, and in multithreaded stuff, yours will absolutely flatten the E8600 in basically any case.
December 4, 2008 5:01:23 PM

Quote:
on a side note, they didnt have 256 megabyte video cards in the 90's so... fail.


Fail Eh? The GeForce 256 I owned in the late 90's was very real....I'm quite sure of it. Please, just use Google I'm sure it's easy to find. I now wiki-slap you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_256

Quote:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  i really cant believe i just read this... i'm not even going to comment on such a ridiculous statement. oh well for funs sake i will throw in a couple more lol's at you. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  .


Oh boy. For the average (see majority) of users I stand by my statement. However!........if you are running a game like Crysis of Far Cry 2 at 1920 x 1200 with all the settings on "eye candy" then yes I concede.....it will even GPU bottleneck a tri-sli system. I'm running a single GTX280 (moderately overclocked). Performing some tests at 1024 x 768 my CPU showed to be a bottleneck below 3.0GHz. There was a real improvement in fps going to 3.4GHz, and a very marginal improvement (2-3fps) going to 3.6GHZ......and NONE going to 3.8GHz. So I can safely say 2 things that are TRUE.

1) I have the second or third best video card available in today's market.
2) At 1024 x 768 my cpu WAS a bottleneck below 3.6GHz. (Very high settings & 4X AA)

Now with the same settings but at 1920 x 1200 it's an entirely different animal altogether. GPU is the bottleneck and there is very marginal improvement (maybe even testing variation) of 1-2 fps between stock speed of 2.8GHz and OC'd to 3.8GHz.

Very few people are lucky enough (or cursed?) to be able to game at 1920 x 1200. I would say the great majority of people in the real world are still gaming at 1024 x 768, and in that case they can for sure benefit from OC'ing either their quad or dual.

So no it's not a ridiculous statement.

a c 111 à CPUs
December 4, 2008 8:46:53 PM

I do not get into this stuff but hey.... You responded saying you have a 256 megabyte geforce 256?
Kaninja said:
Fail Eh? The GeForce 256 I owned in the late 90's was very real....I'm quite sure of it. Please, just use Google I'm sure it's easy to find. I now wiki-slap you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_256

Now you fail, the Geforce 256(The 256 had NOTHING to do with memory and most had 16-64 megs) Even your link shows it was the name that was from a contest.

The card was only designed to address a MAXIMUM of 128 megabytes of memory. Not like a card of that power would even be able to use that much memory, Its about as usful as the 1 gigabyte FX 5200's.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce256.html
!