Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel core 2 duo vs. Intel Quad

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 15, 2008 8:11:46 PM

Hello,
I am planning to by EVGA nForce 750i SLI FTW Motherboard around christmas time. I plan on upgrading my proccesor also. I have already had a forum asking what i should do but the answers wern't really clear. I do not plan on doing a lot of multi tasking and i know that the quad core is more for that. I just want to know if the Core 2 duo would be really good for games. I have a Pentium D now 3.00ghz and everyone says to upgrade it. I really like Intel and what from i heard it is moslty better then AMD. Just please tell me honestly what is better for striclty gaming.

These are the ones i am looking at:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 or
Q6600

I can find both of them for about the same price quad a little more expencive then core 2 duo.

Here are my specs:
Intel Pentium D 3.00GHz
Nvidia Geforce 8800gt XXX
3 gigs of ram
X-fi Fitality
250 gb hd
Windows Xp

Thank you for you help!
November 15, 2008 8:19:18 PM

Many games won't scale well to the quad-core chip (there are some good benchmarks out there if you use google). That may change in the future, depending on how much effort programmers put into their software architecture.

I'm using an AMD 5600+ (2.8x2) and my limiting factor is the graphics card (8600GT xxx), not the CPU. Even with the 8800, I think your limiting factor may still be the GPU, not the CPU.
Related resources
November 15, 2008 8:23:57 PM

I think given your current specs, your much better off, waiting a few months or the prices on i7 to come down.

BTW: you probably multi task much than you think, so i would definatly go with the quad, and yes AMD, arnt exactly doing well.
November 15, 2008 8:28:42 PM

Decoy008 said:
Many games won't scale well to the quad-core chip (there are some good benchmarks out there if you use google). That may change in the future, depending on how much effort programmers put into their software architecture.

I'm using an AMD 5600+ (2.8x2) and my limiting factor is the graphics card (8600GT xxx), not the CPU. Even with the 8800, I think your limiting factor may still be the GPU, not the CPU.


hi again, i would agree that if you only use the systems for games then you would see slightly better results from the duo, however not buy much as the CPU will no be the bottleneck with either GPU, and i find the quad better for general use outside gaming.
November 15, 2008 8:39:28 PM

It has been reported that valve updated the source engine to support multi-threading (so it can load 4 cores). I don't have personal experience with this, since the quad-core I have access to doesn't have internet access. However, unless dual-cores are under high load, having a third or fourth core may not give noticeable improvement over the faster dual cores.

Which games do you have in mind, and what resolution do you play games at?

My two major games are Counter-Strike:CZ and Call of Duty 4, however I play at lower resolutions because I use a smaller monitor. I think I can play about any game out right now at my monitor's native resolution, and have settings at medium-high or better.
November 15, 2008 9:08:06 PM

hey there. i am also picking between a an intel E8400 or a Q6600 for much the same use, and was wondering which would be best for overclocking?

i plan to over clock with a asus P5Q or P5QL would etheir of these do it?
November 15, 2008 9:29:14 PM

If you're willing to overclock, I think all comments above are off. Supposedly on air cooling you can readily push the SLACR (G0) models of the q6600 up to about 3.0 GHz without much effort. I myself am still trying to diagnose if I have a bad CPU or MoBo, so I haven't tried personally though.

E8400 will probably hit higher individual core speeds, since the Q6600 generates a huge amount of heat, but having 4 cores at 3.0 seems like it'll run about any games (even if they're not well designed to use the 3rd or 4th core) you'd be interested. The difference between 2.4 and 3.0 is pretty big IMHO, whereas the difference between 3.0 and 3.4 is not as much (I made 3.4 up).

This has been a pretty actively written about topic, I'd encourage you to check out google for a broader perspective on it.
November 15, 2008 9:33:43 PM

Hey guys thanks for posting.
I think i will go with the E8400. It seems the most practical after looking at those guru 3d charts. It did the same as the Quad cores on almost all games like crysis and cod 4. It is also very good on price and is easily overclocked. If you have any more info or comments plesae tell me.
a c 344 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 15, 2008 10:27:46 PM

I would probably agree on the E8400.
Only if your games are quad core optimized like FSX or supreme commander would the quad be better.
Other thoughts:
Get 4gb DDR2-800 in a 2x2gb configuration.
ram is cheap, and a 4gb kit may even cost less than 3gb. Here's why 4gb:
http://www.corsairmemory.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Per...
XP will see about 3.4gb. Why not use 64 bit Vista?

Defer the sound card, onboard is very good. The cpu savings today are minimal, and you can always add one later.

Why spend more on a sli capable motherboard? A simple P45 board will cost <$90 and perform just as well. Spend any savings on the best single vga card you feel comfortable paying for. It will help your gaming the most.
November 16, 2008 12:39:33 AM

pleasehelp said:
Hey guys thanks for posting.
I think i will go with the E8400. It seems the most practical after looking at those guru 3d charts. It did the same as the Quad cores on almost all games like crysis and cod 4. It is also very good on price and is easily overclocked. If you have any more info or comments plesae tell me.


That guru3d chart is not good. They used all max graphics settings on an old 8800 graphics card. It's too gpu limited, that's why all the bars are nearly equal. It doesn't illustrates the differences in cpu.

Here's a better comparison, which clearly illustrates differences of dual/quad behavior: it all depends on the game.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
!