Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it worth it?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2009 6:54:54 PM

I have a friend who is willing to purchase my CPU (E8400 E0 Stepping) for $125. Should I sell it to him and purchase a Q9550 from Microcenter for $169 or just keep it? The processor is a little over a month old and has great temps and overclocking ability.

More about : worth

a b à CPUs
July 10, 2009 7:38:28 PM

The quad core qill be worth it. but get a second opinion, i am kind of new to this.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2009 7:46:16 PM

If you overclock, then it depends on your motherboard also. If you have a mobo that can handle overclocking Quads, it certainly is worth it. If your motherboard is so so only with overclocking quads, stick with the dual core, you'll get more out of it.
Related resources
July 10, 2009 8:05:37 PM

I am sure I have a capable motherboard. Its the Asus Rampage Formula.
July 10, 2009 8:06:23 PM

It depand on you needs.

For pure gaming youll need to OC a lil bit. The mobo+ram can limit your OC capability.

Be sure to have a GOOD psu if you dont want to fry the whole thing.

My opinion is that its WORTH IT !

Have fun !!
July 10, 2009 8:12:23 PM

Upendra09 said:
The quad core qill be worth it. but get a second opinion, i am kind of new to this.





The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.

That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".

The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.

:pt1cable: 
July 10, 2009 8:20:53 PM

enigma067 said:
The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.

That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".

The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.

:pt1cable: 


Theoretically yes, you're right. But since memory bandwidth is not an issue most of the time, a 'fake' quad performs very well. That would be my recommendation to the OP as well. Quad all the way! 'Fake' or not :) 
July 10, 2009 8:35:47 PM

enigma067 is searching for pooo where there no pooo ....

Your right for the THÉORICAL fab of those chip ... but those can stil be called QUAD. Or maybe you want us to call them Core 2 DUODUO ?
a c 345 à CPUs
July 10, 2009 8:46:57 PM

ragsters said:
I have a friend who is willing to purchase my CPU (E8400 E0 Stepping) for $125. Should I sell it to him and purchase a Q9550 from Microcenter for $169 or just keep it? The processor is a little over a month old and has great temps and overclocking ability.

How much of a quad can you use?
For gaming, there are very few titles that can use more than two cores.
For other applications, maybe.
Turn on the task monitor, and performance monitor. Track your actual core usage and cpu usage. Then you will get an idea it more cores will help you.
July 10, 2009 8:52:35 PM

geofelt said:
How much of a quad can you use?
For gaming, there are very few titles that can use more than two cores.
For other applications, maybe.
Turn on the task monitor, and performance monitor. Track your actual core usage and cpu usage. Then you will get an idea it more cores will help you.


You'd be surprised. Here's a screenshot i took of my core usage while playing the original FEAR.



I was scratching my head a bit myself. But i double checked nothing else was running, short of Firefox and a temperature monitor.
a c 345 à CPUs
July 10, 2009 8:59:54 PM

lucuis said:
You'd be surprised. Here's a screenshot i took of my core usage while playing the original FEAR.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a280/Werak/FearCoreUtilization.jpg

I was scratching my head a bit myself. But i double checked nothing else was running, short of Firefox and a temperature monitor.


Eyeballing the graph, It looks like two cores are about 40%, one at 30%, and one at 10%. If that was compressed into two cores, it would look like 40% + 10%, and 40% +30%, or dual core utilization of 50% and 70%. Windows will dispatch all available cores, it does not necessarily stay on just one all the time.
July 10, 2009 9:03:24 PM

^^^ agreed, windows takes the load to all the 4 cores.

Playing an old game can show a split core usage cause cause windows wil dedicate one core for the game, and other one for other apps/directX/ad others ...
July 10, 2009 9:06:29 PM

Ah i see, poor man's multi-threading eh? Well, still better then nothing i guess.
July 10, 2009 9:23:49 PM

Thanks for all your help guys. I really appreciate it.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2009 9:45:53 PM

Quote:

Upendra09 wrote :
The quad core qill be worth it. but get a second opinion, i am kind of new to this.





The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.

That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".

The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.


So r u saying there is no real quad core on the market?
July 10, 2009 9:51:54 PM

Nah, he's sayin' the Core 2 Quads aren't technically 'real' quads. The i7 and Phenom quads are 'real' quads. But it doesn't really matter either way.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2009 11:18:37 PM

Upendra09 said:
Quote:

Upendra09 wrote :
The quad core qill be worth it. but get a second opinion, i am kind of new to this.





The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.

That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".

The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.


So r u saying there is no real quad core on the market?


The Core 2 Quad is a real quad. It has 4 cores, therefore, it is a quad core (whether or not those cores happen to be on the same die is somewhat irrelevant for definitions). A fake quad would be like some of the Pentium D Extremes that intel released with 2 cores and hyper threading, so it looked like 4 to the OS.

Now, in bandwidth limited apps, it is true that the Core 2 Quad will fall behind the Phenom and i7 designs, but almost no desktop task is bandwidth limited, so it is a somewhat irrelevant point. Enigma is just looking for some way to make intel look bad, since he is a rather adamant fan of AMD. Besides, the Core 2 Quad actually beats the Phenom in almost any desktop task, and is roughly even with the Phenom II, showing that it is in no way inferior to a native quad core for home use.

As for Intel's naming, Core 2 has nothing to do with the number of cores - it is the architecture (Second gen core architecture). That's why the dual cores aren't just called "core 2", they're called "core 2 duo" (I.E. Core 2 architecture, dual core). Hence, Core 2 quad is in no way Intel's admission of its status as a fake quad (which is isn't), it is simply stating that it is a Core 2 architecture chip with 4 cores.
July 11, 2009 12:04:51 AM

Thats the way its meant to be tell !
a c 83 à CPUs
July 11, 2009 3:45:15 AM

I'd say get the quad, but I'm also a person who can frequently hit 100% usage on a quad due to some of the software I run.
July 11, 2009 3:50:46 AM

Quad it is.
July 11, 2009 4:34:25 AM

Woo Hoo Quads for us all!!!!!!!!
July 11, 2009 5:01:01 AM

enigma067 said:
The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.

That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".

The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.

:pt1cable: 


Riiiight, which is why AMD is currently faster than Intel with their "native" quad designs. Oh wait, they aren't...
July 11, 2009 5:35:59 AM

Can QPI be run on a non native core? QPI does help here
July 11, 2009 5:50:00 AM

Jaydee, isn't it your curfew yet..lol ?
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2009 6:07:47 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Can QPI be run on a non native core? QPI does help here

I'm sure you could do it - it would be similar to the QPI implementation on multi socket systems.
July 11, 2009 6:09:47 AM

Just askin lol
July 11, 2009 6:11:14 AM

OK, thats server side only, where they have 2, gotcha
July 11, 2009 6:14:36 AM

It's Intel's version of hyper transport 3 afaik JD.
July 11, 2009 6:25:06 AM

And upping the speed means moar powher
July 11, 2009 7:11:40 AM

12v cpu + karr battery = speedz !
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2009 11:30:56 AM

cjl said:
The Core 2 Quad is a real quad. It has 4 cores, therefore, it is a quad core (whether or not those cores happen to be on the same die is somewhat irrelevant for definitions). A fake quad would be like some of the Pentium D Extremes that intel released with 2 cores and hyper threading, so it looked like 4 to the OS.

Now, in bandwidth limited apps, it is true that the Core 2 Quad will fall behind the Phenom and i7 designs, but almost no desktop task is bandwidth limited, so it is a somewhat irrelevant point. Enigma is just looking for some way to make intel look bad, since he is a rather adamant fan of AMD. Besides, the Core 2 Quad actually beats the Phenom in almost any desktop task, and is roughly even with the Phenom II, showing that it is in no way inferior to a native quad core for home use.

As for Intel's naming, Core 2 has nothing to do with the number of cores - it is the architecture (Second gen core architecture). That's why the dual cores aren't just called "core 2", they're called "core 2 duo" (I.E. Core 2 architecture, dual core). Hence, Core 2 quad is in no way Intel's admission of its status as a fake quad (which is isn't), it is simply stating that it is a Core 2 architecture chip with 4 cores.


Thanks, enigma was really confusing me there.
!