no pushing a fx-55 over a x2, are u on crack or something?
Well, the FX-55 was cheaper for a while, used less power, and almost always outgamed the 4800+ at the time. Hindsite is 20/20 and we know X2 4800+ > FX-55 now. But why not recommend the FX-55 at the time if recommending the e8400 for those reasons now? Isn't that really very similar to this situation? Now I'm not arguing for the FX-55 nor do I expect the same whooping for the quads over duals anytime soon, but we need to entertain the possibility is there that some aps in the next couple years this could be very true.
Quote :
all I'm saying is what has been established already, nothing new...higher clocked dual-core's given the same family and core, perform better than quad core's,...
But what I tried to show is that while that is generally true, it isn't always true in current games even. Look at Xbit and the 3.65Ghz quad beat the 3.85GHz dual in every game, and by a good margin in 2 games. If we rerun this in one year with the latest crop of games, will the situation change more to favor the Quads? And when the e8400 or Q6600 does win now, it is low res benchies or cpu scaling settings not actual gaming settings that tend to most often be GPU bound. I've said it many times, that don't see either offering a better gaming expereince in current games. So either is fine. IMO it comes down to pricing.
Quote :
my argument isn't so much that given the same price a quad core isn't worth it over a dual core, but what I am saying is nobody (well very few individuals) are actually going utilize a quad core, why waste the extra power, on something that you are not using, is all I'm saying.
pauldh, I respect what you say [really I do], but, and this is really what it comes down to, is that sooner or later you have too look at more than just outright performance...if they are just going to be wasting energy/power/higher electricity bills [albeit not higher enough to make anybody bat an eye, who already has an enthusiast type set-up] what's the point.
I know you probably think that I'm just ranting b/c I'm some sort of eco-nut, or that I recycle my puke or something, that a crazy tree-hugger would do, but sooner or later we gotta [as a whole] start being satisfied with what actually gives us decent returns,and not with what that stupid mindset, that MORE UBER POWER, will make my UBER-POOTER FASTERZ FTW!!1!!111!!11! but ironically doesn't give us any real performance benefit...
I'm just saying is all, now I'm sure there are people [a small percentage at best, think like 2% of the total people who get a quad -core who wouldn't normally utilize it.] are once they get a quad-core OMFG, i have more power, maybe I should use it one something uber-cool, and then they might pick up video editing, or w/e, but the point is, there is no need to waste such electricity if it's not even going to be noticeable enough to make a difference to the uninformed consumer...so as I said b4, I'l say it again, you can't just look at the more cores, and price/performance, b/c believe it or not there is a whole world out there, that just b/c you are un-aware of it doesn't make it any less important.
Save the trees, Nuke the whale's, ftw!111!!!!1 PWNER POWER!!!!!111111 uber 4 cores, hurrrahahahahahah!!!!1
cry some more!
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Yes, I was looking strictly at performance and did not know you were talking about power consumption being wasted. If that is important to you, then yes I see your point for sure and it's a valid one. For sure the Q6600 consumes more power at/near idle, which is what most often running systems are doing. (and more during load too of course)
I don't do it to conserve energy, so I can't pat myself on the back for that, but my daily rig that runs most is a near silent single core A64 San Deigo with a passive 7600GS. My gaming rig is strickly for gaming, benchmarking, and some video recording/editing. It is off 80-90% of the time do to lack of free entertainment time to use it.
And really, again I am very much for the e8400 or even slower C2duo's. I have an e4500 and tried to get an e8400 retail for $200, but it was backordered so long I cancelled the order. It's just when we talk spending over $200, I think the Q's are a very valid choice. Priced the same I think even for the gamer it's the better investment. But I am all for saving money on dual cores instead. Today, newegg has the e8400 oem for $35 less the oem Q6600. In that case, if buying from newegg today, I do think the e8400 is the better choice for the gamer. And while it's $250 for the retail versions of either, I think the Q6600 is the better option (for non tree huggers. )
---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
35 WATTS? Whhhoooaaa. Maybe Intel better take a look back. I understand the importence of overkill vs true usage, and saving a few electrons along the way is a good thing, but that celeron? AAck
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
I bought that 420L with a PC chips mobo combo for dirt cheap. BSEL modding to 266 bus worked with ease. But it's still pretty slow though for gaming. System is very stable so It's going in my HTPC when I get a chance (replacing mobile barton 2500+ on NF7-s). Anyway, wonder how long that mobo will keep ticking though. *yikes*
---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
^ yes very true. Which stinks for most people. Closest store for me is 1.5 hour round trip and then 7% sales tax added strips the bargain from that one. http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0257938
Message edited by pauldh on 04-01-2008 at 02:09:16 AM
---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
Shuzaam! Thats a blow that AMDs ancestors will feel. Thats a lot of performance in a little chip for a little price. This should be the chip all of the tree huggers fling to as well.
^ It's not that simple as what games, what graphics card, and what clock speeds? But in general I feel once you tweak a game to the settings you actually game at, there is very little difference as in most games things are/can be GPU limited with higher resolution and eye candy turned on.
As an example, notice at low res you see CPU scaling, but at high res and/or with fsaa things become GPU limited even with GF8800's. SOme games like Supreme Commander or Flight Simulator X, the uber cpu's may provide the higher/ more consistent framerates. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] /page5.asp
Anyway, you will notice, that these results are quite different than 1024x768 no fsaa cpu scaling benchmarks as those are set give the CPU's rooom to scale by eliminating the GPU from having an impact.
Message edited by pauldh on 04-01-2008 at 06:35:52 AM
---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
but ironically doesn't give us any real performance benefit...
)
