" As demonstrated, more cores does not always equal better performance. In the cases where the quad and dual core perform equally, a higher clocked dual core will outperform the quad core. If you are on a budget, then this is a factor to be considered when deciding what would serve you better, more cores or higher clockspeed. " - (CPU GUIDE)
As you can see by the blue vs. red, it is quite easy to see why a quad-core just isn't worth it for you, period...
Good point and I agree. You also have to agree before either of these chips are maxed out and are no longer useable you will have replaced it with a faster chip and it wont matter anyway.
Both are great chips. I was able to get the Q6600 for 199.99 so that settled the issue for me. I really dont think many people will use either of these cpus long enough to make a difference.
There simply isn't enough mainstream games using 4 cores to call the quad core a great CPu for all gamers, stop trying to spread that crap left and right...jesus its getting sickening...
I got a crazy idea lets just ignore all the reviews done that basically put up a quad core vs. a dual core and put it thru the same exact tests, and the only difference one CPU was a quad and one was a dual core, dude the quad core has been proven that is simply isn't utilized to the point where you can even think that its mainstream ready...
So stop with that crap , you make so many other good recommendations that I hate to have to say this, but people just need to hear the cold hard truth and if they choose not to take it then it is their own mistake, pauldh, if that is your real name ,
very few people actually do video editing, blah blah blah, and etc. etc. etc. that they are at a point where a quad core even makes remote sense....
I swear, if you senior forum members keep posting this crap about what people should get, instead of what they need, then there is this mindset, that OMFG we need 4 cores, OMFG we need 8 gb of ram, will you senior forum members at least stop and think about the kind of ramifications you are putting in place...just stop it already...
Message edited by FrozenGpu on 03-31-2008 at 08:45:12 AM
If you're into, or plan to overclock, Q6600 is a better choice. You can easily go to 3.0Ghz with minor voltage bumping. Coupled with a decent cooling solution, three years shouldn't be a problem.
However, if you're not into overclock, or do not plan to overclock, E8400 is better choice. Very few programs out there take advantage of quad cores at the moment. Even though more programs are written to take advantage of quad cores, and it is definitely the future of computing, I doubt we'll be seeing majority of programs fully utilizing quad cores.
--------------- Paul Otellini: "The initial ones are multi-chip, but so what?' You guys are misreading the market if you think people care what's in the package."
@ frozen. Whoa, I struck a nerve huh. I fear you lack the logic and reasoning to figure this out. I don't claim the Q6600 outgames the e8400 now. I think they are both equally fine. But IMO, You are the one posting bad advice if you push an e8400 over a Q6600 IF PRICED THE SAME. People picked up the Q6600 retail for $199 and would have been idiots to listen to advice to buy a more expensive e8400. Did you push Single core FX-55's over dual core X2 4800+ too just because only a couple games saw an advantage to dual cores? If so, I feel sorry for anyone who listened to you. Stop trying to make it sound like quad core is worse for gaming now. Both are good choices, just depends on price. if that sparks a Quad frenzy, then people need to learn to read. :rolleyes @ you:
Are you claiming an e8400 has a playable difference in current games over a Q6600? Do you game at 10x7 with no fsaa? Is a 4.0GHz e8400 going to provide a better gaming expereince than a 3.6GHz Q6600 now?
There simple is no advantage to going dual core IMO unless it's cheaper. I've said all along, priced the same grab the quad. Neither has a real world gaming advantage over the other now, but if anything it's the Quad that will outlast the dual.
Did a little test myself. Both COD4 and Assassin's Creed will take advantage of quad core. However, I'm not sure by how much. Crysis is only dual-core optimized.
--------------- Paul Otellini: "The initial ones are multi-chip, but so what?' You guys are misreading the market if you think people care what's in the package."
That is dissapointing from a game such as crysis. Other better games will be coming out and likely will utilize four cores. If some games are now then why wouldnt you believe there are more to come?
I think two more cores are a safer bet than 400 mhz higher clocks, dont you?
@ frozen. Whoa, I struck a nerve huh. I fear you lack the logic and reasoning to figure this out. I don't claim the Q6600 outgames the e8400 now. I think they are both equally fine. But IMO, You are the one posting bad advice if you push an e8400 over a Q6600 IF PRICED THE SAME. People picked up the Q6600 retail for $199 and would have been idiots to listen to advice to buy a more expensive e8400. Did you push Single core FX-55's over dual core X2 4800+ too just because only a couple games saw an advantage to dual cores? If so, I feel sorry for anyone who listened to you. Stop trying to make it sound like quad core is worse for gaming now. Both are good choices, just depends on price. if that sparks a Quad frenzy, then people need to learn to read. :rolleyes @ you:
Are you claiming an e8400 has a playable difference in current games over a Q6600? Do you game at 10x7 with no fsaa? Is a 4.0GHz e8400 going to provide a better gaming expereince than a 3.6GHz Q6600 now?
There simple is no advantage to going dual core IMO unless it's cheaper. I've said all along, priced the same grab the quad. Neither has a real world gaming advantage over the other now, but if anything it's the Quad that will outlast the dual.
no pushing a fx-55 over a x2, are u on crack or something?
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, 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
To me it actually comes down to two points. How long do you plan to use this same setup? If its for several years, then a quad qould be the way to go, regardless of pricepoint and power usage. The other would be, initial comparable price, like Paul has pointed out several times. A bargains a bargain, no matter how you slice it. Theyre currently overpricing the 8400s by over 70USD. Thats just wrong. And if it is a conspiracy by Intel, to shove those quads at us, oh well, maybe theyll use the extra money to make a lower powered but better performing quad or octo in the future
To me it actually comes down to two points. How long do you plan to use this same setup? If its for several years, then a quad qould be the way to go, regardless of pricepoint and power usage. The other would be, initial comparable price, like Paul has pointed out several times. A bargains a bargain, no matter how you slice it. Theyre currently overpricing the 8400s by over 70USD. Thats just wrong. And if it is a conspiracy by Intel, to shove those quads at us, oh well, maybe theyll use the extra money to make a lower powered but better performing quad or octo in the future
u know they could get just about anything, I only said the E8400/E3110 b/c its what everybody is comparing the two in which to get, to be brutally honest taking a E2180, or a E4400 and just ocing them just a little bit would do the trick and that is way cheaper than either options and can hold its own, people should be buying PC components according to their actual needs, not OMFG a kilowatt PSu, OMFG a 9800GX2 [2 cores for double the performance], OMFG quad cores, OMFG 8Gb of ram will make my compooter uber-fast b/c it has soo much **** in it... FTW!1!!!!11!!!!
a good deal is being measured by the price to performance ratio, with little else being being thought of..there should honestly be another point in which ppl take into consideration WTF they actually use it for, and what their power needs actually are...
Thats true. I see your point. Many threads come out with the OP asking all this , not knowing a thing about it. BUT, many of us here, if not all, has asked these questions. Like, whats your budget? Right there, that sums it all up. Some come in under the OPs budget and it still works. Dont be so harsh, as everyone here gives pat answers, and some forget, or just think that everyone else on here is trying to get cutting edge and give that advise from that perspective. But all of us have asked the question : whats your budget/final outcome. We are on a site that desires the cutting edge, but to everyone (myself included) take the time to ask, as thats whats really important to the OP down the road
Thats true. I see your point. Many threads come out with the OP asking all this , not knowing a thing about it. BUT, many of us here, if not all, has asked these questions. Like, whats your budget? Right there, that sums it all up. Some come in under the OPs budget and it still works. Dont be so harsh, as everyone here gives pat answers, and some forget, or just think that everyone else on here is trying to get cutting edge and give that advise from that perspective. But all of us have asked the question : whats your budget/final outcome. We are on a site that desires the cutting edge, but to everyone (myself included) take the time to ask, as thats whats really important to the OP down the road
,
![[:kentuckyranger:1]](http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/images/perso/1/kentuckyranger.gif "[:kentuckyranger:1]")
but ironically doesn't give us any real performance benefit...
