Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Duo

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"] I think thats funny because an application is either single threaded or multi threaded. If it is multi threaded, it will utilize all available cores. Please enlighten me if I'm incorrect.zaigham_riaz

You can just see the countless benchmarks which prove my point.Oh and google is your good friend for that in case you didnt know.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"]

And please recall that a DVD-AVI conversion program is just an example because all the time your PC is running many services and applications in parallel with your games so you can't just say "ONLY GAMING PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTS".

 

 

zaigham_riaz

And yes if you want to do serious multi tasking than the quad core is the way to go.Nobody disagrees on that.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

 

But for i7 you will need a new mobo and DDR3 RAM which is currently a rip off!

Daytona_178

u do realize we have been trhu this before right???

Grand theft auto 4. The recommended is a Q6600 and minimum is 1.8ghz dual coreSTAR_Admiral

So only one? Let's wait for benchies.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Lach0121"] its not always about clockspeed for one, and for 2, dual cores, they will not have as long a life as people predict.. 3-4 years, to stay in gaming decently,, lol no... quad in games easily by fall09, and be a standard by fall2010, early 2011 at the latest. some games already list them in the system requirements- in october of 2008. so if im going new mobo, icore7, and new memory, im not gonna waste time or money, on a dual core version of the icore7,Lach0121

What games?

This is recommended :

Intel® Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better .

It doesn't say quad cores.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"]

And please recall that a DVD-AVI conversion program is just an example because all the time your PC is running many services and applications in parallel with your games so you can't just say "ONLY GAMING PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTS".

 

 

zaigham_riaz

What kind of intensive task would you be running in the backround while gaming?... don't forget that it will also eat ram.

 

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]wont be come beginning of year, after xmas, prices on all that will have droped.Lach0121

u do realize we have been trhu this before right???

[QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Serious gamers would reply that they try their darndest to remove as many unnecessary services and processes as possible, and that those that remain don't seriously affect CPU performance while running.Bebi_vegeta

What kind of intensive task would you be running in the backround while gaming?... don't forget that it will also eat ram.

[QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]Yes you are incorrect.Thinker_reborn

You can just see the countless benchmarks which prove my point.Oh and google is your good friend for that in case you didnt know.

Yes, I have seen many benchmarks and their focus is on "using a quad (under normal circumstances ignoring the parallel task load) doesn't make frame rates better in games on using a duo". I don't think that focus is accurate while considering the main purpose ofhaving more and more cores: which is parallel tasking.

And yet these benchmarks totally ignore the total CPU usage. As in my example, for any modern game running on a duo the total CPU usage would always be considerably more than the total CPU usage for the same game running on a quad. Any one can test it on their own instead of going for benshmarks. The conclusion that you will find, is the base point of having quads over duos. Thanks.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"] Well I don't think many serious gamers are computer professionals and so they don't know for sure which services/processes are unnecessary. Secondly the main point is, on a dual core if you want to run a parallel cpu intensive task while playing a game, you would be seriously hesitant to do so because most probably it would cause your game to stutter. So you would have to wait until you finish playing. However on a quad you will be much more comfortable.zaigham_riaz

What kind of intensive task would you be running in the backround while gaming?... don't forget that it will also eat ram.

While i'm still scratching my head as to why you'd need to do all this at the same time... how would you tell a core to use a specific programs and limited only to that core?

[QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

What kind of intensive task would you be running in the backround while gaming?... don't forget that it will also eat ram.

Bebi_vegeta

While i'm still scratching my head as to why you'd need to do all this at the same time... how would you tell a core to use a specific programs and limited only to that core?

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"] Multimedia encoding/decoding or unzipping/zipping large files. Any such task on one core will eat it up. So with a quad core, I can specify such tasks to only run at particular core(s) and the game to the other cores. I do it all the time.zaigham_riaz

While i'm still scratching my head as to why you'd need to do all this at the same time... how would you tell a core to use a specific programs and limited only to that core?

Save time? So instead of having 4 cores doing the work... you decide only 1 or 2 will do it. 

Save time... might as well just let your PC do it while you leave to work or sleep.

As for setting you cores, I didn't know you could do that. Thanx

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

What games?

Bebi_vegeta

This is recommended :

Intel® Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better .

It doesn't say quad cores.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

 

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] But you dont know that!Daytona_178

u do realize we have been trhu this before right???

lol right right lol. i needed a good laugh that was funny. 

your a trip :) lol

you know if the conversation wasnt so long taht would be great for a sig. lol

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

 

u do realize we have been trhu this before right???

 

Lach0121

lol right right lol. i needed a good laugh that was funny. 

your a trip :) lol

you know if the conversation wasnt so long taht would be great for a sig. lol

Well you have my permission for that! :)

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Daytona_178"] LOL, i was thinking that as i typed it! I just thought someone else had said it.Daytona_178

lol right right lol. i needed a good laugh that was funny. 

your a trip :) lol

you know if the conversation wasnt so long taht would be great for a sig. lol

Well you have my permission for that! :)

I do video editing so I have the Q6600.

Huge difference in performance (Upgraded from E8400).

 I use Adobe Premiere CS3 and it is one of the few programs that use all 4 cores.

Look nothing can even get it past 10% lol.

jk :P

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]

[QUOTE="zaigham_riaz"] I didn't want your straight answer. I wanted you to enlighten me, how?zaigham_riaz

You can just see the countless benchmarks which prove my point.Oh and google is your good friend for that in case you didnt know.

Yes, I have seen many benchmarks and their focus is on "using a quad (under normal circumstances ignoring the parallel task load) doesn't make frame rates better in games on using a duo". I don't think that focus is accurate while considering the main purpose ofhaving more and more cores: which is parallel tasking.

And yet these benchmarks totally ignore the total CPU usage. As in my example, for any modern game running on a duo the total CPU usage would always be considerably more than the total CPU usage for the same game running on a quad. Any one can test it on their own instead of going for benshmarks. The conclusion that you will find, is the base point of having quads over duos. Thanks.

So you see, it's not like they're restricting themselves. It's that they're already restricted because their existing core is single-threaded and they're trying to break out of that restriction...without breaking everything along the way.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Lach0121"] we have games recommending the phenom and intel core 2 family, including the duo and the quads. look at farcry 2... now if games start recommending this now., then in a year, from now you will start to see it on dual core miminum, with a quad core recommended.Lach0121

This is recommended :

Intel® Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better .

It doesn't say quad cores.

Euh.... there always gona say or better... meaning it can run on duo and higher.

Do they say intel quad family?.... wonder why....so much for resting your case.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

This is recommended :

Intel® Core 2 Duo Family, AMD 64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better .

It doesn't say quad cores.

Bebi_vegeta

Euh.... there always gona say or better... meaning it can run on duo and higher.

Do they say intel quad family?.... wonder why....so much for resting your case.

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

Lach0121

I dont understand what you are trying to prove :P

But this is for sure: Sometimes following system requirements on games, it can lead you up to *coughGTAIVcough* something like this geforce 8600gt is much better than the geforce 7900 / ati x1900or the 8600gt being equally as powerful as the hd3870 :lol:

Seriously WTF :?

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Lach0121"] lol u do realize the phenom miminum is triple core right, and the or better would be quad... so i rest my case.Lach0121

Euh.... there always gona say or better... meaning it can run on duo and higher.

Do they say intel quad family?.... wonder why....so much for resting your case.

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

I can`t wait to see a benchmark showing intel E8400 or E8500 geting better performance then AMD Phenom x3 @ 2.1Ghz. That`s my prediction.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

wklzip

I dont understand what you are trying to prove :P

But this is for sure: Sometimes following system requirements on games, it can lead you up to *coughGTAIVcough* something like this geforce 8600gt is much better than the geforce 7900 / ati x1900or the 8600gt being equally as powerful as the hd3870 :lol:

Seriously WTF :?

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Euh.... there always gona say or better... meaning it can run on duo and higher.

Do they say intel quad family?.... wonder why....so much for resting your case.

Bebi_vegeta

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

I can`t wait to see a benchmark showing intel E8400 or E8500 geting better performance then AMD Phenom x3 @ 2.1Ghz. That`s my prediction.

but the new am2+ chips comming in q1 of 09 i believe, i think will rival the e8400 and such in performance, at the time they come out, plus have 2 more cores for a few more months where games are desigend for them more and more.

the new am2+ (phenom II)are 3.ghz quad core, with 200% increase to cache,35% more energy effecient and faster, than the previous phenoms

and this would be great news, better competition between intel and amd, and i wont have to upgrade mobo and processor anytime soon, just upgrade tot he phenom II,,,,, that is if it delivers on its rumors/speculations/and promises.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

Lach0121

I can`t wait to see a benchmark showing intel E8400 or E8500 geting better performance then AMD Phenom x3 @ 2.1Ghz. That`s my prediction.

but the new am2+ chips comming in q1 of 09 i believe, i think will rival the e8400 and such in performance, at the time they come out, plus have 2 more cores for a few more months where games are desigend for them more and more.

the new am2+ (phenom II)are 3.ghz quad core, with 200% increase to cache,35% more energy effecient and faster, than the previous phenoms

and this would be great news, better competition between intel and amd, and i wont have to upgrade mobo and processor anytime soon, just upgrade tot he phenom II,,,,, that is if it delivers on its rumors/speculations/and promises.

I think they overly exagerated there requierements just like assassin creed...

As for AMD coming back in the game, lets wait and see...

i was proving that quad cores will start being seen on the system requirements in games... nothing to do with the gpu there lol.Lach0121

Oh thanks, that should sum up all that big quote :P

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

I can`t wait to see a benchmark showing intel E8400 or E8500 geting better performance then AMD Phenom x3 @ 2.1Ghz. That`s my prediction.

Bebi_vegeta

but the new am2+ chips comming in q1 of 09 i believe, i think will rival the e8400 and such in performance, at the time they come out, plus have 2 more cores for a few more months where games are desigend for them more and more.

the new am2+ (phenom II)are 3.ghz quad core, with 200% increase to cache,35% more energy effecient and faster, than the previous phenoms

and this would be great news, better competition between intel and amd, and i wont have to upgrade mobo and processor anytime soon, just upgrade tot he phenom II,,,,, that is if it delivers on its rumors/speculations/and promises.

I think they overly exagerated there requierements just like assassin creed...

As for AMD coming back in the game, lets wait and see...

they may have exagerated its plausable.

im just saying if you see it now, you will start seeing more and more of it, in teh comming months, and in a year, quad cores will be the main market focus.(not saying this as fact, but more of a prediction) 

and AMD comming back alot of people are saying good things about teh new phenom II,,,, and i will wait and see.. i just have my hopes up :) 

it would be a good performance increase over what i have now, while not haveing to change mobos and maybe even memory, 

but if the new phenom II doesnt deliver like i hope,

then i will just save for a good icore7 build  in the 2nd or so quarter of 09

As for AMD coming back in the game, lets wait and see...

Bebi_vegeta

*Crosses fingers* :)

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

As for AMD coming back in the game, lets wait and see...

wklzip

*Crosses fingers* :)

hey im right there with you, no matter if your an intel or amd fan this will be good news if it does deliver..

better competition = better prices, and performance, = better for us.

and for reasons i stated above with my mobo and whatnot, that im sure a good bit of people are in the same boat as i am there.

[QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

As for AMD coming back in the game, lets wait and see...

Lach0121

*Crosses fingers* :)

hey im right there with you, no matter if your an intel or amd fan this will be good news if it does deliver..

better competition = better prices, and performance, = better for us.

and for reasons i stated above with my mobo and whatnot, that im sure a good bit of people are in the same boat as i am there.

I just hope they do deliver...

As for changing mobo... the x58 will have crossfire and sli enable, wich is a major plus for intel... maybe AMD will have something similar.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="wklzip"]

 

*Crosses fingers* :)

 

Bebi_vegeta

hey im right there with you, no matter if your an intel or amd fan this will be good news if it does deliver..

better competition = better prices, and performance, = better for us.

and for reasons i stated above with my mobo and whatnot, that im sure a good bit of people are in the same boat as i am there.

I just hope they do deliver...

As for changing mobo... the x58 will have crossfire and sli enable, wich is a major plus for intel... maybe AMD will have something similar.

I really doubt Nvidia will give the SLI license to AMD, they gave the license to Intel but it was because (or sounded like) they almost cut them with the Nehalem support for their mobo's.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="wklzip"]

 

*Crosses fingers* :)

 

Bebi_vegeta

hey im right there with you, no matter if your an intel or amd fan this will be good news if it does deliver..

better competition = better prices, and performance, = better for us.

and for reasons i stated above with my mobo and whatnot, that im sure a good bit of people are in the same boat as i am there.

I just hope they do deliver...

As for changing mobo... the x58 will have crossfire and sli enable, wich is a major plus for intel... maybe AMD will have something similar.

hmm so that will eb the ideal chipset mobo to go with if i do have to go icore7 then... SLI or Crossfire?? that is amazing actually...

x58 i mean.. 

hmm so that will eb the ideal chipset mobo to go with if i do have to go icore7 then... SLI or Crossfire?? that is amazing actually...

x58 i mean.. 

Lach0121

Guru3d shows that the 2 HD4870x2 in Crossfire and 3 GTX280 in Tri SLI were hugely bottlenecked by a core 2 duo @ 3.0ghz

i know this is a bit late to throw in but, idk if too many people considered the cache size of the e8*00 series cpu's, the quads out now (excluding the i7) are barely even quads, they don't really follow Intel's new tech of the combined cache design, the q6600 is a sad excuse for a quad, it is like the outdated Pentium dual core cpu's that came out, two single cores on one chip, well now its two duals on one chip, they only have two 4mb cache, instead of one 8mb cache, it greatly bottlenecks performance, even the QX series is two smaller caches put together, my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) because i have one 6mb cache for my two cores as opposed to two 4 mb caches for their four cores, so say there's a game that uses only two cores(lets just say), now i have an advantage even if the quad is clocked higher, which is very difficult to get one passed 3.8ghzwolfdogelite

this is a valid point... 

which is one thing that will push the icore7.

hopefully the new am2+ phenom II will live up to its promise of 200% increase in cache' and 35% increase in speed and effeciency.   be a great upgrade from my 6000+  without changing mobo's...   if phenom II is what they claim it is. supposed to rival the e8400 except have the 2 extra cores.

i know this is a bit late to throw in but, idk if too many people considered the cache size of the e8*00 series cpu's, the quads out now (excluding the i7) are barely even quads, they don't really follow Intel's new tech of the combined cache design, the q6600 is a sad excuse for a quad, it is like the outdated Pentium dual core cpu's that came out, two single cores on one chip, well now its two duals on one chip, they only have two 4mb cache, instead of one 8mb cache, it greatly bottlenecks performance, even the QX series is two smaller caches put together, my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) because i have one 6mb cache for my two cores as opposed to two 4 mb caches for their four cores, so say there's a game that uses only two cores(lets just say), now i have an advantage even if the quad is clocked higher, which is very difficult to get one passed 3.8ghzwolfdogelite

No! That's because there faster clock for clock! Cache is overated, compare duo and quad from same gen, you'll find performance is the same unless the app is better for quads.

i know this is a bit late to throw in but, idk if too many people considered the cache size of the e8*00 series cpu's, the quads out now (excluding the i7) are barely even quads, they don't really follow Intel's new tech of the combined cache design, the q6600 is a sad excuse for a quad, it is like the outdated Pentium dual core cpu's that came out, two single cores on one chip, well now its two duals on one chip, they only have two 4mb cache, instead of one 8mb cache, it greatly bottlenecks performance, even the QX series is two smaller caches put together, my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) because i have one 6mb cache for my two cores as opposed to two 4 mb caches for their four cores, so say there's a game that uses only two cores(lets just say), now i have an advantage even if the quad is clocked higher, which is very difficult to get one passed 3.8ghzwolfdogelite

It's not as if ur duo is better than quad and there's no need to upgrade. First comes the application then comes if it can take full advantage of the quad processor.

Currently we have more applications swinging your way with duo core but quad + cores are the future. Duo core also have the ability to be more overclocked better due to less cores but for quad it gets hotter. i recon four fat guys can beat two skinny guys the skinny guys will only win in terms of speed when it comes to running.

I think i have made it clear for you to understand.

ya ive been hearing hype about the new amd cpu's, someone was saying that they too would have the combined cache, i also heard that they may be on the 65nm chip architecture, idk if this is true, it would be unfortunate as intle is already getting ready to move past 45nm and even lower power consumption but either way it will be a huge leap (hopefully back into the gaming world) for amd, one that they have desperately needed, im really looking forward to it driving the price on the lga 775 quads down, id like to hold on to my new 780i for a whilewolfdogelite

im really looking forward to it driving the price on the lga 775 quads downwolfdogelite

It is not going to happen. We are in a recession. Prices are increasing if anything.

I bought my Quad Q6600 when it was £117 a few months ago possible at one of it's lowest prices(thanks all those dual core purchase guys for pushing this processor down), now it is currently £154 since more people are picking it up. They raised the price, companies have got to make a profit in todays economic downturn.

Quad > Dual. You have twice the processing power of a dual core. People are still stuck in the faster MHz = better mode, they are fools that don't know what they are taking about. This Cores can be overclocked anyway and a Quad at 3.6Ghz beats a Dual at 4.2Ghz with games that only take advantage of 2 cores. There are some that take advantage of 4 cores but we won't see the true potential of the multicores until we see ALAN WAKE that will truly utilise all 4 cores of the quad (1 core entirely for physics) 1 core to stream additional map data in as you progress through the environment. Man you are out of cores already on the dual core there is nothing left for the game. As you see this would result in less detailed and less physic environment.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U_M6TiNfvwk

my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) wolfdogelite

a Quad at 3.6Ghz beats a Dual at 4.2Ghz

http://www.cpu3d.com/article/4210-4/dual-core-vs-quad-core-which-is-better/gaming-benchmarks-continued.html

So I'm thinking about getting the Q6600, should I go ahead and buy it, or wait for a better/cheaper Quad-Core processor down the line?remmbermytitans

So I'm thinking about getting the Q6600, should I go ahead and buy it, or wait for a better/cheaper Quad-Core processor down the line?remmbermytitans

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"] im really looking forward to it driving the price on the lga 775 quads downteddyrob

It is not going to happen. We are in a recession. Prices are increasing if anything.

I bought my Quad Q6600 when it was £117 a few months ago possible at one of it's lowest prices(thanks all those dual core purchase guys for pushing this processor down), now it is currently £154 since more people are picking it up. They raised the price, companies have got to make a profit in todays economic downturn.

Quad > Dual. You have twice the processing power of a dual core. People are still stuck in the faster MHz = better mode, they are fools that don't know what they are taking about. This Cores can be overclocked anyway and a Quad at 3.6Ghz beats a Dual at 4.2Ghz with games that only take advantage of 2 cores. There are some that take advantage of 4 cores but we won't see the true potential of the multicores until we see ALAN WAKE that will truly utilise all 4 cores of the quad (1 core entirely for physics) 1 core to stream additional map data in as you progress through the environment. Man you are out of cores already on the dual core there is nothing left for the game. As you see this would result in less detailed and less physic environment.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U_M6TiNfvwk

my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) wolfdogelite

a Quad at 3.6Ghz beats a Dual at 4.2Ghz

http://www.cpu3d.com/article/4210-4/dual-core-vs-quad-core-which-is-better/gaming-benchmarks-continued.html

I like how your gaming benchmark is only 2 games..

If we play the stock game, http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/9 Where are theses quad advantages?

so can you all agree that the best cpu for the user curently is based on the usage of that cpuknut-am

and that my brothers is the quad cores cause surrently i don't see no duo core 2 extreme wow they must have been crap compare to quad thats why intel stop wasting their time.

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]So I'm thinking about getting the Q6600, should I go ahead and buy it, or wait for a better/cheaper Quad-Core processor down the line?teddyrob

[QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

seeing as how you think because it isnt intel quad core it doesnt count as quad core,, my case wouldnt of rested lol.

and i know it will say or better always, but it clearly states phenom, which minimun is triple, and quad cores are also phenom, either way if its taken as a triple core or a quad core, its more than 2 cores. which you clearly see on a game that is before the end of 08, you will see more in the comming months,

case in point.

and here is GTA4, even though i cant stand GTA, this is a perfect example

Minimum System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
• Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900

Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
• Memory: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
• 18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
• Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870

Lach0121

I dont understand what you are trying to prove :P

But this is for sure: Sometimes following system requirements on games, it can lead you up to *coughGTAIVcough* something like this geforce 8600gt is much better than the geforce 7900 / ati x1900or the 8600gt being equally as powerful as the hd3870 :lol:

Seriously WTF :?

Also the recommended intel processor is miles apart from the recommended AMD CPU which furthur diminshes any credibilty of that list...

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"]i know this is a bit late to throw in but, idk if too many people considered the cache size of the e8*00 series cpu's, the quads out now (excluding the i7) are barely even quads, they don't really follow Intel's new tech of the combined cache design, the q6600 is a sad excuse for a quad, it is like the outdated Pentium dual core cpu's that came out, two single cores on one chip, well now its two duals on one chip, they only have two 4mb cache, instead of one 8mb cache, it greatly bottlenecks performance, even the QX series is two smaller caches put together, my e8400 will beat any q6600 running at similar speeds (mines running @3.8ghz) because i have one 6mb cache for my two cores as opposed to two 4 mb caches for their four cores, so say there's a game that uses only two cores(lets just say), now i have an advantage even if the quad is clocked higher, which is very difficult to get one passed 3.8ghzBebi_vegeta

No! That's because there faster clock for clock! Cache is overated, compare duo and quad from same gen, you'll find performance is the same unless the app is better for quads.

And what does a quad performing similar to a duo has to do with cache?:?