Setup Q's.

Ok, heres the deal.

Building a new computer.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0ghz)

Ok, heres the deal.

Building a new computer.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0ghz) tezz69

Wow information overload!

Lol :D

[QUOTE="tezz69"]

Ok, heres the deal.

Building a new computer.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0ghz) daytona_178

Wow information overload!

No need for the rudeness... It obviously cut off the rest..

I'll try again.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0ghz)

MB: Gigabyte GA G31M-S2L

RAM: 4GBDual Channel DDRII-800 RAM

HDD: Samsung 250GSATAII

GPU: Gigabyte ATI HD4850 (heard great things about this)

Case: ATX Tower Case with 500W ATX PSU

The setup is pretty much all set in stone so i dont really need any suggestions on anything except:

- Should i get the E8400 (3.0ghz) Duo or get the Q6600 (2.4ghz) Quad instead? Im not sure if this is a real noob question but i dont know whether THAT Quad or THAT Duo would be more worth it (please dont suggest any other CPU's besides those two, they are the only 2 i have available to choose from in my situation)

- Also, How is that setup going to perform as a budget gaming system for the next few years?

Thanks alot.

Cheers.

What about the gaming life i should be able to get out of it? How well SHOULD it run most games of today and how long til games of the future will require me to purchase something new.

Dual Core beats Quad in gaming, for nowLehman

Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games.Marfoo

These statements are so fail...

Seems to be mixed opinions...

Can somebody give me a conclusive answer, with evidence if possible.

[QUOTE="Lehman"]Dual Core beats Quad in gaming, for nowtequilasunriser

Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games.Marfoo

These statements are so fail...

Well it's true, games that only utilize 1 or 2 cores get better performance from their higher clocked dual cores then their lower clocked counterparts. If you have no intent of overclocking, the dual core processor is the better processor for you simply because it has a higher stock clock speed and cheaper price. Although advantages over a quad core from a dual core would have to be seen on a CPU intensive game only utilizing 1 or 2 cores, some games you may not see a difference because there is no heavy CPU load. If we are missing something, please elaborate and don't act like we have inferior knowledge of the hardware we recommend.Marfoo

You didn't specify that before. Both of you didn't. You just claimed that "duals were better performers" but mentioned nothing about certain duals having higher clock speeds than certain quads thus making them better.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games. Most games are optimized for dual core, so the higher clock speed will give you more performance. The only game I know that utilizes all four cores is Supreme Commander, but even then a dual core is enough to run it well. I would recommend the quad core if you do a lot of video editing, encoding, transcoding, or 3D rendering, but if not, just stick with the dual.Marfoo

(I agree that a 3ghz dual core E800 is better at gaming than a 2.4ghz quad core Q6600, but I do NOT agree that duals are better at gaming than quads. The number of cores be it 2 or 4 doesn't matter (aside from a few games), its all about the clock speeds.) you're accepting that marfoo was right from the start, AND we're not talking about processors in general, just 2.

REMEMBER?

THE POST = Should i get the E8400 (3.0ghz) Duo or get the Q6600 (2.4ghz) Quad instead? Im not sure if this is a real noob question but i dont know whether THAT Quad or THAT Duo would be more worth it (please dont suggest any other CPU's besides those two, they are the only 2 i have available to choose from in my situation)

(I agree that a 3ghz dual core E800 is better at gaming than a 2.4ghz quad core Q6600, but I do NOT agree that duals are better at gaming than quads. The number of cores be it 2 or 4 doesn't matter (aside from a few games), its all about the clock speeds.) you're accepting that marfoo was right from the start, AND we're not talking about processors in general, just 2.

hrah

Dual are not better than quads simply becasue they are duals. Hell no I do not agree to that.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Marfoo"]Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games. Most games are optimized for dual core, so the higher clock speed will give you more performance. The only game I know that utilizes all four cores is Supreme Commander, but even then a dual core is enough to run it well. I would recommend the quad core if you do a lot of video editing, encoding, transcoding, or 3D rendering, but if not, just stick with the dual.tequilasunriser

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Marfoo"]Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games. Most games are optimized for dual core, so the higher clock speed will give you more performance. The only game I know that utilizes all four cores is Supreme Commander, but even then a dual core is enough to run it well. I would recommend the quad core if you do a lot of video editing, encoding, transcoding, or 3D rendering, but if not, just stick with the dual.Marfoo

Read your first sentence. I'd like to see you tell that to the owners of this.

Dude... you are missing the point...

Forget price, best bang for buck, all that stuff... You said duals are better at gaming. Its as clear as day. You even opened with it.

Tequila,

You are going completely off topic here man.

I simply wanted to know the better of two processors (a Quad and a Dual). It would seem evident that if i were asking about a Quad and Dual with the same clock-speed it would be a differant story, but i wasnt.

The answers i got from the two guys you complained about were obviously directed towards the two processors i mentioned, maybe they missworded their answers but i wouldnt jump in on the opportunity to dis-prove something that was said, even though its completely off topic.

Just doing my job to keep the misinformation inline.

Between the two processors the E8400 is better than the Q6600, but that is not simply becasue the E8400 is a dual core... its mainly because it has a 600mhz advantage. I'm sure the smaller fab, larger cache and higher FSB do their part too.

Sorry if I was arrogant. It really gets under my skin when I see statements like the previous ones I quoted.

Just doing my job to keep the misinformation inline.

Between the two processors the E8400 is better than the Q6600, but that is not simply becasue the E8400 is a dual core... its mainly because it has a 600mhz advantage. I'm sure the smaller fab, larger cache and higher FSB do their part too.

Sorry if I was arrogant. It really gets under my skin when I see statements like the previous ones I quoted.

tequilasunriser

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"]

Just doing my job to keep the misinformation inline.

Between the two processors the E8400 is better than the Q6600, but that is not simply becasue the E8400 is a dual core... its mainly because it has a 600mhz advantage. I'm sure the smaller fab, larger cache and higher FSB do their part too.

Sorry if I was arrogant. It really gets under my skin when I see statements like the previous ones I quoted.

Marfoo

Water under the bridge, forgive and forget. Now... lets go makeout. :-*

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="tequilasunriser"]

Just doing my job to keep the misinformation inline.

Between the two processors the E8400 is better than the Q6600, but that is not simply becasue the E8400 is a dual core... its mainly because it has a 600mhz advantage. I'm sure the smaller fab, larger cache and higher FSB do their part too.

Sorry if I was arrogant. It really gets under my skin when I see statements like the previous ones I quoted.

tequilasunriser

Water under the bridge, forgive and forget. Now... lets go makeout. :-*

...I'm going to bed.

ma bad, i thought duals were better than Quads (for the mainstream ones)

but i did know that QX9770 or something like that would be better

but there liek 1500, kinda COULD get a whole computer for that, so there only for the rich/hardware enthuisiests (i dont know how to spell this) and EXTREME gamers, REAL EXTREME, lol

anyway, i think most of use would buy a E8400 or E8500 or worse, for the few that have QX9850, QX9770 obviously they beat the lower duals

so im right, right??

mainsteam: Dual vs Quad, Dual = better for gaming

extreme system: Dual vs Quad, Quad = better for gaming
right???

and i dont think Duals have a extreme highend thing like teh QX9850 adn QX9770 (is there a QX9450, QX9650 and QX9550 aswell??)

thanksLehman

Thanks..
Anyone else?tezz69

exactly what he said, faster dual owns quads in gaming

[QUOTE="Lehman"]Dual Core beats Quad in gaming, for nowtequilasunriser

Yeah dual cores will offer you better performance for today's games.Marfoo

These statements are so fail...

so the benchmarks lie? in evevy gaming tests the e8400 smokes the q6600 the q6600 often struggles to even match the e8200

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Well it's true, games that only utilize 1 or 2 cores get better performance from their higher clocked dual cores then their lower clocked counterparts. If you have no intent of overclocking, the dual core processor is the better processor for you simply because it has a higher stock clock speed and cheaper price. Although advantages over a quad core from a dual core would have to be seen on a CPU intensive game only utilizing 1 or 2 cores, some games you may not see a difference because there is no heavy CPU load. If we are missing something, please elaborate and don't act like we have inferior knowledge of the hardware we recommend.tequilasunriser

You didn't specify that before. Both of you didn't. You just claimed that "duals were better performers" but mentioned nothing about certain duals having higher clock speeds than certain quads thus making them better.

I agree that a 3ghz dual core E800 is better at gaming than a 2.4ghz quad core Q6600, but I do NOT agree that duals are better at gaming than quads. The number of cores be it 2 or 4 doesn't matter (aside from a few games), its all about the clock speeds.

well you have to pay over 5x as much as the e8400 to get a quad with the same clock speed

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Well it's true, games that only utilize 1 or 2 cores get better performance from their higher clocked dual cores then their lower clocked counterparts. If you have no intent of overclocking, the dual core processor is the better processor for you simply because it has a higher stock clock speed and cheaper price. Although advantages over a quad core from a dual core would have to be seen on a CPU intensive game only utilizing 1 or 2 cores, some games you may not see a difference because there is no heavy CPU load. If we are missing something, please elaborate and don't act like we have inferior knowledge of the hardware we recommend.imprezawrx500

You didn't specify that before. Both of you didn't. You just claimed that "duals were better performers" but mentioned nothing about certain duals having higher clock speeds than certain quads thus making them better.

I agree that a 3ghz dual core E800 is better at gaming than a 2.4ghz quad core Q6600, but I do NOT agree that duals are better at gaming than quads. The number of cores be it 2 or 4 doesn't matter (aside from a few games), its all about the clock speeds.

well you have to pay over 5x as much as the e8400 to get a quad with the same clock speed

Firstly, read all of the posts. This wasn't an argument over price/performace. It was over erroronous statements. The statements being, "dual are better than quads." The debate was settled.

Secondly, four posts in a row? Four? Learn2internets.