Should I get a q6600 and 4 gigs of ram or an e6550 and 2 gigs?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
E6750 and 3GB
Edit: Just Kidding... E6550 or E6750 and 2GB is great for now. You can always add more RAM later if you need it... probably for less than you would pay up front. If you do a lot of photo/video editing or rendering, you would get more bennefit from a Q6600. (and an extra gig)
4GB won't all be recognized by 32-bit versions of Windows... you only get 3 to 3.5GB.
e6750 + 2GB will give you the best Performance to Price ratio for right now. But if you're got the cash and the willingness, a Q6600 and 4GB will be somewhat "futureproof"...
FYI, I don't really believe "futureproof" in the world of technology simply because technology today is develloping at such a fas rate that your plans for the future regarding your system will change...
[QUOTE="Sandro909"]E6550 and 2GB. You can always overclock that E6550.mbuksteE6550's suck at OCing,their 7x Mulitplier proves it.
actually it's not that bad. I OC my e6550 to 3.1 Ghz right now which is a 800mhz improvement over the original clock and it run really stabe
E6550's suck at OCing,their 7x Mulitplier proves it.[QUOTE="mbukste"][QUOTE="Sandro909"]E6550 and 2GB. You can always overclock that E6550.quocthai
actually it's not that bad. I OC my e6550 to 3.1 Ghz right now which is a 800mhz improvement over the original clock and it run really stabe
I can agree to that. The lower multiplier does NOTHING... because with the new exx50 cards, you can hit a higher FSB ceiling because they run cooler and more efficiently... Just look at my OC (And that, btw, is without even pushing it.. I didn't have time to tweak it)
[QUOTE="quocthai"]E6550's suck at OCing,their 7x Mulitplier proves it.[QUOTE="mbukste"][QUOTE="Sandro909"]E6550 and 2GB. You can always overclock that E6550.GenAlpha
actually it's not that bad. I OC my e6550 to 3.1 Ghz right now which is a 800mhz improvement over the original clock and it run really stabe
I can agree to that. The lower multiplier does NOTHING... because with the new exx50 cards, you can hit a higher FSB ceiling because they run cooler and more efficiently... Just look at my OC (And that, btw, is without even pushing it.. I didn't have time to tweak it)
just went back and try to oc it further. It's running great at 3.3 ghz now, 470 FSB,nearly a whole ghz increase from the original speed. I will probably push it futher when I get an ac in my room lol (my room is around 30 C and the system temp is around 45 c, my cpu never exceed 56 C at full load)
I doubt there is futureproof at PCs. Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core. Of course it willl give you little better performance now, but later when heavy multi threaded applications will come i think you will have to upgrade again. Same as Pentium D. I would agree whit hiryuu. Go for cheap dual core and OC it.domke13
The q6600 isn't all that expensive nowadays, only around 50-80 bucks more for like what, nearly twice the performance for some applications which increases by the day. And when 'games really demand quad core' such as Supreme Commander,the core 2 duos would be even worse off insuch acase. I could see where you are coming from if the q6600 was about 500 bucks, but at 285-290 you'd be doing a disservice not to recommend a quad core processor
Yeah, the Q6600 really is a steal for $280-300.
I doubt it'll be "low end" when threaded applications become more common though, I'm pretty sure it'll still be pretty powerful next year.. hell even early benches show Penryn not being too significantly better at 2.33GHz (vs an E6550), although Penryn may scale better once they are clocked higher. Q6600 shouldn't be low-end for at least another 2 years or so, maybe even longer. :)
well i think im pretty futureproof 4 the next year (check sig)
also it doesnt really matter wether quad or not but dont get 4 gigs of ram Vista wont read it unless u get 64 bit ultamite wich is 4 n00bs
[QUOTE="domke13"]I doubt there is futureproof at PCs. Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core. Of course it willl give you little better performance now, but later when heavy multi threaded applications will come i think you will have to upgrade again. Same as Pentium D. I would agree whit hiryuu. Go for cheap dual core and OC it.mikemil828
The q6600 isn't all that expensive nowadays, only around 50-80 bucks more for like what, nearly twice the performance for some applications which increases by the day. And when 'games really demand quad core' such as Supreme Commander,the core 2 duos would be even worse off insuch acase. I could see where you are coming from if the q6600 was about 500 bucks, but at 285-290 you'd be doing a disservice not to recommend a quad core processor
OMG. Did i EVER sad that he shouldnt go whit quad core now. I was just answering to ppls who think that this Q6600 is sooo future proof.
Yeah, the Q6600 really is a steal for $280-300.
I doubt it'll be "low end" when threaded applications become more common though, I'm pretty sure it'll still be pretty powerful next year.. hell even early benches show Penryn not being too significantly better at 2.33GHz (vs an E6550), although Penryn may scale better once they are clocked higher. Q6600 shouldn't be low-end for at least another 2 years or so, maybe even longer. :)
Hiryuu_
Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance. And as i sad i NEVER sad he shouldnt go whit Q6600.
[QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
domke13
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I had hoped Intel would've released the Q6400 they'd been talking about. No luck. I suppose they decided to forgo that in favor of their upcoming Penryn procs. :(
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Q6600 and 2GB (4GB would be better)...
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
bignice12
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
The Q6600 is the low end of the Quad cores. It doesn't matter how high you can overclock it. I have one and am happy with it, but yes as far as Quad cores go it's at the bottom. Just like the E6300 was the low end of Dual cores when they hit the market.
I had hoped Intel would've released the Q6400 they'd been talking about. No luck. I suppose they decided to forgo that in favor of their upcoming Penryn procs. :(
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Q6600 and 2GB (4GB would be better)...
Sentinel672002
The Xeon X3210 is basically the Q6400, or should I say Q6420.. since it comes with 2x 4MB of L2 Cache. :D
The Q6600 is only like $20 more than the X3210 though... lol.
[QUOTE="skinnypete91"]Q6600 and 2GB.j3ninja10
second that
im gonna have to third that
[QUOTE="Sentinel672002"]I had hoped Intel would've released the Q6400 they'd been talking about. No luck. I suppose they decided to forgo that in favor of their upcoming Penryn procs. :(
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Q6600 and 2GB (4GB would be better)...
Hiryuu_
The Xeon X3210 is basically the Q6400, or should I say Q6420.. since it comes with 2x 4MB of L2 Cache. :D
The Q6600 is only like $20 more than the X3210 though... lol.
The last I heard, Intel had planned to release the Q6400 and Q6300 procs in the third quarter of '07. Then everything went quiet after the July 22nd price drop. Maybe with the prices so low on the Q6600, they didn't think it made fiscal sense to release even lower cost quads...especially so close to the release date of the Penryn procs. Dunno for sure, but it's my guess anyway.:|
The Q6600 is the low end of the Quad cores. It doesn't matter how high you can overclock it. I have one and am happy with it, but yes as far as Quad cores go it's at the bottom. Just like the E6300 was the low end of Dual cores when they hit the market.
Gator20
Ya, your right I wasn't thinking properly.
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
bignice12
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I NEVER SAD THAT Q6600 IS WORST CHOICE THAN C2D. I sad that its not that futureproof as many ppls think it is. And Q6600 IS low end quad core.
Low-end quad core, just like Pentium D? Your argument is flawed in so many ways. The Q6600 is the lowest quad core, but it still had a release price of like a $1000, definately not a low end proc. Pentium D was based off the ancient Netburst architecture of the old pentiums, that's why it failed. Penryn is only showing about a 10% increase right now, so in 2 years I'm pretty sure a Q6600 at 3ghz will still be doing you justice in games. I'm also looking forward to seeing native quad core, although there is no proof it'll be signifigantly faster and I really doubt it will. It's also not about the native as it is about AMD's K10.Zaber123
If there will be quad cores, the native ones, it is 100% sure that they will be faster. And not only 10% faster than Q6600. Its not a question here if they will or not be faster. Its a must to be faster if it will be native. Q6600 ATM is low end Quad core. Yes it is. Look at its price tag. Penryn ISNT native quad core.
[QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
domke13
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I NEVER SAD THAT Q6600 IS WORST CHOICE THAN C2D. I sad that its not that futureproof as many ppls think it is. And Q6600 IS low end quad core.
Actually you kinda did when you told him to "Go for cheap dual core and OC it." Anyway stop trying to make people feel bad about going with the q6600. Sure it's the lowest end quad core out atm, so what, at the time it came out the Nvidia 8800 gtx was technically the lowest end DX10 card available, didn't stop it from being the prefered graphics card. For a 'low end' cpu, it is rather powerful in its own right, having two e6600s built into the die itself, compare this to the C2D low end the E6300, which only goes at 1.83 ghz and has only half the l2 cache of the other C2Ds.
Just because it's 'low end' doesn't mean it's nessessarily weak folks.
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
mikemil828
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I NEVER SAD THAT Q6600 IS WORST CHOICE THAN C2D. I sad that its not that futureproof as many ppls think it is. And Q6600 IS low end quad core.
Stop trying to make people feel bad about going with the q6600. Sure it's the lowest end quad core out atm, so what, at the time it came out the Nvidia 8800 gtx was technically the lowest end DX10 card available, didn't stop it from being the prefered graphics card. For a 'low end' cpu, it is rather powerful in its own right, having two e6600s built into the die itself, compare this to the C2D low end the E6300, which only goes at 1.83 ghz and has only half the l2 cache of the other C2Ds.
Just because it's 'low end' doesn't mean it's nessessarily weak folks.
8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
EDIT: And talking how its "weak folks". I NEVER SAD ITS WEAK. OMG. I just sad its not as futureproof as some think. Nothing else.
[QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
domke13
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I NEVER SAD THAT Q6600 IS WORST CHOICE THAN C2D. I sad that its not that futureproof as many ppls think it is. And Q6600 IS low end quad core.
Stop trying to make people feel bad about going with the q6600. Sure it's the lowest end quad core out atm, so what, at the time it came out the Nvidia 8800 gtx was technically the lowest end DX10 card available, didn't stop it from being the prefered graphics card. For a 'low end' cpu, it is rather powerful in its own right, having two e6600s built into the die itself, compare this to the C2D low end the E6300, which only goes at 1.83 ghz and has only half the l2 cache of the other C2Ds.
Just because it's 'low end' doesn't mean it's nessessarily weak folks.
8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Hiryuu_"]Q6600 is already low end quad core. Look at its price tag. And Penrryn still isnt native quad core. I expect somewhere in next year for native quad cores to come, and we could see some big impovements in performance.
mikemil828
What do you mean low end? There isn't that many versions of a Quad core,not counting extreme versions(Q6600/Q6700). You can easily OC Q6600 to 3ghz(the extreme version). I think Q6600 is a better choice in terms for the future games coming out(not "future proofing", no such thing imo). A ton of games coming out soon are going to be utilizing all 4 cores soon. Look at Supreme Commander, a Quad core runs that game extremely well(according to xbit labs a stock Q6600 beats out a OC 6850 in that game link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html ). Just my opinion.
I NEVER SAD THAT Q6600 IS WORST CHOICE THAN C2D. I sad that its not that futureproof as many ppls think it is. And Q6600 IS low end quad core.
Stop trying to make people feel bad about going with the q6600. Sure it's the lowest end quad core out atm, so what, at the time it came out the Nvidia 8800 gtx was technically the lowest end DX10 card available, didn't stop it from being the prefered graphics card. For a 'low end' cpu, it is rather powerful in its own right, having two e6600s built into the die itself, compare this to the C2D low end the E6300, which only goes at 1.83 ghz and has only half the l2 cache of the other C2Ds.
Just because it's 'low end' doesn't mean it's nessessarily weak folks.
8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
[QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
domke13
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
mikemil828
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
I say still lot better than C2D. And yes. And you know why it will become to inexpensive??? Cause it willl be to slow. Here we go. Everything connects nice. End of conversation.
Haha. This is kinda funny. Mike jsut tore that argument up.
Besides, he's saying it'll be too slow when when apps demand quad core. I imagine it will be at least 2-3 years before you absolutely need a quad core. As of right now though we are starting to see games that use multithreading, while they don't need it, they get huge performance increases with it. Quad core is definately the way to go. Domke has said so many different things in this topic.
[QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
domke13
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
I say still lot better than C2D. And yes. And you know why it will become to inexpensive??? Cause it willl be to slow. Here we go. Everything connects nice. End of conversation.
Actually no it doesn't because you opened a new can of worms by saying that it will be 'to slow', to slow compared to what? The new chips? of which we have precious little information on to make an informed buying decision other than rumors? Look Pal, game developers generally don't build games around 1000 dollar processors, they build games around the most commonly used processor, which in the case of quad core it WILL be the q6600 due to it's price point and popularity. And that is all that really matters, sure you can have the highest end processor in the world, but it doesn't really mean much if people aren't optimizing their games to use it to it's limit.
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
mikemil828
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
I say still lot better than C2D. And yes. And you know why it will become to inexpensive??? Cause it willl be to slow. Here we go. Everything connects nice. End of conversation.
Actually no it doesn't because you opened a new can of worms by saying that it will be 'to slow', to slow compared to what? The new chips? of which we have precious little information on to make an informed buying decision other than rumors? Look Pal, game developers generally don't build games around 1000 dollar processors, they build games around the most commonly used processor, which in the case of quad core it WILL be the q6600 due to it's price point and popularity. And that is all that really matters, sure you can have the highest end processor in the world, but it doesn't really mean much if people aren't optimizing their games to use it to it's limit.
Nop. Its not like that. Look crysis. They arent working game for most popular GPUs, and GPUs which are most in use. They are mostly making game on DX10 hardware and mostly for DX10 hardware. If they would be making game for 7600GT, or something like that we wouldnt have such a good graphics. And if they always make games for hardware which is most popular why they dont make crysis optimized for P4??? Its IMO still mostly used CPU in the world and many unknowledge ppls still think its the best. And i am not your "Pal".
[QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
domke13
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
I say still lot better than C2D. And yes. And you know why it will become to inexpensive??? Cause it willl be to slow. Here we go. Everything connects nice. End of conversation.
Actually no it doesn't because you opened a new can of worms by saying that it will be 'to slow', to slow compared to what? The new chips? of which we have precious little information on to make an informed buying decision other than rumors? Look Pal, game developers generally don't build games around 1000 dollar processors, they build games around the most commonly used processor, which in the case of quad core it WILL be the q6600 due to it's price point and popularity. And that is all that really matters, sure you can have the highest end processor in the world, but it doesn't really mean much if people aren't optimizing their games to use it to it's limit.
Nop. Its not like that. Look crysis. They arent working game for most popular GPUs, and GPUs which are most in use. They are mostly making game on DX10 hardware and mostly for DX10 hardware. If they would be making game for 7600GT, or something like that we wouldnt have such a good graphics. And if they always make games for hardware which is most popular why they dont make crysis optimized for P4??? Its IMO still mostly used CPU in the world and many unknowledge ppls still think its the best. And i am not your "Pal".
Yep it is like that pal. Games on the PC nowadays would actually look much better than they do now if it wasn't. Hell most game engines nowadays are built with CONSOLES in mind and not the immense power that pcs can use. UE3? It's likely that more console games use that engine than actual PC games do atm. Although consoles are pretty good spec wise (and definitely better than your typical p4) they can't hold a candle to the best pcs out there. Sure there are companies like crysis building games for PC only, but in these cases they are trying to optimize the game to look good for nearly every system to a certain point regardless of spec or direct x version. you can see this in the early gameplay videos, where most of the footage is actually DX9.
[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="domke13"]8800 GTS and 8800 GTX were high end cards cause of its price tag. You know this thing whit high end, and low end is decided on price. Q6600 is low end quad core. It was high end when it was priced at 1000. Now it isnt.
mikemil828
So according to you a simple price reduction, automagically turns a 'high end' quad core processor into a 'low end' quad core processor. That the only determinant in how powerful something compared to others is not it's technical spec, but it's price. :| Just stop, ok?
Edit: Like I said earlier no one in this thread really said definately that the q6600 was futureproof, nothing is futureproof, will you quit raving about how people have delusional beliefs that the q6600 will last forever when people around here really kinda don't.
Further Edit:
You say that you didn't say that the q6600 is weak. Explain what you meant by "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." then
Yes. When most games will have quad corea s recommended CPU it will be to weak. But its definatly better buy than C2D. And, yes this thing high end, and low end is decided on price. Yes price turns high end product in low end.
So if we put all your statements together when you say "Q6600 will be too low end when games start to really demand Quad core." you are really saying "Q6600 will be too inexpensive when when games start to really demand quad core." Which doesn't seem to be all that bad of a thing, and definately not something that would prevent it from doing quad core applications.
I say still lot better than C2D. And yes. And you know why it will become to inexpensive??? Cause it willl be to slow. Here we go. Everything connects nice. End of conversation.
Actually no it doesn't because you opened a new can of worms by saying that it will be 'to slow', to slow compared to what? The new chips? of which we have precious little information on to make an informed buying decision other than rumors? Look Pal, game developers generally don't build games around 1000 dollar processors, they build games around the most commonly used processor, which in the case of quad core it WILL be the q6600 due to it's price point and popularity. And that is all that really matters, sure you can have the highest end processor in the world, but it doesn't really mean much if people aren't optimizing their games to use it to it's limit.
Nop. Its not like that. Look crysis. They arent working game for most popular GPUs, and GPUs which are most in use. They are mostly making game on DX10 hardware and mostly for DX10 hardware. If they would be making game for 7600GT, or something like that we wouldnt have such a good graphics. And if they always make games for hardware which is most popular why they dont make crysis optimized for P4??? Its IMO still mostly used CPU in the world and many unknowledge ppls still think its the best. And i am not your "Pal".
Yep it is like that pal. Games on the PC nowadays would actually look much better than they do now if it wasn't. Hell most game engines nowadays are built with CONSOLES in mind and not the immense power that pcs can use. UE3? It's likely that more console games use that engine than actual PC games do atm. Although consoles are pretty good spec wise (and definitely better than your typical p4) they can't hold a candle to the best pcs out there. Sure there are companies like crysis building games for PC only, but in these cases they are trying to optimize the game to look good for nearly every system to a certain point regardless of spec or direct x version. you can see this in the early gameplay videos, where most of the footage is actually DX9.
Yes. But that footage wasnt made on 7900GT or cards like that. It was made on 8800 GTX most of the time and on 8800 GTS.
Yes. But that footage wasnt made on 7900GT or cards like that. It was made on 8800 GTX most of the time and on 8800 GTS.
domke13
The Crysis crew themselves said that the game runs well even on a 7800gtx. The CryEngine2 scales well, because it has to.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment