Worth Upgrading from E6850 to Core 2 Quad Q9650? gaming wise and general PC perf

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]

1) Regardless of how much a dual-core was beating the quad-core, its the fact that it was better which you failed numerous times to admit. I provided more benchmarks then you did in that thread as well. Incase you need to check it over: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26721515&tag=topics;title. And now you are switching over your arguement to GTA4 as a need to game, you realize other than this game, there is not a single game out there that does not run on a dual-core completely fine if not better than a quad-core does?

2) GTA4 is a poorly optimized game. There are many more CPU intensive games out there. If GTA4 can run perfectly fine on the 360's Xenon, a severly crippled triple-core that nearly any current dual-core can outperform no problem then why can't it run on these dual-cores? Its because while Rockstar did optimize the 360 and PS3 version to match the hardware exactly, they failed to put much effort into optimizing the PC version for current types of hardware out now. Sure, I'm not going to argue that it could be perfectly optimized, but they could've done a MUCH better job where a person probably with a Athlon X2, 4GB Ram and a 8800GT could play at max settings if they put the effort in. I mean, look at Valve who released Half-Life 2 when the 6800 and X800 series just came out. With those cards you could nearly max out that brand new engine.

3) Have I upgraded numerous times and built brand new system over those 10 years? Yes. Have I ever upgraded my entire system for a single game? No. Sorry but thats ridiculous to spend such a large amount of money to play a single game when theoretically I could gain better performance for a cheaper price later down the road when most games are starting to run sluggishly on my system. ALSO, no where in the thread did the TC say that he was specifically upgrading for GTA4 or Alan Wake so I have no idea why you brought those up and started talking about these games and why you "need" a Quad-Core. Sure, Alan Wake was created to perform best on a Quad-Core but quess what? Crysis was created to perform best on an 8800 GTX/Quad-Core and guess what? Video cards that were less performing than it also ran it just fine at high settings and dual-core CPU's also run it just fine.

I'm sorry, but with your research and "knowledge" I wouldn't want people to take your advice for what is the best PC because you're leading them the wrong way and going against what most tech enthusiast actually recommend. Right now, Quad-Core's make little sense to get at the pricers they are selling for when a cheaper dual-core can outperform them in most games. I would rather have a cheaper dual-core that performs better in almost all games than a more expensive quad-core that performs better in one or two games and worse in the rest. When Quad-Core matters, the prices will be much lower and the performance will be better than a dual-core even when using only two cores. Thats when it will make sense to purchase one; so please stop your quad-core fanboyism and actually look outside the box and recommend what people really need. I'm done arguing with someone with blinders on.

teddyrob

Xbox360 games maybe cool but it's not PC. Get some PC knowledge behind you before you way in.

Dual core is not the way now, It's plain for most to see that now. Sorry you want to be stuck in the past but muliticores are the way technology is not going the MHz race that is long over. It's the core race now.

My E8400/GTX 260 system right now stomps anything I throw at it. Don't know what world you live in that you need a quad-core, but if I or anyone else for that matter wants to get completely wrong and biased information I guess we should go to you for advice. Go back where you came from kid and stop giving the people who actually need help the wrong information.EXLINK

You need to buy some games for your E8400/GTX 260 system. You have all Xbox360 games last 5 minutes I checked.

I need a quad core and so do many others. If you haven't worked out why by now then anything else I tell you, you wouldn't listen to either.

Also I'm not a kid. I don't do Xbox360s that's kids stuff. I'm a PC.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]My E8400/GTX 260 system right now stomps anything I throw at it. Don't know what world you live in that you need a quad-core, but if I or anyone else for that matter wants to get completely wrong and biased information I guess we should go to you for advice. Go back where you came from kid and stop giving the people who actually need help the wrong information.teddyrob

You need to buy some games for your E8400/GTX 260 system. You have all Xbox360 games last 5 minutes I checked.

I need a quad core and so do many others. If you haven't worked out why by now then anything else I tell you, you wouldn't listen to either.

Also I'm not a kid. I don't do Xbox360s that's kids stuff. I'm a PC.

And, so I game on my 360 and my PC? Whenever I feel like reclining and playing on my 50" plasma then I game on my 360, when I want to play something that I don't have for the 360 then I play on the PC. Welcome to the world of multiplatform gaming and being able to afford both.

And again, I like how you're bashing me owning a 360 now. Kid, you have no argument left. What's next? Are you going to argue my post count? Geeze kid, face the facts. You were wrong, you still are wrong and you're just making yourself look worse with each response.

Sorry that I don't obsess and put every single game into my collection. Maybe I should waste some more of my time on that? I have Crysis, The Orange Box, COD4, Bioshock, UT3, Mass Effect, STALKER (all of which are ironically used to benchmark PC's) that run buttery smooth on my PC. I don't have GTA4 for the PC, sorry, I guess I'm not hardcore enough to have it. :roll: Plus, I would rather have it guarenteed to run smooth on my 360 and get the DLC later on.

And, so I game on my 360 and my PC? Whenever I feel like reclining and playing on my 50" plasma then I game on my 360, when I want to play something that I don't have for the 360 then I play on the PC. Welcome to the world of multiplatform gaming and being able to afford both.

And again, I like how you're bashing me owning a 360 now. Kid, you have no argument left. What's next? Are you going to argue my post count? Geeze kid, face the facts. You were wrong, you still are wrong and you're just making yourself look worse with each response.

EXLINK

I've got about 1/10 of my games collection in there. Maybe you should have wasted some time there instead of arguing that dual core is better than quad core. Thought I might be able to educate you on the benefits of more cores but It's not getting through. Wasn't bashing you on owning a 360 but you most admit those are kids consoles compared to an adults PC but somehow I think you may even argue this one out adding more and more insults as you go.

Simple maths 4 is more than 2.

You may want to do some of the research you say you are fond off. Now compare E6850 with a Q9650 and come back with your analysis. That is what this thread is about.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"] Sorry that I don't obsess and put every single game into my collection. Maybe I should waste some more of my time on that? I have Crysis, The Orange Box, COD4, Bioshock, UT3, Mass Effect, STALKER (all of which are ironically used to benchmark PC's) that run buttery smooth on my PC. I don't have GTA4 for the PC, sorry, I guess I'm not hardcore enough to have it. :roll: Plus, I would rather have it guarenteed to run smooth on my 360 and get the DLC later on.

And, so I game on my 360 and my PC? Whenever I feel like reclining and playing on my 50" plasma then I game on my 360, when I want to play something that I don't have for the 360 then I play on the PC. Welcome to the world of multiplatform gaming and being able to afford both.

And again, I like how you're bashing me owning a 360 now. Kid, you have no argument left. What's next? Are you going to argue my post count? Geeze kid, face the facts. You were wrong, you still are wrong and you're just making yourself look worse with each response.

teddyrob

I've got about 1/10 of my games collection in there. Maybe you should have wasted some time there instead of arguing that dual core is better than quad core. Thought I might be able to educate you on the benifits of more cores but It's not getting through. Wasn't bashing you on owning a 360 but you most admit those are kids consoles compared to an adults PC but somehow I think you may even argue this one out adding more and more insults as you go.

Simple maths 4 is more than 2.

I'm done arguing with you because you have to be either one of the most ignorant or one of the dumbest individuals I have met. I feel bad for anyone that will take your advice on anything in life.

And again, everything that I explained in the last thread that we argued didn't sink in at all and I had numbers and everything to prove it. I'm sorry, no. You're argument about more cores is better is not always valid, especially now when most games don't even benefit from extra cores but more clock speed. Go look it up or refresh your memory and read the thread that I posted earlier where I clearly explained it all to you and you just left. Nothing sinks into your mind because you are very ignorant in thinking you are right when numbers prove you wrong. Your logic, while would make sense in the real world, does not play the same way in computers. You have to factor in architecture, cycles, cache size, etc. You are just looking at the number of cores, you clearly have not researched any of this. Its pointless arguing with an individual who is ill educated on this topic and insists that he is always correct without any knowledge or experience himself.

I'm done arguing with you because you have to be either one of the most ignorant or one of the dumbest individuals I have met. I feel bad for anyone that will take your advice on anything in life.

EXLINK

No research on the E6850 vs Q9650? Still talking about the MHz Race and overclockign to the max, that is over. It's the core race now. Do your reasearch. Your concession in this argument has been accepted and done in such ungraceful manner with all the insults but you are conceeding which is good enough for me.

well ive done some testing with overclocking, and got the E6850 to 3.33Ghz @ 1.37v (had to put it to 1.37v after i restarted got to windows and crashed) its on 367*9 fsb. it passed prime 95 which tested both cores from 8k/12 tests upto 16k/12 tests all passed :) 1hour testing i know ya supposed to do it for longer which i might. seems stable so far... temps on prime stayed around 49-52c (core temp program) @ 100% load. could push it higher i guess.

left is idle, right is prime load 48c if ya cant quite see

only started happening after i been doing the o/cing. never used to do it, maybe it'll just work itself out

or ill give the pc a once over when i clean it soon

says here by poster thogrom its mobo issue ya can live with its a feature

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/249952-11-strange-booting-behaviour

Well i tried to oc this morning after starting again because ive been doing alot of research and read many guides concerning my cpu and motherboard, set my bios to what i think is correct, i upped my fsb from (333,343,353,365, then to 377), at 377 i crashed on windows logo just before you enter the password etc...

Even tho i increased the volts from stock to 1.35v.

multi - 9, fsb strap to nb - 333mhz , 370mhz fsb, 100mhz pcie strap, 1465mhz - ddr3, cpu volts - 1.35v, ram - 1.84v, disabled both spectrum options, and vanderpool and other useless stuff in bios.

the 10mhz increments above i did and ran OCCT 2.0.0a for an hour each time on mix (cpu n ram) said stable! so i thought yeah lets go upto 3.4ghz and test for 6hrs this time, which is my aim 3.4ghz, as this is my first o.c and only want it mild.

ddr3 ocz platinum series has gone upto 1500mhz from 1333mhz, but i went on toms hardware read reviews and comparisons of the ram and it said the platinum series is perfect for o/c at its 1.8v stock to around that level, along with 9-7-7-18 timings.

what do i do about the crash?, and what if i get errors in memtest86+ but dont really see any blue screens or anything bad in windows, altho i was running the 1.65version of memtest i think, is 2.10version better for ddr3?

Edit : OK so now i put my cpu voltage to 1.36v and got the fsb to 377mhz, ddr3 to 1501mhz 9-9-9-24 @1.87v running occt 2.0.0a mix for around 3 hrs going to see hoe stable that is, btw i play mmo's and crysis heavy cpu/ram games yes?