Core 2 Or Quad?

[Dorza]

Quad core is the way, especially with Crysis on the way. Q6600 G0 is just shy of £170 at Scan, and if you're overclocking the Artic Freezer 7 Pro will push it up to 3.6Ghz

Unlike in the CustomPC article, not everyone will get a chip that will clock so well on an air cooler alone , but I agree that the Quad core is the way to go if the budget allows a CPU around that price.

[darrensen]

After much thinking i might just bite the bullet and go for the entry level Quad.

[twicksisted]

I definately say Q6600 G0 stepping cpu...
They are dirt cheap at the moment, they clock really well and are supremely fast!

I have mine on the stock retail fan, in a NZXT lexa case and its running at 3ghz no problems 29c idle.

I comfortably clocked up to 3.4ghz with the retail cooler but decided to keep it at 3ghz till i get another cooler just to be on the safe side

I had an E6600 previously and couldnt seem to clock it over 2.68GHZ... That was the boards fault though.

I found that the E6600 was faster in benchmarks (superpi etc..) than the Q6600 at stock settings... but as soon as I clocked it up a bit it really shone and walked all over the E6600!

highly reccomended for a solid stable fast rig!

[Blitzen]

and if you're overclocking the Artic Freezer 7 Pro will push it up to 3.6Ghz

AF7's arent that great you know. Not bad for the 'El Cheapo' option though.

Quads arent the way to go yet though.......The next batch will no doubt be along soon and the price will drop alot. The low end of the quads is still £50 dearer than a decent C2D. How is that value when, lets be honest, the difference isnt noticeable in real time use.

I say save the moeny and get a real upgrade when you know if DDR3 is going to take off properly.

[staffsMike]

Agreed on the AF7 but have you actually used a quad to qualify that statement? C2D's are fine but if you can afford the quad go for it. With 2 - 4gb of ram you can multi task like you've never before

[IainM]

I have a Q660..

Pushed it to 3.4Ghz and it plays pretty much anything smoothly..

I play Rainbow Six Vegas with an average of 40Fps and CS:S never drops below 80 Fps..

That's with a X1950 Pro GFX..

[Blitzen]

Agreed on the AF7 but have you actually used a quad to qualify that statement? C2D's are fine but if you can afford the quad go for it. With 2 - 4gb of ram you can multi task like you've never before

Like i said, i havent used a Quad. I find it impossible to believe that you would notice any difference over an E6750 say during gaming. The multi-tasking bit i do agree on though.

I play Rainbow Six Vegas with an average of 40Fps and CS:S never drops below 80 Fps..

I doubt that has alot to do with your CPU.
I have only played RSV once (i didnt like it), but i did try CS:S last night for a comparison. With everything on full i didnt drop below 118fps.
I only have a small OC on my E6400 (2.8ghz) so i reckon that shows its more of a GPU thing rather than CPU.

[Jinx]

Sorry to sound like a broken record (and agree with everyone else) but the G0 Q6600 is the CPU of the moment.....

With it's more efficient core ('only' 95W) and the new stepping revisions, it's a much better proposition now......especially when it can be had for £165, and will almost certainly overclock without much difficulty at all.....

Go for the Quad.....you won't regret it......

[excalibur2]

C2D's are fine but if you can afford the quad go for it. With 2 - 4gb of ram you can multi task like you've never before

erm so there is no need for eight cores then?

[dancingmatt]

Yes i mean DDR3 upgrade..and who say next gen quads work in current mobo's? What's the point in doing 2 upgrades and wasting money on the dual core if you eventually want a quad anyway.

The quad will last a hell of a lot longer and it's only £50 more.

Yeah, fair enough - I asked why you said you need a new mobo and RAM because I'm currently running a E6600 and am expecting to replace it, sometime next year perhaps, with a Quad. Hadn't occured to me that I might need DDR3 with it.

I'm right in thinking that my P5WDH Deluxe board and DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 will work with the current Quads, aren't I?

DM

[staffsMike]

Like i said, i havent used a Quad. I find it impossible to believe that you would notice any difference over an E6750 say during gaming. The multi-tasking bit i do agree on though.

For the most part yeah very little gaming difference but if you have video encoding for instance in the background of that game it becomes very useful. On my dual core thats normally an hour or so that I can't really use the pc.
your CPU.

erm so there is no need for eight cores then?

erm.. prize for most pointless post in the thread goes to...

[excalibur2]

erm.. price for most pointless post in the thread goes to...

Well you are so enthuastic about quad cores, so the problem of multi-tasking has been solved then........................Do a virus check, recode a video, burn a video all at once, woohoo.

I'm disappointed with dual core and 2gigs of ram, but then I've been complaining about a computer's ability to multi-task since dos 5 and need some convincing..

[acrobat]

No need to be facetious. Hes just saying he can multitask ok as it is. And so can I, and so can most of us. But obviously it depends what you're doing doesn't it? I can browse this site while listening to MP3s and burning a CD. If you want to do something much more intense than that, then thats your business. Most people don't though.

Also, whenever I come across problems when multi tasking (which is rare), its never because my dual core processor is maxed out. Its always something else. Usually crappily coded software, or just windows's fault.

[Lucio]

Really depends on what your useage habits are, mine would benefit from a Quad core as I will frequently be running an online game, whilst having the 'net open along with playing music.

That said, my P4 3.06GHz processor doesn't do *badly* at the task, because Windows XP does do a decent job of resource management a lot of the time.

The real place with Quad Cores shine is in the office though Nothing kick's Excel's butt like a Quad Core (or more when I borrow the server to run some of my reports)

[excalibur2]

No need to be facetious. Hes just saying he can multitask ok as it is. And so can I, and so can most of us. But obviously it depends what you're doing doesn't it? I can browse this site while listening to MP3s and burning a CD. If you want to do something much more intense than that, then thats your business. Most people don't though.

Also, whenever I come across problems when multi tasking (which is rare), its never because my dual core processor is maxed out. Its always something else. Usually crappily coded software, or just windows's fault.

erm well he was advising other people, and he was so convincing I felt like going out and spending £160 and going quad..............................and my question still stands :-

Is there any point in Intel or AMD producing 8 cores.

[Fraz]

Is there any point in Intel or AMD producing 8 cores.

Obviously yes. There's more to computers than playing games and encoding video...