LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAgreed, I pray for the day when all my programs/games use ALL my cores. It virtually never happens, annoying!Originally Posted by freddie
Agreed, I pray for the day when all my programs/games use ALL my cores. It virtually never happens, annoying!
quad core will be good if ur playing games while encoding a divx video at the same time.
Re: Q6600 or wait for Q9450?
Hey, didn't want to start a war.yes he was,
his post had no information relative to the topic..
we all can see it was 2 months old at the time..
if he wasn't moaning what was it then. informing us of the two month gap?
No one else cared.
Accept my apologies, and have a nice day.
That'd be nice. Especially for the games that are "CPU dependent".
I still can't see any pre-release 9600GTs. (I'll look to see if this is on the other forums, as it's off topic.)
sorry didn't mean to come off as harsh. no need to apologize mateHey, didn't want to start a war.
Accept my apologies, and have a nice day.
Re: Q6600 or wait for Q9450?
Thanks for the clarification. See you round the forums...sorry didn't mean to come off as harsh. no need to apologize mate
There is no way on this planet that an E8200 is a better choice than a Q6600...sorry. It is the 'el cheapo' Wolfdale though so its not bad value.
Just because the clock speed is faster it doesnt mean it will perform better.
£130 - E8400
£150 - Q6600
£120 - Second Hand Quad
No competition there really. The Quad is the more useful core and will long out live the dual cores.
Plus the fact, the amount of juice you need to put through the Wolfdale to get above 4ghz ish, you will kill it in a few months anyway.
What about the Q9450 is that worth the extra wait and money when that comes out? I was going to opt for an E8400 as I use it mostly for games but now not so sure the Q6600 looks tempting.. I just don't know! I think some people just like the idea of a chip that can hit 4Ghz or more I know I do
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, go for it!I think some people just like the idea of a chip that can hit 4Ghz or more I know I do
What about the Q9450 is that worth the extra wait and money when that comes out? I was going to opt for an E8400 as I use it mostly for games but now not so sure the Q6600 looks tempting.. I just don't know! I think some people just like the idea of a chip that can hit 4Ghz or more I know I do
Two weeks ago i was in the same situation...I just couldnt decide which core.
In the end i went Q6600 and heres why.
a). It will last longer overclocked than any E8** series CPU. The amount of voltage a 45nm CPU will require for a good overclock will limit the lifespan of the core massively.
b). The 65nm Quads will overclock pretty easily to 3.4ghz (if not 3.6ghz) without any kind of voltage increase. This will ensure you Quad is still runing long after the E84** owners CPU's have done their last job.
c). As good as the E8*** CPUs are, they are still only dual core. The Quads may be older but there technology will be useful long after any Dual core has served its purpose and goes to the bargain basement.
d). As far as games are concerned, a few use multi-core technology to its capacity (many threads about this), but in the real world, you will never see a difference gaming between any reasonable dual core, and a Quad.
e). The Quads will crunch through multiple tasks LONG after the E8**'s have cried enough.
For £20, the Quad is the more useful, system friendly, proven, and reliable chip.
if your gaming go for dual core maybe only a couple of games make use of more than 2 core (don't ask me to name them!)
so E8200 would be best as you can overclock way past 3ghz. That'll be plenty power cpu wise, then you'll need to spend the bucks on graphics to keep up!
quad wise i'd wait a month or so, it';s not too long and the benefits of 45nm are obvious especially energy use.
But do you really think the extra £60+ will be worth it? I dont!
The speeds arent going to be a great increase and i for one, whether its right or wrong, dont really care about energy usage.
You have to factor in that te Q9450 will also have an additional 4MB of Cache, how this will effect performance I dont know but it will have to be powered so maybe the energy savings wont be as drastic as every one is thinking.
Saying that unless you are running something like Folding at home all the time (which will use 100% CPU load constantly) you probably won't see much difference in power usage during normal operation.
I disagree with both of those, to some degree:
1) It seems that people have been getting 4.2 GHz+ overclocks without going out of the specified max voltage for the the 45 nm CPUs. The lifespan will not be meaningfully reduced if you don't go outside spec.
2) I had to raise the core voltage on my Q6600 to reach 3 GHz. Granted, I've got a long way to go before I ever go above the max voltage spec, but what you say is not really correct.
You speak for most, but far from all. Of those bought recently neither mine of s_kinton's will go beyond 3.0GHz prime stable, in my case no matter what I do and regardless of volts (3.1GHz wasn't far off but fails after around 40min). Not really pulling you up for it as 90% seem to be heading north with ease, but recently the quality appears to have dipped quite a bit, and thought I'd point out that it's a bit dodgy to use such a sweeping statement given the current shape of things.
in real honest is there any real noticable difference from a quad core at 3ghz then it is when its at 3.6ghz?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Baius 
