Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 33 to 48 of 58

Thread: Are quads worth getting?

  1. #33
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    We are comparing stock speeds...
    I am talking about stock speeds, less than stock, actually, 7x333=~2331.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    overclocking is never guaranteed. A Q6600 might bsod at 1333mhz FSB...
    That's so highly unlikely, to the point of you being absurd. With the multiplier dropped the core's internal frequency will be lower, and if the FSB doesn't go over 333Mhz I'll eat my hat, my P965 board went *way* over that and still didn't do stupid random crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    No need to be rude, especially because you are wrong
    I'm not being rude, I was stating a fact, you didn't think, you just lept to the defence of a ridiculous myth without fleshing it out in your head. You're even getting confused about what clock parameters I specified because of it. However, flat out calling me wrong because you found some weak/unbalanced benchmarks that remotely call in your favour reeks of arrogance, and childish \:stupid\: signs don't help make you right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    So you would compare the almost double priced Q9450 to the E8400
    With dropping the multiplier again, yes, of course. In fact, keep the internal clock the same on both the CPUs, it's the perfect fit because the core design on both CPUs are identical. If your assertion that quad cores are useless for gaming is true, then there will be little to no increase in gaming performance, right? And, price is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    Again I ask, do you have any evidence to back your claims?
    What?.. Like benchmarks?.. Again, use your brain, that provides all the evidence you need when you operate it correctly. If you *really* need cute little bar graphs to enlighten yourself, go google for Q9450 reviews and compair performance between that and the E8200 for a proper 1:1 comparison, hell, I wont mind if you compair it to the E8500 if you really must.

    And, again, I point out, this is all without even taking concurrency into consideration, doing *any* semi-intensive work in the background will hurt Dual core performance in games.

    If you take a good read at Rosaline's post above you'll have a better understanding of why this is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  2. #34
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,154
    Thanks
    802
    Thanked
    2,151 times in 1,407 posts

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    if aidanjt is saying.

    A quad core, of identical specification to a dual core, will perform faster in game, he is right.

    if he is trying to say £200 of quad core, will perform faster than £200 of dual core, he is of course dead wrong.

    Even if a game isn't designed to use multithreading, having the whole host OS able to leverage the dormant core(s) for its own bidding will provide a tiny increase itself.

    However, if the game has been very badly written, and attempts to use multiple threads you may find it kacks up on a dual core (do to locking issues, race hazards). There where plenty of games circa 98 that did this (thou far more of them just flatly refused to run on anything but 9x, which was only ever single CPU).
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  3. #35
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    What I'm trying to say is, in an identical core hardware design, 4 of the cores will be leveraged sufficiently to outperform a dual core, even if it's internal clock is somewhat slower in modern games. i.e. would an E6800 (discontinued, I know) or even an E6850 beat out a Q6600? Not likely. The E8400 has a number of core design improvements that give it the slight edge to (marginally) beat the Q6600 in gaming. In overall priceerformance, the Q6600 has the lead by a mile, if we're talking about two CPUs around the same price range.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  4. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    216
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    but a difference would only be perceptable in the eventuality of the game being CPU limited, not GPU limited.

    i have faith that Quadcore will be able to deliver faster computing that dual core, even for gamers during the next year or two.

    Even if it wasnt outright faster in terms of a single (non cpu limited) game, the quad is still faster in windows and tis ability to do anything in windows.

    i got a Q6600 pushed it to 3.20Ghz without any effects and only a touch of extra volts. you know it woul crush any dual core cpu for the same cash in terms of overall, all round performance.

  5. #37
    SiM
    SiM is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,787
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    633 times in 422 posts
    • SiM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 8GB PC2-6400 OCZ ReaperX + Platinum
      • Storage:
      • 3 x 320gb HD322HJ single platter in Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • PNY GTX285
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650W
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2407-HC

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    I am talking about stock speeds, less than stock, actually, 7x333=~2331.
    That is still not stock speed.
    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    And, price is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.
    No it is not. Next will you compare the £40 Nvidia 8500gt with the £200 ATi 3870 X2?
    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    If your assertion that quad cores are useless for gaming is true, then there will be little to no increase in gaming performance, right?
    When did I say that? No need to lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    What?.. Like benchmarks?.. Again, use your brain, that provides all the evidence you need when you operate it correctly. If you *really* need cute little bar graphs to enlighten yourself, go google for Q9450 reviews and compair performance between that and the E8200 for a proper 1:1 comparison, hell, I wont mind if you compair it to the E8500 if you really must.
    If you turn off your fanb0y mode, and turn on your brain, you will realise that they are not benchmarks! They are actually gaming frame rates.
    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    And, again, I point out, this is all without even taking concurrency into consideration, doing *any* semi-intensive work in the background will hurt Dual core performance in games.
    We are talking about a dedicated gaming machine. Stop changing the assumptions...

    I am not going to reply again... so say what you want, but for a dedicated gaming machine E8400 is better value than Q6600 for today's games... I do agree that quad is more future proof and if you can afford it the better option for multitasking, but that is besides the point.
    Last edited by SiM; 06-05-2008 at 05:34 PM.

  6. #38
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    That is still not stock speed.
    No, you're absolutely correct, it's underclocked.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    No it is not. Next will you compare the £40 Nvidia 8500gt with the £200 ATi 3870 X2?
    Are the 8500 and 3870 GPUs architecturally identical and do they require software specific code loaded on to them to work?.. The analogy is bogus.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    When did I say that? No need to lie.
    You're perpetuating the myth that quads perform no better for gaming over dual core, for now and the short term future. No?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    If you turn off your fanb0y mode, and turn on your brain, you will realise that they are not benchmarks! They are actually gaming frame rates.
    lolwutz t3h fps pwnz j00... Same difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    We are talking about a dedicated gaming machine. Stop changing the assumptions...

    I am not going to reply again... so say what you want, but for a dedicated gaming machine E8400 is better value than Q6600 for today's games... I do agree that quad is more future proof and if you can afford it the better option for multitasking, but that is besides the point.
    Name me one person on earth that *only* uses their machine *purely* for gaming and nothing else. My assumption is valid as it's completely normal computer use, even gaming computers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  7. #39
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,159
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked
    1,605 times in 1,044 posts

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    If you turn off your fanb0y mode, and turn on your brain, you will realise that they are not benchmarks! They are actually gaming frame rates.
    Frame rate, by its very definition is a benchmark. Its a direct measurement of performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  8. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked
    20 times in 18 posts
    • looney's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte P35-DS3
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q6600 @ 3Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 2GB Ballistix & 2GB PNY
      • Storage:
      • Seagate 7200.11 320GB & WD 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R6850 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.04 & Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP pavillion f1723 17"
      • Internet:
      • 8mbps

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    well im about to order my rig, sorry cant reply proerperly

    but what i can say is that rif will be for gaming, i also do abit 3d modelling and rendering and also multitasking, as in having lots of prgrammes running at the same time.

    the quad is £50 more then the dual core i want, which is the e7200, so ive decided to just spend the £50 and go for the quad, even though im over budget,

    is this a wise choice?

    i also keep my rigs for a minimum of 4 years,

  9. #41
    SiM
    SiM is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,787
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    633 times in 422 posts
    • SiM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 8GB PC2-6400 OCZ ReaperX + Platinum
      • Storage:
      • 3 x 320gb HD322HJ single platter in Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • PNY GTX285
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650W
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2407-HC

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    Frame rate, by its very definition is a benchmark. Its a direct measurement of performance.
    Well I mean synthetic benchmark then

    A direct measurement of performance is fine for comparison, as it incorporates a real life difference...

    Technically everything we compare anything with is a benchmark... Its the synthetic ones that are less meaningful, the real life ones are good to compare the actual real life, noticeable differences.

  10. #42
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Yes, the quad will help enormously for a machine spanning over a 4 year period. Good luck with your build.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  11. Received thanks from:

    looney (06-05-2008)

  12. #43
    SiM
    SiM is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,787
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    633 times in 422 posts
    • SiM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 8GB PC2-6400 OCZ ReaperX + Platinum
      • Storage:
      • 3 x 320gb HD322HJ single platter in Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • PNY GTX285
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650W
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2407-HC

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by looney View Post
    well im about to order my rig, sorry cant reply proerperly

    but what i can say is that rif will be for gaming, i also do abit 3d modelling and rendering and also multitasking, as in having lots of prgrammes running at the same time.

    the quad is £50 more then the dual core i want, which is the e7200, so ive decided to just spend the £50 and go for the quad, even though im over budget,

    is this a wise choice?

    i also keep my rigs for a minimum of 4 years,
    Yup, I agree go for the quad...

  13. Received thanks from:

    looney (06-05-2008)

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked
    20 times in 18 posts
    • looney's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte P35-DS3
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q6600 @ 3Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 2GB Ballistix & 2GB PNY
      • Storage:
      • Seagate 7200.11 320GB & WD 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R6850 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 11.04 & Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP pavillion f1723 17"
      • Internet:
      • 8mbps

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Cheers guys will go for it then

  15. #45
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,159
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked
    1,605 times in 1,044 posts

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiM View Post
    Well I mean synthetic benchmark then
    Ermm ok....although no one else has mentioned synthetic benchmarks here

    Its still irrelevant though. Comparing frame rates via a synthetic benchmark or not, is still a benchmark.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  16. #46
    Lover & Fighter Blitzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Between Your Mum & Sister
    Posts
    6,310
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked
    382 times in 300 posts
    • Blitzen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ABIT iX38 QuadGT
      • CPU:
      • Intel Quad Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz : 30 Degrees Idle - 41-46 Degrees Load
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 1GB OCZ Platinum PC6400 @ 4-4-4-12
      • Storage:
      • 2 x 500GB Samsung Spinpoints - RAID 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX 285
      • PSU:
      • Enermax MODU 82+ 625W
      • Case:
      • Antec Nine Hundred
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic Q22wb 22" Widescreen - 5ms
      • Internet:
      • O2 premium @ 17mb

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    so say what you want, but for a dedicated gaming machine E8400 is better value than Q6600 for today's games
    Sorry SIM but that statement is so completely wrong.
    There is no way on this earth that at £130+, the E8400 is better value than the Q6600.

    I can guarantee you that my gaming experience is every bit as good as someones with an E8400.

    When thats coupled with the fat that the Q6600 is better at EVERYTHING else, how can you say the E8400 is better value.

    It simply isnt.

  17. #47
    Moosekateer CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    29,913
    Thanks
    3,369
    Thanked
    4,702 times in 3,627 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    Although a quad core will be more "futureproof" for gaming purposes I hardly believe that a dual core processor will be rendered totally useless for FPS gaming anytime soon!!

    The reason is that most gamers will only have a dual core processer anyway. Look at the majority of mainstream(below £700 to £800) gaming systems sold in the last two years- they are still mostly dual cores and probably not running at >3ghz too. Only now are quad core processors becoming more common in lower prices points.

    I really doubt that games companies would want to elliminate a large percentage of their sales. Not every game is a tech demo like Crysis was and that was more GPU limited anyway!! I personally think that until games like the future Alan Wake become more common will quad cores be considered the minimum requirement for FPS games.

  18. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    173
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Are quads worth getting?

    You have to just look at what your want it for. If you play games and the benches say core 2 is better then get a core 2. If you run apps which have been optimised for quad core then you should get a quad, if the benchmarks agree that there is a performance increase there.

    Just as single core CPUs have been replaces by core2/quad, in the next few years core 2 may be replaced by quad/8-core, although there will have to be capable OS/software/hardware support for concurrent processing to take advantage of the processor. This will probably be the limiting factor in the take-up of CPUs with more cores, just as it is now with quad.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Bose Lifestyle 8 Ser II... worth it???
    By J4MES in forum Consumer Electronics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20-10-2005, 10:35 AM
  2. SLI, Is it worth it?
    By Koolpc in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-09-2005, 03:06 AM
  3. Whats my system worth?
    By BenW in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25-06-2005, 10:04 PM
  4. my 21" CRT is it worth anything
    By pdug175 in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-01-2005, 07:01 PM
  5. Is SATA worth the bother ?
    By Lexeus in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 26-09-2003, 09:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •