Are quads worth getting?

[aidanjt]

We are comparing stock speeds...

I am talking about stock speeds, less than stock, actually, 7x333=~2331.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheAnimus]

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).

[aidanjt]

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.

[Nickg]

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.

[SiM]

I am talking about stock speeds, less than stock, actually, 7x333=~2331.

That is still not stock speed.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[aidanjt]

That is still not stock speed.

No, you're absolutely correct, it's underclocked.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Agent]

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.

[looney]

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,

[SiM]

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.

[aidanjt]

Yes, the quad will help enormously for a machine spanning over a 4 year period. Good luck with your build.

[SiM]

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...

[looney]

Cheers guys will go for it then

[Agent]

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.

[Blitzen]

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.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

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.

[JIM_BOB7813]

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.