Dual Core vs Quad Core

[Skaejek]

Two CPUs, same price, which would you buy to play WAR on and why?

- Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit

- Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache 64-bit

[Nerror]

Dual core, because I don't think it's optimised for quad core. So if the choice is between, say, a Q6600 and a E8400 or E8500, go for the E8xxx series IMO.

[mongoose]

Dual core, because I don't think it's optimised for quad core. So if the choice is between, say, a Q6600 and a E8400 or E8500, go for the E8xxx series IMO.

Yeah the E8400s would be the better match up and not the E6850s.


Im also on the fence about this myself. I am not someone who continually upgrades components myself so whatever I buy has to have the ability to be viable until it either breaks or I finally buy a brand new system.

[Ragenrok]

agreed, if you motherboard is compatable with the new e8xxx series grab ne of those. They are amazing overclockers, I got the worse overclocking batch and I was able to hit 4ghz easy. This is of course if you want to learn how to OC, but even if you don't there still very good CPU's for their price. (about $210)

[8igdave]

This all totaly depends. War is not the only game in the world. I have a quad core because i paly otehr games like sumpreme comader which will make use of all the cores given to them. War wont nor will it need it probably. Therefore quad core has no advantage. However for decoding etc quads will walk all over duals.

If you can overclock then a Q9450 is probably the best buy as new games will make use of all the 4 cores and it wiall overclock to be fast enough for anygame making use of 2 cores.

If not then get the fastest dual core you can instead.

[Loekii]

If not then get the fastest dual core you can instead.

For non-Ocing? And is the fastest always the larger number, or is there a different number to look at for the measure?

[8igdave]

For non-Ocing? And is the fastest always the larger number, or is there a different number to look at for the measure?

If not overclocking your probably better off with the 3ghz dual. The q6600 will do 3.6ghz on air cooling when overclocked however and taht would be more then fast enough.

The larger number is not always the fastest. A 1.8ghz E2180 beats a 3ghz pentium D by miles. But genneraly in the same series a higher clock speed means faster. ALthough they are all the same chip and can all be clocked way over their stock clock speeds.

Something to watch out for is taht more expensive may not mean faster. There is an older geneartion of chips like the E6600 which got replaced but cost more then their replacements. This is because they use a lower FBS then their replacements and actually overclock to higher levels because of it as they have higher multiplyers. But at stock they are the same speed so therefore paying the extra is wasted.

[Loekii]

If not overclocking your probably better off with the 3ghz dual. The q6600 will do 3.6ghz on air cooling when overclocked however and taht would be more then fast enough.

So the q6600 would be what us non-OCers might want to look at for a May computer build?

[8igdave]

So the q6600 would be what us non-OCers might want to look at for a May computer build?

Depends how many games are going to uterlize 4 cores and if they are actually needed over the duals. It depends what gamse you play really, if into stratergy tjhere is a higher chance of quad core support. Alan wake is ment to be heavly quad core supported.

The downside of quads is that if not overclocked their dual core speed will not be as fast as for the same price you can get 3ghz dual core or a 2.4ghz q6600. in a dual core game the dual core will win due to its faster clock speed. But in games like supreme comander the quad core will thrash the dual.

[Mo0rbid]

Nothing's written for 4 cores anyway.

[zer]

Keeping in mind the same processor family, lets keep the old Netburst Pentium 4/Ds crap out of the picture. With Core procs., typically the first digit number is the model range, and the higher that number is the more performant that processor family will be. The second digit is the performance range inside that "model family", the higher the 2 number is, the more performant the cpu will be.

e.g E1260 < E4500 < E6600 < E6850 < E8400 -- C2D

Some exeptions can occur, for e.g: old E6300/E6400s had only 2Mb L2 cache vs 4 of the same processor family making them less effective than a E4400/E4500 respectively.

e.g Q6600 < Q6700 < Q9450 < QX9650 --C2Q

The same exeption can be said for the Q9300 which only has 6Mb of L2 cache vs 12Mb... However this one is trickier to place because it does sport SSE4.1 instruction making better clock for clock that the older Quad Cores.

[8igdave]

Keeping in mind the same processor family, lets keep the old Netburst Pentium 4/Ds crap out of the picture. With Core procs., typically the first digit number is the model range, and the higher that number is the more performant that processor family will be. The second digit is the performance range inside that "model family", the higher the 2 number is, the more performant the cpu will be.

e.g E1260 < E4500 < E6600 < E6850 < E8200 < E8400 -- C2D

Some exeptions can occur, for e.g: old E6300/E6400s had only 2Mb L2 cache vs 4 of the same processor family making them less effective than a E4400/E4500 respectively.

e.g Q6600 < Q6700 < Q9450 < QX9650 --C2Q

The same exeption can be said for the Q9300 which only has 6Mb of L2 cache vs 12Mb... However this one is trickier to place because it does sport SSE4.1 instruction making better clock for clock that the older Quad Cores.

Tests have shown there to be pritty much next to no difference between a E6600 and a E2180 at the same clock speed in many games even at the same clock speed. The extra cache size is not worth the extra price tbh.

Ther are only a few cpui's yous hould consider buyingn in your budget:

E2180 - overclocks to 3ghz on its own stock cooler.

E8400- replacement of the E6850

Q6600- great value for money and overclocks well - soon to be replaced by the Q9450, but the Q6600 will probalby then just bercome a bargin chip... although the E6600 never dropped in price when it waas replaced infact it stayed the same and the new cpu's were cheaper.

[8igdave]

Nothing's written for 4 cores anyway.

Eh? Ive just been talkign about supreme comadner and how it eats dual cores for example. Flight sim also uses quad core, i beleive world in conflcit might. new games comign out such as alan wake also do. Crysis was serposed to but it was rushed out and didn't do a very good job of it at all.

As for video and photo editing, just about every good software for video editing has quad core support and they really do make a big difference when decoding. Quads are made for video editing mostly.

[impulsebooks]

I have the quad in your list in my WAR comp :) It runs Vista 64 and all four cpus are listed under the system tab. Dn't know if that helps you any.

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit

[Obby]

I'm liking my e6750. Have it overclocked to 2.8GHz, and I don't have any problems with Supreme Commander, even. Well, I never did when I still had my discs. Wish I could find them... I miss that game.

[zer]

Tests have shown there to be pritty much next to no difference between a E6600 and a E2180 at the same clock speed in many games even at the same clock speed. The extra cache size is not worth the extra price tbh.

Ther are only a few cpui's yous hould consider buyingn in your budget:

E2180 - overclocks to 3ghz on its own stock cooler.

E8400- replacement of the E6850

Q6600- great value for money and overclocks well - soon to be replaced by the Q9450, but the Q6600 will probalby then just bercome a bargin chip... although the E6600 never dropped in price when it waas replaced infact it stayed the same and the new cpu's were cheaper.

Cache size does matter, by as much as 7-14% clock for clock in games and computational task such as encoding etc...

Most Low end Pentium Dual Cores of the E21xx series do not always clock up to 3Ghz and if they do, most dont last very long...

You can also overclock a E6750 or E6850 too BTW... Negating any real gains youll get using the cheaper cpus!

[8igdave]

I have the quad in your list in my WAR comp :) It runs Vista 64 and all four cpus are listed under the system tab. Dn't know if that helps you any.

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit

I do hope you dont play on keeping it at 2.4ghz :p What motherboard you got? Also 64 bit or 32bit has nothing to do with the cpu really unless you have a really really old one.

Also on a side note you have to actually change a msconfig settings to get the pc to boot up using all 4 core at the start, but i checked it and there is no difference in the booting time as its limited by the hard drive speed. Once windows loads it uses all 4 cores.

I'm liking my e6750. Have it overclocked to 2.8GHz, and I don't have any problems with Supreme Commander, even. Well, I never did when I still had my discs. Wish I could find them... I miss that game.

did you have all the settings cranked up and play on multiplyer with 6+ players in huge battles? There are games hosted saying "quad cores only" lol.

Also running in 64bit will utilize more of the cpu and ram power i beleive as its scaled up.

[8igdave]

Cache size does matter, by as much as 7-14% clock for clock in games and computational task such as encoding etc...

Most Low end Pentium Dual Cores of the E21xx series do not always clock up to 3Ghz and if they do, most dont last very long...

You can also overclock a E6750 or E6850 too BTW... Negating any real gains youll get using the cheaper cpus!

A E2180 not reaching 3ghz is a rareaty. Also where on earth do you get your info of them not lasting long? Ive not once seen a complaint of a overclocked E2180 dieing. The fact is taht all those cpu's are the same. They just have differnt multiplyers and some have added cache.

Of corse an E6850 overclocks, but it also costs alot more. And if youll notice it was part of my list, well the E8400 replaced it. There is really only 3 you should by. The others in between arnt as good as they have lower multipylers then the E2180 etc. I know someone with a E2180 at 4.2ghz. They have x10 multiplyers and overclock like mad. They dont die easly so i dont know where on earth you got that from. The E2100 has a 11x multiplyer as well, i half want to buy one jsuit to overclock them lol.

[zer]

A E2180 not reaching 3ghz is a rareaty. Also where on earth do you get your info of them not lasting long? Ive not once seen a complaint of a overclocked E2180 dieing. The fact is taht all those cpu's are the same. They just have differnt multiplyers and some have added cache.

Of corse an E6850 overclocks, but it also costs alot more. And if youll notice it was part of my list, well the E8400 replaced it. There is really only 3 you should by. The others in between arnt as good as they have lower multipylers then the E2180 etc. I know someone with a E2180 at 4.2ghz. They have x10 multiplyers and overclock like mad. They dont die easly so i dont know where on earth you got that from. The E2100 has a 11x multiplyer as well, i half want to buy one jsuit to overclock them lol.

They are binned, differently, meaning the low end usually ends up being failed high end stuff... I though this was commong sense.

Heres a link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14429&start=20

[8igdave]

They are binned, differently, meaning the low end usually ends up being failed high end stuff... I though this was commong sense.

Heres a link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14429&start=20

They aren't "" they are not speed binned so badly because all of them do pritty much the same overclocks give or take a few mhz. Of corse there are the unlucky ones taht do not overclock well and fall short by 3 or so mhz but they are rare. You really dont seem to understand overclocking at all.

Ive seen many people overclocking the E2180s past 3ghz and i beleive most keep them on about 3.2-3.4 they are perfectly fine. Stop talking nonsence when you clearly have no experiancne in overclocking, and if you do then how the hell did you come to the conclusion that 1.5v will kill c2ds in weeks? You got taht from reading something about a wolfdale batch which is common knowlage that they have a screwed up batch and presumed they are all the same. Now look at the rest of the c2ds and quads. Stop posting about things without the full facts.

Why dont you go over to overclockers.co.uk forums and then ask them if the E2180s are crappy cpu's that dont overclock. Then you can come back after you have been flamed to death for insulting one of the best budget overclocking chips around.

[zer]

Did, I ever say their were crappy? Please dont try to put words in my mouth... All Im implying here is to never "raise" false hope on what one can expect in term of overclocking since theres alot of factor to take into consideration. maybe if you read the forum more closely, or tried to read the first darn page youve noticed that I was defending the chip agaisnt is subjective onslaught from clone...

[8igdave]

Did, I ever say their were crappy? Please dont try to put words in my mouth... All Im implying here is to never "raise" false hope on what one can expect in term of overclocking since theres alot of factor to take into consideration. maybe if you read the forum more closely, or tried to read the first darn page youve noticed that I was defending the chip agaisnt is subjective onslaught from clone...

They are binned, differently, meaning the low end usually ends up being failed high end stuff... I though this was commong sense.



Your right, i did put words in your mouth. You said they were instead. Sorry.

[zer]

Implying a generalizion of binning doesnt mean that I was saying the cpu was . But ok, you got me... Finished?

[8igdave]

Serpose so. But id like to know why people voted for quad core when although id hope for quad core utilization. i doubt it would need it or have it in the first place.

And where did pie come from? Further more, wjhat sort? id rather apple to blackberry lol.

[Ragenrok]

And where did pie come from? Further more, wjhat sort? id rather apple to blackberry lol.

and I'd rather cherry dammit! mmm... dual core cherry pie, has a nice ring to it :mrgreen:

[8igdave]

and I'd rather cherry dammit! mmm... dual core cherry pie, has a nice ring to it :mrgreen:

i hope its a "cherry picked" one :p ooo tehehe... you heard the saying of cherry picked cores for gpus/cpus etc? Evga cherry pick theirs to get good overclocking ones.

[mongoose]

ok, I have a question for all you number geeks......

What is the relative speed of a duo vs a quad in apps not taking advantage of a quad?

Say if we use the E8400 vs a Q6600 as an example.

[oakae]

ok, I have a question for all you number geeks......

What is the relative speed of a duo vs a quad in apps not taking advantage of a quad?

Say if we use the E8400 vs a Q6600 as an example.
8400 will be considerably faster than the 1 generation older Q6600. And the 8400 can easily be overclocked to 4ghz completely blowing the Q6600 away.

Currently for gaming dual cores are the way to go. It'll be around 2009 before most games make use of more than 2 cores

[zer]

8400 will be considerably faster than the 1 generation older Q6600. And the 8400 can easily be overclocked to 4ghz completely blowing the Q6600 away.

Currently for gaming dual cores are the way to go. It'll be around 2009 before most games make use of more than 2 cores

QFT...

For gaming and most applications, the E8400 is the way to go!

[Obby]

did you have all the settings cranked up and play on multiplyer with 6+ players in huge battles? There are games hosted saying "quad cores only" lol.

Also running in 64bit will utilize more of the cpu and ram power i beleive as its scaled up.
I always play my games on maxed settings (AA and everything). But, no it wasn't with 6 people, it was 3 (me and two of my friends) and 2 computers over a LAN.

[8igdave]

ok, I have a question for all you number geeks......

What is the relative speed of a duo vs a quad in apps not taking advantage of a quad?

Say if we use the E8400 vs a Q6600 as an example.

Depends what games. Most games will so no visialy noticeable difference between them until the 2.4ghz on the quad core starts getting to slow for gaming, which it currently isn't. Your graphics card will be holding your pc back not your cpu.

[8igdave]

I always play my games on maxed settings (AA and everything). But, no it wasn't with 6 people, it was 3 (me and two of my friends) and 2 computers over a LAN.

not 64bit either? i get people to bring their laptops round mine and we play on lan sometimes. Tis quite fun, only we dont play supreme comander.

[Romple-WHA]

:mrgreen: quad + overclock

[MrChrist]

How do you think quads will fair against duals for gaming by the end of 08?

[Romple-WHA]

Honestly that depends... Just cause something is a Quad core or Dual Core doesn't make it good. Gotta compare the entire package and not just a defining feature.

I'm always crazy about the amount of caches and cache size... some quad cores just share caches, some have their own, etc... 4 independent cores + 4 independent caches, drool...

Obviously multi-cores are the way to go. Intel's coming out w/ a 6xCore for server applications. So... I'm sure Quad Cores will take over and phase out dual cores, and then 6xCores will start becoming affordable, etc... and then it's just getting excessive ;-p

[Obby]

not 64bit either? i get people to bring their laptops round mine and we play on lan sometimes. Tis quite fun, only we dont play supreme comander.
Nope, not 64 bit.

It's not really a true LAN. We use Hamachi, and they all connect to a network I make. We do that a lot for Dawn of War, mostly, but we've played SC a few times.

DoW is more fun, I think.

[Romple-WHA]

Nope, not 64 bit.

It's not really a true LAN. We use Hamachi, and they all connect to a network I make. We do that a lot for Dawn of War, mostly, but we've played SC a few times.

DoW is more fun, I think.

[tangent Hamachi is one of the greatest things ever. ]

[zer]

Nope, not 64 bit.

It's not really a true LAN. We use Hamachi, and they all connect to a network I make. We do that a lot for Dawn of War, mostly, but we've played SC a few times.

DoW is more fun, I think.

You getting SS when it comes out?

[Obby]

Not when it comes out, but I will eventually. I'm a bit strapped for cash at the moment, and I have more important things to pay for.

[8igdave]

How do you think quads will fair against duals for gaming by the end of 08?

Games will start supporting quads, but its not as easy as dual core support. Supreme comander still isn't very effiecent but its the best we got at takign advantnage of them. Alan wake i predict to have the best multi core support we have seen to date and currently we know jack all about the actual game really.

Id say come 09 quads will be supported alot more in RTS games (alot more doesn't mean all of them or even most of them. Just means more then the current ), where they show a good benefit but still duals will remain the top dog for all other game types right through up to late end of 09 probably .

The majority of FPS, RPG etc are Graphics limited. They have really top notch graphics usualy and the cpu doesn't need to do alot. RTS games are starting to get quite advanced. The amount of physics work going in the background of supreme commander is phnominal and thats why they had to make use of quad cores. This will be the way forward for RTS games.

I think with the exception of some FPS games, all major titles comign out in 2010 will start adding support but it may not be required. if crysis had of sorted their optimization out on quads, alot more physics could ahve been achived in teh game. You notice a nuke goes off and like 10 tress fall down instead of the hundreds taht should have. That is cpu limitation, but also the graphics card would probably melt trying to draw so many in taht game. So i gues its half and half.

[zer]

Sadly, it wont be before 2009 till we can see alot more support for multi-threaded application using more than 2 cores... However, for 3D rendering, encoding and such... The quad core advantage is def there:)

Edit: Were did you get Crysis was optimized for 4 cores? I though the game only supported 2 as with most multi core friendly games lately?

[8igdave]

they claimed to have highly optimization for quad cores when iot was being made. They failed miserably lol.

[Aaronthethird]

I didn't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this has been posted already, but if you are getting really confused with all the models and everything I suggest getting an idea of relative performance and cost effectiveness by checking out the comparison charts at Tomshardware.com (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html). This is a good way to see how the various models stack up, and they also have charts for Graphics cards and other stuff; their reviews are excellent as well. In general though, before you spend a bunch of money on a new machine make sure you do thorough research to ensure that you are getting your money's worth. I know a lot of people who assume more expensive=better and that is often not the case; unless money is no object, you are often best served by getting the parts that are priced proportionately to their performance, and avoiding the bleeding edge of technology.

[8igdave]

I didn't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this has been posted already, but if you are getting really confused with all the models and everything I suggest getting an idea of relative performance and cost effectiveness by checking out the comparison charts at Tomshardware.com (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html). This is a good way to see how the various models stack up, and they also have charts for Graphics cards and other stuff; their reviews are excellent as well. In general though, before you spend a bunch of money on a new machine make sure you do thorough research to ensure that you are getting your money's worth. I know a lot of people who assume more expensive=better and that is often not the case; unless money is no object, you are often best served by getting the parts that are priced proportionately to their performance, and avoiding the bleeding edge of technology.

ahh but that is very subjective.

You see i see the price/performance ratio to be worth it right up to the 8800GTX. The Ultra i cannot see the point in paying for. Some wont even buy a 8800GT or a 3870 which are both considered the best price/power ratio i beleive.

[Obby]

I didn't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this has been posted already, but if you are getting really confused with all the models and everything I suggest getting an idea of relative performance and cost effectiveness by checking out the comparison charts at Tomshardware.com (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html). This is a good way to see how the various models stack up, and they also have charts for Graphics cards and other stuff; their reviews are excellent as well. In general though, before you spend a bunch of money on a new machine make sure you do thorough research to ensure that you are getting your money's worth. I know a lot of people who assume more expensive=better and that is often not the case; unless money is no object, you are often best served by getting the parts that are priced proportionately to their performance, and avoiding the bleeding edge of technology.
What you say is very true.

However, the comparison charts on Tomshardware aren't always reliable because it doesn't take overclocking into account. If two processors are kept at stock speeds, one of them might perform better than the other, but when you overclock them the same amount (say, 500MHz), the other processor very well may become better.

That's not to say the charts aren't useful, because they are, but I wouldn't take them as the end-all-be-all of comparisons.

[8igdave]

Somethigh to be wary of when looking at videos of a single card (not talking about the link to toms hardware) is that many ofthem are very bias. Alot of websites will get paid to review products. When there is only 1 or 2 products reviewed do not count their benchmarks to seriously. They can cheat by using cut sceens to boost the fps of the cards etc. Hardpco comented on how they were angered with the reviewing comunity and how they will fake their benchmarks nowdays.

Bit-tech and hardcpo are the review sites i really look at now days. The reason being is that they both are really good at writing indepth reviews. Ill read others to check or see other opinions but ill always go to theese two first.

[zer]

Chart are just charts and TBH, should only be used as a point of reference. One must view multiple review sites in order to see if the info is similar, owning to credibility of previous claims.

[Rik Riorik]

I have been waiting for my computer for over a month now mainly because the E8400 is an extremely rare commodity here in Sweden, but I just got an email saying its shipping out today. So I'm in wonderland for the rest of the day. Soon I will begin to fit together (and quite possibly ruin ;) ) my tool for WAR.

I'm not really a techie but it seems to me that if Quad Cores are not even used properly these days why invest in them? If you're looking to future-proof yourself I'm thinking you might as well go out and get a Quad Core when that is actually needed. By then the Quads on the market are bound to be better than the ones that are out now.

[logicalmayhem]

Two CPUs, same price, which would you buy to play WAR on and why?

- Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit

- Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache 64-bit

not sure about WAR's quad optamisation but at 3.0+gh your error checking just increases with speed (they dont go past 3.2 now coz the error checking cancels out any extra speed)

quad is simply more processing power

2.4x4 = 9.6
3.0x2 = 6

(+ the slower cores will have reduced error checking making the quad even faster in comparison)

so game design will be the only thing that could posably make War run better

IMO if its not rdy to run well on a quad in this day and age they are cutting corners

(ps to any admins that read this i can change my font and colour just not size right?)

[zer]

Honestly dude, were did you get that info? Since it doesnt make any sense, and doesnt explain anything... Not to mention does not allow for more processing power because well WAR, will most likely not be multithreaded for more than 2 Cores...

[Ragenrok]

hey guys, just seen this.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1032158665#post1032158665

Apperently after april 20th we will be seeing intell price cuts on the q6600 ;)

[zer]

Still waiting for new stepping on E8xxx series:)

[Obby]

quad is simply more processing power

2.4x4 = 9.6
3.0x2 = 6

(+ the slower cores will have reduced error checking making the quad even faster in comparison)

Don't know about the error checking deal, but the speed info you gave is just plain wrong. More cores does not effectively increase your clock speeds.

[Ragenrok]

Still waiting for new stepping on E8xxx series:)

no kidding, I want to see what there going to be like for overclocking lol. Im thinking that intel is going to gimp the overclocking ability of the new batchs as they do with the other chips, they always overclock so well when they are first released then as it goes the new batchs overclock less and less.

[zer]

Well, the L2 stepping was B.S... Most E6600s couldnt even hit 3.3Ghz, the old B2s did up to 4.0Ghz on a good batch, mind you thoses B2s LOVE volts (I know, my E6420 eats them). The G0 stepping on the other hand was great, so its goin to be very interesting to see what the new revision will bring out! Im hoping for the same effect the G0 had with Quads and Dual cores when first released:)

[8igdave]

i remeber when i was specing my pc up way back when i was like mmm i really hope to get 3ghz on a q6600. Gona have top ush it quite a bit i thinks with just air cooling.

Then go comes out and you can get 3ghz on stock volts almost mahaha :D

[jadonchristensen]

Where is it official that this game will utilize a dual or quad core. Their highest recommendation is still for single core on the official site. Sounds to me that if you have a 3Ghz Dual Core that it will still only utilize one of those cores in which case a 3.4-3.8Ghz single core would still run the game faster.

Or am I wrong?