Cmustang87
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
Well??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To the OP thanks for taking the beating so I didnt have to
Also thanks for the link to the other thread on this. That should be sticky.
LOL
I was honestly unsure even after reading all the bloated posts on other threads.
Q6600 always.
The benefits of the extra OC on the E8400 make no difference. There is a distinct group of people still pushing the "E8400 vs Q6600" argument as if it is a valid one. Truth is, the extra clocking in the E8400 is only good for [H]ard penis and has no real world effects. When it comes down to "Which is a better investment?" long term, short term, gaming, or encoding: It's the Q6600.
The "E8400 vs Q6600" argument is a myth.
Don't listen to them. These are the same people buying 45nm duals to push 4 GHz simply because "it's 4 GHz and that is so awesome", regardless of performance benefit.
And you're saying the opposite because you run a dual.you only say that cause "you" run a quad
No one is gaming at 1024x768 though and at higher res it's all GPU.
Q6600 always.
The benefits of the extra OC on the E8400 make no difference. There is a distinct group of people still pushing the "E8400 vs Q6600" argument as if it is a valid one. Truth is, the extra clocking in the E8400 is only good for [H]ard penis and has no real world effects. When it comes down to "Which is a better investment?" long term, short term, gaming, or encoding: It's the Q6600.
The "E8400 vs Q6600" argument is a myth.
Don't listen to them. These are the same people buying 45nm duals to push 4 GHz simply because "it's 4 GHz and that is so awesome", regardless of performance benefit.
Oh -- and FSB speeds mean almost nothing on the modern Intel platform. There is absolutely no noticeable difference between 8x400 for 3.2Ghz and 9x356 for 3.2Ghz on my machine. It's something I've been curious about in the past. Got over it. Moved on.
Don't they run about the same price?why are we still comparing them as if they are completely equal in price?
is price never ever a factor?
why are we still comparing them as if they are completely equal in price?
is price never ever a factor?
Uh yea right man whatever you say...
you only say that cause "you" run a quad
look at this
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0
seems you are so far off base that you aren't in the ball park
and that games DO in fact favor a OC'd dual thank you very much
BTW I run a 8400 @ 4.23Ghz.
The OP wasn't clear in his requirements, but I still don't believe a quad is for everybody. Maybe everybody on the [H] forums, but not everybody. I can't see saddling my 90yr old grandmother with a hot, power hungry quad for surfing the Internet and email when even a dual is more than she'll ever need. In fact, she still has some old single core AMD. Runs cool and works for her.
Not even 5 years from now will I think everybody needs a quad. The percentage will be higher, sure. But not everybody.
...
Robert
The OP wasn't clear in his requirements, but I still don't believe a quad is for everybody. Maybe everybody on the [H] forums, but not everybody. I can't see saddling my 90yr old grandmother with a hot, power hungry quad for surfing the Internet and email when even a dual is more than she'll ever need. In fact, she still has some old single core AMD. Runs cool and works for her.
Not even 5 years from now will I think everybody needs a quad. The percentage will be higher, sure. But not everybody.
And if anyone says because "Windows" will need it, that's a cop out. Microsoft bloat should not be a reason for needing a quad just to run an OS.
Anyway, I digress.... If the OP wants a faster dual, he will run his games faster than a quad today. That is fact. He can always change later.
Robert
Now why would they do that?Whoah... slow down there cowboy. Seem awfully sure of yourself don't you? That's two posts in one thread. No one else's opinion matters? Perhaps Intel should just stop making the E84xx series altogether?
Robert
Whoah... slow down there cowboy. Seem awfully sure of yourself don't you? That's two posts in one thread. No one else's opinion matters? Perhaps Intel should just stop making the E84xx series altogether?
Well shit, I was wrong when I picked my E8400 over a 6600. I guess I wanted the larger cache and the higher clock speed for something other than playing video games.
Sounds like a few seconds off WinRAR compression.While this certainly may be a valid point. What exactly do you do on your PC that isn't multi-threaded, or only multi-threaded to be able to use 2 but not 4 cores that you see a benifit by running 4GHz vs 3GHz?
While this certainly may be a valid point. What exactly do you do on your PC that isn't multi-threaded, or only multi-threaded to be able to use 2 but not 4 cores that you see a benifit by running 4GHz vs 3GHz?
Battlefield 2142 And I run my system at stock.. my OC'in days are over. Tired of the noise, the fiddlin', etc... I guess it doesn't excite me anymore like it used I to. I run my e8400 stock with the stock cooler in a Lanbox Lite and it is hella fast, stays cool, and the entire system is quiet.
Fair enough. In situations like that where no OC takes place, power and cooling are at a premium, 4 cores aren't of much benifit over 2, the E8400 is certainly the better option.
One: It's not opinion if you back it up with fact.
Speed of all (x) cores added together is not the only variable.
Also, it's not a 1:1 performance increase either. The return is lower per core the more cores you add to the equation.
You have no facts. You only have your preferences as to what you feel is better. That's fine for you. Speed of all (x) cores added together is not the only variable that matters to everybody.