6600: Quad or Not

S

SafeFire

n00b
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
24
Ahoy Ahoy, first thread on these forums for me I think.
Anyhow, I'm building a new rig soon, around late July I think.
I'll be using it to play games and do levels for the Unreal engine mostly, among the usualy stuff. (browsing, etc).
SO, my original plan was to grab a an E6600, since I figured it sported a good back for the buck. But I heard that the quad core version, Q6600 was coming down to a price similar to that of the E6600.
My question is: what to get? I heard the Q6600 actually packs less of a punch per core, meaning that when just one or two of em are used, it should performs worse than the E6600.

For reference, I'll be getting a 8800GTS, a PhysX card, 2x2gb Corsair xms2 ram in an Asus P5N32-E sli (not Plus, god forbid).

Thanks :)
 
Ohysx cards are a waste #1

the Quad techincally is said to replace physx cards. But games as of now dont require more cores.

Honestly IMO quads aren't my choice. Ill be getting an E6850 july 22nd :)
 
alan wake will require more than one core, however P4 with HT can scape by
 
Crysis will not need Quad / physx agents. Since "quoted" "we made this game for the everyday gamer, even made for people who computers that are 3 yrs old"

I laughed at this video when I saw it
 
hey micha, what was that a reply to? shogun was talking about alan wake it seems. :p

By the way, thanks for staying on topic :)
 
michaLcoughliN said:
Crysis will not need Quad / physx agents. Since "quoted" "we made this game for the everyday gamer, even made for people who computers that are 3 yrs old"

I laughed at this video when I saw it
Click to expand...

i won't "need" a quad core. but it won't "need" DX10 either.

the game has been designed with the new technologies in mind, but without leaving all the consumers behind. The engine is scalable from what i understand.
I remember seeing a tech interview where the developer talking mentioned that the scene we were watching needs a quad to process everything on the screen.
Meaning that the level of physics, AI, lighting, sound processing are dependent on the power of the CPU. He went on to explain that with a quad core system the engine dedicates a core to AI and a core to Physics. Dual cores will not have that capability thus having to scale it all back.

This IMHO, is the biggest reason to look at a quad core after the price drop this month. More and more games will come out in the next year that will us them and now software is well on its way to being multithreaded. especially with all the mainstream dual core chips we've been seeing for the last 6 months.
If you like to keep your cpu for a year or more between upgrades, then seriously look at a Q6600. if you swap CPUs every 4 - 6 months. then just go with 6750 or 6850 when the drop at the end of the month.



*Edit* You say you will be developing maps for the unreal engine. are you talking about the new unreal coming out? cause im quite sure you will benifit from the Q in the map editing software unless you have something really low end as far as software goes.

And BTW: I have built a Q6600 and it was quite fast. i wouldnt need anything more than that any time soon.
 
I'm not the quickest upgrader, as I have other stuff to spend my cash on too :p So I guess getting a quad is a good idea, won't be upgrading for atleast a year and a half.
Sorry, but I'm not from epic: ( At the moment I'm an up and coming face in the level design community, I don't consider myself fantastic but I'm good enough :) This means that I'm not working on the new engine, but I will be when time comes though
 
SafeFire said:
My question is: what to get? I heard the Q6600 actually packs less of a punch per core, meaning that when just one or two of em are used, it should performs worse than the E6600.

For reference, I'll be getting a 8800GTS, a PhysX card, 2x2gb Corsair xms2 ram in an Asus P5N32-E sli (not Plus, god forbid).

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Well the Q6600 and E6600 have exactly the same performance in any application that uses only two cores. In applications where four cores can be used the Q6600 utterly rapes (in the butt) the E6600. Anyone telling you that the Q6600 is slower per clock than the E6600 is full of shit and doesn't know what they are talking about. The main problem with the Q6600 is that it doesn't overclock as well as the E6600 generally does. So anyone not using applications bennefiting from four cores would be better served by a dual core processor that can be overclocked to higher speeds.

BTW the PhysX card is almost completely useless at present and not worth wasting a PCI slot with. I'd also recommend the EVGA 680i SLI instead of the ASUS board. Better warranty, customer service and the boards are a little less quirky and tend to overclock better. I currently have an ASUS Striker Extreme and two EVGA 680i SLI boards (Part numbers 122-CK-NF68-A1 and 122-CK-NF68-AR.) You can see which one I'm using in my sig and that alone should tell you something about the ASUS 680i boards. (The Striker Extreme and P5N32-E SLI are almost identical.)
 
Dan_D said:
Well the Q6600 and E6600 have exactly the same performance in any application that uses only two cores. In applications where four cores can be used the Q6600 utterly rapes (in the butt) the E6600. Anyone telling you that the Q6600 is slower per clock than the E6600 is full of shit and doesn't know what they are talking about. The main problem with the Q6600 is that it doesn't overclock as well as the E6600 generally does. So anyone not using applications bennefiting from four cores would be better served by a dual core processor that can be overclocked to higher speeds.

BTW the PhysX card is almost completely useless at present and not worth wasting a PCI slot with. I'd also recommend the EVGA 680i SLI instead of the ASUS board. Better warranty, customer service and the boards are a little less quirky and tend to overclock better. I currently have an ASUS Striker Extreme and two EVGA 680i SLI boards (Part numbers 122-CK-NF68-A1 and 122-CK-NF68-AR.) You can see which one I'm using in my sig and that alone should tell you something about the ASUS 680i boards. (The Striker Extreme and P5N32-E SLI are almost identical.)
Click to expand...


You just made me want to go back to my eVGA board lol.. :cool:
 
Thats was just about what I was wanting to hear Dan, thanks.
Anyhow, I can get that physx card quite cheaply, so I'll still be grabbing it, for the sake of the Unreal 3.0 engine :p

I chose the P5N32-E sli over the striker due to me not needing a display in the back, and the striker over the evga since I heard that it fries dimms very fast, which I don't quite want :p
I believe it was revised lately, but does it still do the ram frying thing?
 
wait till the july 22 price drops, pick up a Q6600 for $220, and overclock it to 3.4ghz with a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme
 
if you get the cpu for $220, i'll buy you a coke classic :p
 
if ur looking for the bang for the buck thingy and will upgrade in 1.5 years, than go for a 650i SLI. It's almost the same but way cheaper. only difference is little more features that has no or little benefits. i have MSI P6N, and Q6600 stable at 3.0 GHz with stock cooling. temp stays at 39-46 C during hard gaming. idls at 28 c. if u have a air conditioned dorm room that stays at 20-23 C you'll get similar results. I play FEAR w/ 8xAA and 4xAF for 84 (average) FPS at high settings. I have a 8800 GTS 640MB. w/ 3800+ @ 2.4 i got only 71 with no aa and no af.
 
Mr. Headshot said:
wait till the july 22 price drops, pick up a Q6600 for $220, and overclock it to 3.4ghz with a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme
Click to expand...

some people seem to think overclocking just happens.

Not all Quads have eben hitting 3.4ghz FYI and expecially not on Air cooling BTW..

3.2ghz is reasonable but most people are just hitting 3ghz.
 
I'm loving my quad core, especially the multi-tasking. My chip overclocked to 2.8GHz without any problems, but keeping it cool with air can be a bit tricky if you go into that 3GHz+ range.
 
I would love to get a Q6600, but looking at my board specs today it seems that it is not supported on a badaxe 1. :mad: Maybe the engineering sample fairy will drop one my way like my E6700 and P4 3.6 before that then I could spend the dough on a new board.


 
SafeFire said:
I'm not the quickest upgrader, as I have other stuff to spend my cash on too :p So I guess getting a quad is a good idea, won't be upgrading for atleast a year and a half.
Sorry, but I'm not from epic: ( At the moment I'm an up and coming face in the level design community, I don't consider myself fantastic but I'm good enough :) This means that I'm not working on the new engine, but I will be when time comes though
Click to expand...

100% get the Quad-Core CPU. It will perform the same as a dual-core in non-multithreaded apps that don't take advantage of it (they overclock closely enough it doesn't really matter), and for those that do (as well as games soon like Crysis, Half-Life's Source engine, Alan Wake, MMORPG's, Supreme Commander (already does) etc. etc. that will become more prevalent shortly) it will tear the dual-core apart performance-wise. There is no reason with them at the same price with the price-drops a few days away NOT to get the Quad-Core version, even at a slightly lower stock clock speed.
 
GoldenTiger said:
100% get the Quad-Core CPU. It will perform the same as a dual-core in non-multithreaded apps that don't take advantage of it (they overclock closely enough it doesn't really matter), and for those that do (as well as games soon like Crysis, Half-Life's Source engine, Alan Wake, MMORPG's, Supreme Commander (already does) etc. etc. that will become more prevalent shortly) it will tear the dual-core apart performance-wise. There is no reason with them at the same price with the price-drops a few days away NOT to get the Quad-Core version, even at a slightly lower stock clock speed.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree, unless you upgrade frequently, like me.
I will be getting a 6000+ to drop into my current set up. then in the fall make the move to quad.
 
There are 3 threads in this section alone asking the question.

Don't get the quad. Let us buy them all and resell them to you later ;)

I KEED I KEED!
 
S[H]ady;1031249201 said:
I 100% agree, unless you upgrade frequently, like me.
I will be getting a 6000+ to drop into my current set up. then in the fall make the move to quad.
Click to expand...

I upgrade pretty frequently, but not to the point of not looking ahead a few months even when I'm doing my buying :)... I just don't see even as a current buy any reason not to go quad.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I upgrade pretty frequently, but not to the point of not looking ahead a few months even when I'm doing my buying :)... I just don't see even as a current buy any reason not to go quad.
Click to expand...

The only reason not to go quad is if you think the extra ~400mhz from a dual core = earth-shattering firefox load times. :D
 
why not go quad? Because depending on what you use your computer for really.

Gamers will benefit off more Mhz then more cores At this current time.
 
I was using an [email protected] and now I'm running a [email protected]. Honeslty, with few exceptions I can't tell the difference between the two. Unless you are doing something you know will bennefit from four cores, I don't see the point in spending more money on them. If the price is right maybe, but you have extra heat and power consumption to deal with.
 
I would definitely get the quad. Source engine, Unreal 3 engine, Crytek engine, and many others have or will have native quad core support. While you wait for those games to come out you can enjoy super-fast DVD Shrink :)
 
michaLcoughliN said:
why not go quad? Because depending on what you use your computer for really.

Gamers will benefit off more Mhz then more cores At this current time.
Click to expand...

The difference in mhz is so tiny between the two as to be insignificant in most games which are vastly GPU-limited rather than CPU-bound.
 
shiznit said:
I would definitely get the quad. Source engine, Unreal 3 engine, Crytek engine, and many others have or will have native quad core support. While you wait for those games to come out you can enjoy super-fast DVD Shrink :)
Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing some documentation that supports your statement.
All the interviews I've read from Crytek state that the game's most important gain will be from extra memory, dual core was mentioned, if I recall, but never anything about quad core native support.
The Source articles have also stated Valve is working to support multiple core processors, especially dual core, but native quad core has not been mentioned specifically. If you look at Value's data, the majority of players still have single core CPUs and 7xxx family GPUs. I doubt Valve is sweating to produce source code for 4 CPUs when the majority of their customers dont even have dual cores.
 
You cannot be too rich, too thin, or have too much ram or too many cores.

I heard the Q6600 actually packs less of a punch per core, meaning that when just one or two of em are used, it should performs worse than the E6600.
Click to expand...

Utter codswallop, mate.
 
magoo said:
Would you mind sharing some documentation that supports your statement.
All the interviews I've read from Crytek state that the game's most important gain will be from extra memory, dual core was mentioned, if I recall, but never anything about quad core native support.
The Source articles have also stated Valve is working to support multiple core processors, especially dual core, but native quad core has not been mentioned specifically. If you look at Value's data, the majority of players still have single core CPUs and 7xxx family GPUs. I doubt Valve is sweating to produce source code for 4 CPUs when the majority of their customers dont even have dual cores.
Click to expand...


Actually, everything the person you quoted posted about has had threads in the past about the news regarding it. Google for the win... the info should be readily available.
 
At this point, should the question really be whether or not to go quad core?
The number of cores on the chip will always be increasing, that's a fact. It's the only way to increase performance nowadays.

The better question would be WHAT quad core to get?

Has anyone heard anything about the pricing of the Penryn's? I think that should play a large part in your Q6600 decision. I think alot of users here would be pretty bummed if it turns out that Penryn's perform 24% better than Q6600s for a slight price increase.

And also, I wonder what the advantages would be to having native quad cores.
 
magoo said:
Would you mind sharing some documentation that supports your statement.
All the interviews I've read from Crytek state that the game's most important gain will be from extra memory, dual core was mentioned, if I recall, but never anything about quad core native support.
The Source articles have also stated Valve is working to support multiple core processors, especially dual core, but native quad core has not been mentioned specifically. If you look at Value's data, the majority of players still have single core CPUs and 7xxx family GPUs. I doubt Valve is sweating to produce source code for 4 CPUs when the majority of their customers dont even have dual cores.
Click to expand...
As someone already told you, Google is your friend. In case you have trouble using it, here's is what I found in less than 5 minutes.

First I was never refering to native vs 2+2 on-die quadcore, the performance difference will be minimal, and Valve is even on record saying that they are more interested in memory bandwidth than core interconnects.

Second, there are many articles out about the upcomming multi-core update to the Source engine. You are completely wrong about Valve, they invested major dollars into building a hybrid threading system that will be implemented with Episode 2.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/02/Multi_core_in_the_Source_Engin/1
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-multicore/index.x?pg=1

Crytek, Epic, and Remedy(Alan Wake) are also on record talking about quad core.

In the text for AMD's Phenom press release, Tim Sweeney says:
"AMD's new quad-core technology should provide a great performance boost for today's high-end PC games," said Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games Inc. "Our Unreal Engine 3 game technology can take advantage of four and even eight processor cores, improving performance by accelerating physics and AI calculations, and increasing the realism of the game environments our artists can build. Upcoming games like Unreal Tournament 3 will truly fly on these new CPUs." This will work for Intel just as well.

Here is a video of the Crytek CEO boasting about quad core and what it allows them to do in Crysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw

In this video from an Intel conference, Remedy CEO demonstrates Alan Wake running on overclocked Intel Quad core, and he goes on to show their weather system where they dedicate an entire core for physics to dynamically simulate a tornado and all the damage it causes. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro
 
CoW]8(0);1031254330 said:
At this point, should the question really be whether or not to go quad core?
The number of cores on the chip will always be increasing, that's a fact. It's the only way to increase performance nowadays.

The better question would be WHAT quad core to get?

Has anyone heard anything about the pricing of the Penryn's? I think that should play a large part in your Q6600 decision. I think alot of users here would be pretty bummed if it turns out that Penryn's perform 24% better than Q6600s for a slight price increase.

And also, I wonder what the advantages would be to having native quad cores.
Click to expand...

Yorkfield wont be out till Q4 at the earliest iirc and of corse it won't be cheap. Intel will probably release the extreme edition first at $999 with others coming later.
 
shiznit said:
As someone already told you, Google is your friend. In case you have trouble using it, here's is what I found in less than 5 minutes.

First I was never refering to native vs 2+2 on-die quadcore, the performance difference will be minimal, and Valve is even on record saying that they are more interested in memory bandwidth than core interconnects.

Second, there are many articles out about the upcomming multi-core update to the Source engine. You are completely wrong about Valve, they invested major dollars into building a hybrid threading system that will be implemented with Episode 2.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/02/Multi_core_in_the_Source_Engin/1
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-multicore/index.x?pg=1

Crytek, Epic, and Remedy(Alan Wake) are also on record talking about quad core.

In the text for AMD's Phenom press release, Tim Sweeney says:
"AMD's new quad-core technology should provide a great performance boost for today's high-end PC games," said Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games Inc. "Our Unreal Engine 3 game technology can take advantage of four and even eight processor cores, improving performance by accelerating physics and AI calculations, and increasing the realism of the game environments our artists can build. Upcoming games like Unreal Tournament 3 will truly fly on these new CPUs." This will work for Intel just as well.

Here is a video of the Crytek CEO boasting about quad core and what it allows them to do in Crysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw

In this video from an Intel conference, Remedy CEO demonstrates Alan Wake running on overclocked Intel Quad core, and he goes on to show their weather system where they dedicate an entire core for physics to dynamically simulate a tornado and all the damage it causes. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, but I think you better read them first. Value's articles in both references does speak of "multi-cores" but benches dual cores only.
Crytek and Epic speak of advantages of Quad cores.
I'm not arguing with anyone, but all I see one a day to day basis is people slobbering over the lower cost of Quads, and speculating that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread; when current data over their utility is suspect at best. My search for benchmark data seems to indicate that in current gaming there is little or nothing to be gained over dual core(except in Supreme Commander,I guess).
I know how to Google, and use it everyday. I just want to see if people are spouting off the top of their heads, quoting speculation,or have hard data. It looks to me like this is so far speculation and "early result" from prototypes of games not yet released.
I'm just not so sure I'd run to the store for a Quad CPU if I already had a good overclocked dual core. Why do you think Intel is dropping the price???? because they have a boat-load of new stuff ready to be released.
 
magoo said:
Thanks for the links, but I think you better read them first. Value's articles in both references does speak of "multi-cores" but benches dual cores only.
Crytek and Epic speak of advantages of Quad cores.
I'm not arguing with anyone, but all I see one a day to day basis is people slobbering over the lower cost of Quads, and speculating that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread; when current data over their utility is suspect at best. My search for benchmark data seems to indicate that in current gaming there is little or nothing to be gained over dual core(except in Supreme Commander,I guess).
I know how to Google, and use it everyday. I just want to see if people are spouting off the top of their heads, quoting speculation,or have hard data. It looks to me like this is so far speculation and "early result" from prototypes of games not yet released.
I'm just not so sure I'd run to the store for a Quad CPU if I already had a good overclocked dual core. Why do you think Intel is dropping the price???? because they have a boat-load of new stuff ready to be released.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-multicore/index.x?pg=2

Page within article linked showing quad-core benches.

There is no reason I can even fathom not to go quad with them at the same price... it's not a question they are soon going to be better in games by far, it's a question of how many months. The arguments being presented are the exact same ones from when dual cores were becoming popular... many including myself argued back then that they were great and would become very useful shortly. Not so long later, they did ;).
 
GoldenTiger said:
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-multicore/index.x?pg=2

Page within article linked showing quad-core benches.

There is no reason I can even fathom not to go quad with them at the same price... it's not a question they are soon going to be better in games by far, it's a question of how many months. The arguments being presented are the exact same ones from when dual cores were becoming popular... many including myself argued back then that they were great and would become very useful shortly. Not so long later, they did ;).
Click to expand...

I misread that part, I thought it was just dual core extremes......my fault.
I still am reluctant to jump in, mainly because I think by the time a 4 core is the "norm", there will be faster and more energy friendly choices.

I'm anxious to see Crysis and HL2EP2 released.....if there is an advantage I'll be the first to eat my words.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top