CPU scaling with a 4870X2

this is the same when dual core came out...was the same when amd came with amd 64..

in like 2 years, they'll be like "oh no,there's no need to get an Octa Core because Quad Core is enough"

the fact is..that Quad core is better than Dual Core.. if you can afford the Top of the Line Quad Core vs Top of the Line Dual Core , Quad Core will win for sure...

now, if you compare E8400 to Q6600..at stock, the E8400 might beat it in some fps...
But what about the E8400 vs the Q9650 ?

Then OC both to 4 Ghz .. i doubt that the E8400 will still have the lead...

as some have said .. Dual Core is fast enough, I mean, the only game I play is CounterStrike Source..the rest I do is just day to day stuff on a pc..so the E7200 would be more than enough for me... but face it...Top Quad vs Top Dual , winner = Top Quad.

Period.
 
Okay, I was a bit harsh. But it gets tiring dealing with people who refuse to even read what was actually posted and rather invent their own arguments that bear no resemblance to the "discussion" at hand.
 
Anyway, my point was that this isn't a discussion r.e. dual core vs quad core so much as stating that a good dual core processor is not a limiting factor in gaming at this time, and that if people could be bothered to actually do even the slightest amount of research they'd find that higher end dual cores such as the e8400 can outperform similarly priced or somewhat more expensive quad cores. Instead people simply read bits and pieces and make false assumptions.

vict0r said:
now, if you compare E8400 to Q6600..at stock, the E8400 might beat it in some fps...
But what about the E8400 vs the Q9650 ?

Then OC both to 4 Ghz .. i doubt that the E8400 will still have the lead...
Click to expand...

It's just completely ridiculous to compare a $175 processor to a $550 processor - would you make a comparison between a honda civic and an acura NSX? Of course not. However despite being 3 times more expensive, the Q9650 is only marginally faster in most application. This will improve somewhat with software designed for quad cores, but it does not scale even close to linearly.

vict0r said:
as some have said .. Dual Core is fast enough, I mean, the only game I play is CounterStrike Source..the rest I do is just day to day stuff on a pc..so the E7200 would be more than enough for me...
Click to expand...

Exactly the point.

vict0r said:
but face it...Top Quad vs Top Dual , winner = Top Quad.

Period.
Click to expand...

Since you seem keen on comparing extreme differences, then how about comparing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner to the q9650. It wins everytime. Supercomputer vs Quad Core, winner = supercomputer.

Period.

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?

(still scathing, but more civil n'est pas?)
 
ok.. so what you are comparing is $ vs $

I was comparing 3Ghz Dual vs 3 Ghz Quad , not an OC'd quad to 3Ghz but a STOCK 3ghz quad which is Q9650 vs E8400 ..

I am not looking at $ here
 
vict0r said:
ok.. so what you are comparing is $ vs $

I was comparing 3Ghz Dual vs 3 Ghz Quad , not an OC'd quad to 3Ghz but a STOCK 3ghz quad which is Q9650 vs E8400 ..

I am not looking at $ here
Click to expand...

I wasn;t the one to bring up $, but it an important to consider as it is a deciding factor for most consumers. However the difference isn't just a price point, but comparing a more advanced processor with two additional cores and twice the L2 cache (12 mb vs 6 mb). Despite this, pound for pound thus far the difference between these processors is less than impressive, and certainly wouldn't justify the need for a processor more advanced than the e8400 to run the 4870x2. Will it eventually be able to show it's potential? Of course. Does this make a difference for most people, especially right now? No. Until the next generation of processors comes out, I doubt we'll see any substantial differences in performance between dual cores and quad cores for the most part.
 
vict0r said:
Then OC both to 4 Ghz .. i doubt that the E8400 will still have the lead...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I would like to see too. So why did the test stop at 400x9=3.60GHz?
Can't the quads go higher than this? Or perhaps they will be too hot above 3.60Ghz.
I believe, that if they would have continued the test above 3.60GHz then the dual cores could seriously kick the quad's a$$. Especially if they had included also the faster dual cores E8500 and E8600 which can easily overclock above 4GHz.
 
I went dual core this round simply because I took the approach that I'll go quad when I actual notice my e8500 is a significant limiting factor. Hell its not like the proc is soldered into the socket either. I can drop in a 45nm quad when the first wave of i7 adopters drop their C2Q chips. Last time i tried "the future proof strategy" on my 939 rig by buying a 4800+ dual core. And the majority of its life it spent not running multicore games. And now I'm on intel hardware.

I think if you don't want to plow thru tons of cash you got to realize you are probably going to to ditch your parts in less than 2 years tops and as a result shoot for the mid range when buying. Besides looking at that article CoH was like the only real outlier with the 4870x2. And ouch I only get to game at 80+ frames. I'm so hurt. :rolleyes:
 
I just know that when I OC my 9450 to 3.6 (which is easily done on air with any aftermarket HSF) my min FPS goes higher.

I am running a crossfire 4870 with vista x64, I killed my OC's after my benchmarks were done especialy after seeing that my normal set up easily maxes games at my resolution of 1920x1080 on any game I play! my min settings on current games which include wow and beta warhammer is 4xAA and 16xAF, as long as I can keept hose an max settings with out OC I don't mind

Also keep in mind I had over 2 Terabytes of data that I also transfered (mostly movies) into MPEG4, the quad core really helped me out with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top