for people worried if the e6850 is faster than the q6600.

J

JVC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
1,280
you guys should know that a q6600 quad processor is better than the faster clocked e6850 overall performance.

anybody agree?
 
that just depends on the application you are running and whether or not it makes use of the extra cores.
 
It depends on what you are doing with your computer.I do a lot of encoding,weekly and know it'll help.Plus some of the games i plan on buying soon,support it. :D
 
some people are actually retarded ...

if your going to make a statement bring some proof please. because another forum like this, we might as well say. Jesus was a fish
 
I just wasted 2 minutes reading this, who shall I charge this too??
 
DrFreeze said:
UT3 and Crysis both support quad core

there is also supcom, and i just read on the forum there supposedly is a 3rd party patch for supcom which makes it use quads a lot better
Click to expand...

Same here, not to mention Bioshock. Quads are definitely a far superior setup, and at the same price, there is no reason not to get them.
 
"a far superior setup" is a subjective statement. You should really say "I feel/think/believe the quad core is a far superior setup".
 
JVC said:
you guys should know that a q6600 quad processor is better than the faster clocked e6850 overall performance.

anybody agree?
Click to expand...

Disagree...Completely dependent on the application.

And it seems like someone needs a hug.

These self satisfaction threads are getting annoying.
 
you guys should know that starting a thread like this is a bannable offense.

anybody agree?
 
Yeah really, now that the Quad has dropped almost 50%, I do see very little reason to get a 6850.

How much overclocking room does one have on a Dual core 1333FSB/3.0Ghz to start with? For people with 965/975 chipsets, almost none (officially the 965 does not even support 1333 to start with) There is a little bit of room with a P35.

Even with the Q6600 Quad 1066FSB/2.4Ghz at stock, the added 2x4MB cache (8MB total) does really help it compared to the singular 4MB cache of the 6850. Even with the regular UT2004, the Q6600 at stock beats the 6850 at stock. There are a few games where its about even, and a few where the 6850 has the lead. In general applications or benchmarking the Q6600 seems to dominate (Photoshop, encoding, etc, all have moved to multicore much quicker than games have)

*IF* you wait for an X38 chipset (with hopefully 1600Mhz FSB support) then the 6850 might be a better option IMO - if you plan on selling off the system before Quad games start to show up, or Quad patches for existing games start to show up.

Wouldn't everyone with a Duo feel silly if tomorrow World of Warcraft (or any game) made some code optimizations to the game to make it more multithreaded, and all of a sudden the Quad was nearly twice as fast.
 
Since when is debating over which processor is faster (at the moment) a bannable offense?

Sure, it would have been nice if the guy actually started a thread that added something constructive, but hey we can't all be Rick James, hehe.
 
ZenOps said:
Since when is debating over which processor is faster (at the moment) a bannable offense?

Sure, it would have been nice if the guy actually started a thread that added something constructive, but hey we can't all be Rick James, hehe.
Click to expand...

It's as truthful and logical as the OP's post.
 
The one thing I'm looking forward to is the software physics processor.

I mean really, it would be pretty easy to software emulate a hardware physics processor and dedicate it into one of the cores. It would probably be able to calculate at least a few thousand particle movements and collisions in real time.

Since many particle movements are usually "for visual effect only" they need not be sychronized with the actual gameplay, and can run independant of the other cores (and hence run at near maximum speed)

Same thing goes for a dedicated network packet offloader, there is no need to "reduce CPU usage" with a hardware accelerated NIC, when you can dedicate a whole core to it. Its actually a waste of a core, but if you bundle say NIC functions, MIDI music and maybe even the mouse buffer to one core, it will definitely run smoother than a single core app.
 
ZenOps said:
Since when is debating over which processor is faster (at the moment) a bannable offense?
Click to expand...

Since monkeys flew out of parja's butt and took over the earth, proclaiming opposing viewpoints punishable by being banana'd to death in the forum. It's happened to me on more than one occasion, though I can't imagine why. Ohhhh, you said bannable! My bad, parja. Damn glasses! There goes my theory. :(

ZenOps said:
... Sure, it would have been nice if the guy actually started a thread that added something constructive, but hey we can't all be Rick James, hehe.
Click to expand...

"It's a very kinky thread...
The kind you don't PM to Kyle...
It's a super freak! Super freak!
...It's super freaky!"
 
dumb thread, OP

no proof

and its depends on the application
the e6850 will be much faster during games for now..
the q6600 will only take the lead in multi-threaded apps
 
Well, it seems he was just trying to start a conversation, and it is a timely topic. I know that I, just today, ordered my Q6600 so I'm interested in what people have to say from their own usage perspective. There was a similar thread previously, but it pre-dated the release of the 1333fsb procs and the quad-core's price drop. I vote for cutting the guy some slack.
 
Pepsiennis said:
Since monkeys flew out of parja's butt and took over the earth, proclaiming opposing viewpoints punishable by being banana'd to death in the forum. It's happened to me on more than one occasion, though I can't imagine why. Ohhhh, you said bannable! My bad, parja. Damn glasses! There goes my theory. :(



"It's a very kinky thread...
The kind you don't PM to Kyle...
It's a super freak! Super freak!
...It's super freaky!"
Click to expand...

My butt monkeys and I greatly approve of this post.
 
RoBo said:
I find that post rather offensive to butt monkeys. :(
Click to expand...

As do they! Why, just the other week I heard butt monkey Brownstain observe to butt monkey Cornchunks that he (Brownstain) had OC'd his Q6600 G0 stepping to 4 GHz, whereupon butt monkey Cornchunks commented:

"Phft... yeah, right! When Pepsiennis's fly out of my butt!" :eek: ;)
 
These forums are too Lenient towards stupid threads. pointless threads. threads that are techincally posts of the same shit and shabang.
 
swanysto said:
"a far superior setup" is a subjective statement. You should really say "I feel/think/believe the quad core is a far superior setup".
Click to expand...

4 cores > 2 cores, there is no subjectivity to that. The same silliness was said about dual-cores being "inferior" to single-cores initially, too. Same stuff happening all over again... silly people ;).
 
michaLcoughliN said:
These forums are too Lenient towards stupid threads. pointless threads. threads that are techincally posts of the same shit and shabang.
Click to expand...

Feel free to report it. Sometimes you just need to forget about them or try to bring them close to a computer realated topic.
 
The op was trying to spark a big argument in the thread to figure out what he should buy (or justify what he already bought). Not much confidence in making the decision himself I suppose.

So I'll help him out.

JVC, whatever you plan to buy or already have will be outclassed by the Penryns (and will be less than what you paid for too). And in all likelihood, the very same Penryn would be supported by your motherboard. :p

Go do your own research or ask the question yourself. Don't try to bleed it out of arguments and trolling.
 
CoW]8(0);1031343046 said:
The op was trying to spark a big argument in the thread.
Click to expand...

Luckly it didn't happen, kinda backfired if anything.
 
What is the best and most stable overclocked speed you could get out of these two ?
 
adobian said:
What is the best and most stable overclocked speed you could get out of these two ?
Click to expand...

Typical G0 Q6600 OC speed is 3.5-3.6ghz, while the E6850 usually is hitting 3.7-3.8 it appears from the forums. A minute difference of about 4% clock speed, for DOUBLE the cores for use in just about anything already, and games widespread very shortly, at the SAME price? YES PLEASE!
 
Q6600 is better than E6850. E6850 is barely better than Q6600 in gaming and other applications that doesn't need mulitasking. But Q6600 destroyed E6850 in 2D/3D applications/games that take advantage of the multicore.

Q6600 kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
 
Where are you getting your info from?
why dont you support what you are saying.

I mean. You goto court without evidence your truly going to lose.

By all means yes. Quad is great bla bla bla. But depends. It really isnt going to take advantage of many Appz / games.

Next year you will se cores showing a beneficial factor into computing.

But by that time Octo cores will be around. 12mb cache , bla bloa etc etc etc.. we all know.

Yes this thread should be closed mostly because its another useless thread. We have only had about 10-20 of them in the past month. How about... we talk about something with FACTS to support our statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top