• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is quad any faster?

N

Nick_Leo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
1,631
from what ive been reading the q6600 is just 2 e6600 put on one dye. So doesnt that make it the same speed as the e6600 so why not go with the e6850 since it will be faster. i was looking at cpu charts and the e6600 was getting the same as e6600 except for multitasking witch was like 5 secs better. so if its not any faster unless heavy multitasking whats the point of a q6600?
 
that is the point of a quad core. If you can tax the system then it is worth it. If you can NOT tax the system then why do you need 4 cores?

The same happened when dual cores came out. The single core systems were much faster than the dual cores for a bit. Now they don't make them high end any more..
 
Newer games will make use of all 4 cores.

Look at supreme commander, for example. Wait for Crysis, UT2k7 and Alan wake... They'll be using this too.
 
Intel's initial quad cores will be/are junk just like the Pentium D is/was. Sticking 2 seperate dies on one CPU is a bad thing.... not enough bandwidth to efficiently handle a "native" quad core (all 4 cores on one die).

Wait till all 4 cores are on one die... you will be much happier with it.
 
cyclone3d said:
Intel's initial quad cores will be/are junk just like the Pentium D is/was. Sticking 2 seperate dies on one CPU is a bad thing.... not enough bandwidth to efficiently handle a "native" quad core (all 4 cores on one die).

Wait till all 4 cores are on one die... you will be much happier with it.
Click to expand...
Sticking four cores on one die doesn't magically improve bandwidth. An integrated, four-core version of the Core2 Duo wouldn't have any more bandwidth than the existing, integrated dual-core version.

Now, Intel's next-generation "native" quad core chip will have superior bandwidth, but that is only thanks to its integrated memory controller and serial interconnect (CSI), which replaces the existing FSB. Those processors are still ~18 months away, however.
 
michaLcoughliN said:
that or E6550's.. they are hitting HUGE overclocks on low Vcore. (g0 stepping)

Ive so far seen 3.8ghz @ 1.35vcore. on a E6550.
Click to expand...

If that's true..then I might just pick one up myself ;)
I, myself, don't see the point in quad cores. If you're a gamer, you don't need it. As someone stated above me, games in the future might actually need quad cores, but we are nowhere near that. Pick up a core2duo (E6550/E6850 IMO)
 
E6850 @ 4.ghz ON AIR
R-E6850-4G-SP-7.JPG
 
KenF said:
Sticking four cores on one die doesn't magically improve bandwidth. An integrated, four-core version of the Core2 Duo wouldn't have any more bandwidth than the existing, integrated dual-core version.

Now, Intel's next-generation "native" quad core chip will have superior bandwidth, but that is only thanks to its integrated memory controller and serial interconnect (CSI), which replaces the existing FSB. Those processors are still ~18 months away, however.
Click to expand...

you are ignoring the FSB bandwidth needed for inter-core communication, which is detracted from the FSB bandwidth available.

in the whole amd x2 Vs pentium D thing, one major feature of the amd was that AMD inserted a crossbar switch between the cores and the memory controller, which effectively allowed both cores to communicate with each other without going off the die. Intel on the other hand, simply glued two single core together, and in order for core A to talk to core B, it would have to use the FSB and northbridge (also adding huge latency). Then with core 2 duo, intel went even one step tighter then AMDs X2, and used the L2 cache for inter core operation, also elliminating a lot of cash-synchronizing traffic between cores.

Kentsfield effectively reintroduces the whole FSB thing when a core on die 1 wants to talk to a core on die 2.

Im not saying that kentsfield is as much of a bodge-job as the original Pentium Ds, since it has a lot of memory/cache improvements, but it isnt exactly optimal. In terms of inter core communication, AMDs barcelona looks better then kentsfield, but the optimum would be a core 2 quad with four cores on a single die with ONE very big shared L2 cache (AMD has seperate L1 and L2 and a shared L3 for all cores)
 
well i was thinking about it and reading and u say in the future games are goin to use quad, probally by the time that comes around where u need it to run good the q6600 will be like a pos and u can prob get way better ones cheap,am i right in a way?
 
cyclone3d said:
Intel's initial quad cores will be/are junk just like the Pentium D is/was. Sticking 2 seperate dies on one CPU is a bad thing.... not enough bandwidth to efficiently handle a "native" quad core (all 4 cores on one die).

Wait till all 4 cores are on one die... you will be much happier with it.
Click to expand...

LOL this is proof that post count doesn't translate to squat on forums..... :rolleyes:
 
If I were buying a CPU right now, I would buy the Quad-Core since my audio/video converters are multithreaded and 4 cores will literally convert twice as fast as two cores.

But that's just me, since I game very little and do a lot of multimedia work.

DrFreeze said:
Im not saying that kentsfield is as much of a bodge-job as the original Pentium Ds, since it has a lot of memory/cache improvements, but it isnt exactly optimal. In terms of inter core communication
Click to expand...

Well of course it isn't optimal...but it sure is a lot better than what the competition is offering. :p

DrFreeze said:
AMDs barcelona looks better then kentsfield, but the optimum would be a core 2 quad with four cores on a single die with ONE very big shared L2 cache (AMD has seperate L1 and L2 and a shared L3 for all cores)
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. Nevermind the fact that Barcelona versus Conroe is like trying to compare an 8800GTX and an X800Pro. Why do people always forget that Barcelona will be competing with Intel's native quad-core CPU that is also sporting 6MB of L2 cache, SSE4, and the new Hi-K technology. For right now todady, Kentsfield is the only way to go for quad. If you feel like waiting, then by all means hold out until the Barcelona and Nehalm numbers are in.
 
InorganicMatter said:
If I were buying a CPU right now, I would buy the Quad-Core since my audio/video converters are multithreaded and 4 cores will literally convert twice as fast as two cores.

But that's just me, since I game very little and do a lot of multimedia work.



Well of course it isn't optimal...but it sure is a lot better than what the competition is offering. :p



Yeah, no kidding. Nevermind the fact that Barcelona versus Conroe is like trying to compare an 8800GTX and an X800Pro. Why do people always forget that Barcelona will be competing with Intel's native quad-core CPU that is also sporting 6MB of L2 cache, SSE4, and the new Hi-K technology. For right now todady, Kentsfield is the only way to go for quad. If you feel like waiting, then by all means hold out until the Barcelona and Wolfdale numbers are in.
Click to expand...

Agena vs Yorkfield isn't going to be a match you will see for a while, and Agena will be initially competing against Kentsfield, but not for too long, Intel's first native Quad Core will be Nehalem, but that is H2 2008, but that doesn't mean they won't be able to compete look at Conroe it doesn't have AMD's precious IMC and it still comfortably beats AMD's native Dual Cores.
 
Admititaly I am pretty impressed with the Q6600 so far. It has torn thro the OS, app and game reinstall, cant wait to get to actually use to see what it can do. But when the Phenoms come out, it is going to be sent to my HTPC/server, saving my nickels pennies and dimes to get a 4x4 system.
 
cyclone3d said:
Intel's initial quad cores will be/are junk just like the Pentium D is/was. Sticking 2 seperate dies on one CPU is a bad thing.... not enough bandwidth to efficiently handle a "native" quad core (all 4 cores on one die).

Wait till all 4 cores are on one die... you will be much happier with it.
Click to expand...


Thats BS,and anyone who hasnt been swallowed whole by AMDati's foolish marketing knows it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top