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.
Lol, not quite, but yes, 3 cores is about the 'sweet spot' for the newer games out.
In saying that though, an E8400 @ 4GHz is still a very fast CPU for all but the most multi-threaded titles.
If anyone ever considers and upgrade from a dual core to another dual core, there is something wrong there. I guess me saying duals are only for internet is a bit harsh, but can anyone honestly recommend a dual core for gaming now? I couldn't do it if someone was building a new rig or upgrading and old dual core. A year ago it was debatable, now not so much. If not for gaming or professional multi threaded apps, then what else would you use the computer for.. it boils down to internet browsing and maybe media center use? That is where I see the dual cores at atm. Intel seems to agree with me on this as I see internal GPU's in most their new dual core line ups.
I think the main qualifier is that buying a dual new for gaming doesn't make sense. That's certainly not saying its not still a capable chip, I have an E8400 and it sort of kicked my P2 920's ass before I got the 920 to 3.5GHz. If you're building a new rig, a x4 Phenom II or an i5 is simply a way better deal; there's lots of cheap fast quads, and besides, you don't wanna buy a soon-to-be-dead socket like 775. If you're upgrading your existing 775 system, again you can get a decent C2Q if you really wanna go that route, so buying a dualcore doesn't make much sense.
That said, if someone's rocking an old, say, E5200 and can get an E8400 for really cheap, nothing wrong with that. And duals DO have their places, HTPC's, home servers, cheap workstations, a dual would make sense in all of these.
Actually a good Q6600 is still a good CPU (if overclocked) even now. I upgraded to a Q9550 that runs at 4.0 and in daily usage I can't really tell a difference between that and the Q6600 I had at 3.6. A decently overclocked Q6600 should still be good for another year or 2.
Agreed, although the same can't be said for an e8xxx dual core. It really shocks me that some people still argue dual core versus quads on here.
Agreed, although the same can't be said for an e8xxx dual core. It really shocks me that some people still argue dual core versus quads on here.
It shocks me that people argue that extra cores are always better than more mhz and cache. Battlefield bc2 and metro 2033 aren't the only games out there, and not everyone plays them.
S[H]ady;1036339303 said:It shocked me that poeple were making that argument 2 - 3 years ago. I was always on the quad core side of the argument, and as far as I'm concerned, I won.
My Q6600 is still going strong, and I don't have even the slightest motivation to upgrade. It's simply not worth it right now.
Totally agree with this. There were probably 200 threads on [H] of people asking "Should I get a Q6600 or a E8400". I was on the quad side as well after having used both chips. I felt the Q6600 was just better at getting more shit done, and that heavily CPU dependent games would have more threads instead of needing more clock speed. People supporting the E8400 was better would usually say that by the time the E8400 was slow, the Q6000 would be crap too. Most everyone I know with an E8x00 dual core ran into a road block in GTAIV, BC2, or a few other heavily threaded games. Everyone I know personally that bought a Q6600 is still happily using it.
I'm curious to know what games people are playing that really benefit that much from quad cores. I only know of GTAIV (because of its built-in emulator), and BFBC2.
I keep hearing Metro 2033 benefits from quad cores, but so far all the reviews I've read benchmarking between 2 and 4 cores shows less than 2% difference in FPS. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong benchmarks?
If I were to build a brand new system, I would buy a quad core without question. Dropping $200 on a Q9550 (or $100 after selling your e8400) on an old platform is pointless.
It shocks me that people argue that extra cores are always better than more mhz and cache. Battlefield bc2 and metro 2033 aren't the only games out there, and not everyone plays them.
Here's what people who say what you just said have failed to understand for the last 2-3 years.
There will be games and apps in general that will run better on say a 4GHZ e8400 than a 3.2GHz Q6600, however, those games and apps will still run very well on the Q6600.
Now, lets shift the focus on games like BC2 where the dual cores in general aren't even in the same league.
Why go with something that does a few things really well but significantly worse at others when you can have one that performs well in everything and great in everything else? And that's why it doesn't make sence for a new comptuer to be paired with a dual core if you're going to use it for anything demanding
I'm curious to know what games people are playing that really benefit that much from quad cores. I only know of GTAIV (because of its built-in emulator), and BFBC2.
I keep hearing Metro 2033 benefits from quad cores, but so far all the reviews I've read benchmarking between 2 and 4 cores shows less than 2% difference in FPS. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong benchmarks?
If I were to build a brand new system, I would buy a quad core without question. Dropping $200 on a Q9550 (or $100 after selling your e8400) on an old platform is pointless.
5. My q9550 @ 3.6ghz doesn't feel any faster in windows than my e2180 @ 3.1ghz, however it's much better for zbrush and rendering.
i guess ill save up and go the AMD route...
Hijacking the thread is exactly what you're doing. Your question is unrelated to the topic and you should start a new thread for it.Not to hijack the thread
Dear all,
would you get a Q6600 for $100 to replace an e8400?
will there be a performance difference as of today between these 2 or is it not really worth it to "waste" that $100 ?
thanks.
just looking for a "yes, worth it" or "no, not worth it" ... not really looking into going for a rapgame..
For video encoding I would go 6 core, I believe the Thuban's still support DDR2 in an AM2+ board (someone correct me here) so you could keep your ram and just buy a new chip and board.
I'd say go for it. I have my Q6000 running at 3.8ghz @ 1.48v. It's a decent upgrade.[/QUOTE said:ya, sell the 8400 and get the Q6600, OC it and save and wait for next upgrade. All you guys getting 3.6GHz+ are giving me CPU envy. Mines been going @ 3.2 for over 3 years 24/7/365 and folding full time too. But now I want MORE !!
/paces back and forth like a caged ape ...
ya, sell the 8400 and get the Q6600, OC it and save and wait for next upgrade. All you guys getting 3.6GHz+ are giving me CPU envy. Mines been going @ 3.2 for over 3 years 24/7/365 and folding full time too. But now I want MORE !!
/paces back and forth like a caged ape ...
You should easily be able to hit at least 3.4 with that setup in your sig. 3.6 should be pretty easy too.
I'm curious to know what games people are playing that really benefit that much from quad cores. I only know of GTAIV (because of its built-in emulator), and BFBC2.
Read this review:
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html
Shows which games really benefit from a quad-core and which don't.
There you go mass effect and bc2. Throw in the fact that the e8400 has more cache and mhz and you would probably see it win in more games than the q6600. If you have other reasons other than gaming then go with a quad but otherwise keep what you got and wait for sandy bridge or bulldozer.
Again this is coming from someone with a quad core.
Looking at the results it obviously comes down to which games you are playing, and plan to play, that will dictate how many cores you are going to need. As a rule of thumb we suggest all gamers look at making the transition to a quad-core processor, as we found more than half the games we tested with saw significant gains when going from two to four cores.
The biggest issue we found when playing games that could properly utilize four cores was that a considerable amount of performance was lost when using a dual-core processor. Take the Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad debate for a moment.
When comparing equally clocked processors the Core 2 Duo was on average 19% slower when testing with Battlefield Bad Company 2, Far Cry 2, Supreme Commander 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Mass Effect 2 and World in Conflict. Furthermore, the minimum frame rate was 23% lower, which is a massive difference for the processor to make and will certainly be noticed in-game.
Are you just intentionally trying to misinform? From the conclusion of that linked article:
Looks like more than BFBC2 and Mass effect to me, in fact they saw advantages with a full half the games they tested.
And what about the games that come out next month, or six months from now? They are almost certainly going to be on the 'more multithreading' side.
I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, in fact I think it's been established that buying pc hardware for the future is never a good idea.
Those were the only 2 games that made a significant difference, and they are disabling cores not showing another chip with more cache and mhz (if you're ocing 8400's can clock higher, so no point bringing that up). Why is this so hard to understand?