• 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.

Quad or not to Quad?

S

SHRED

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
129
---

I am considering this CPU:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819115017

What are the advantages of the"Quad" over the standard Core 2 Duo like this one?

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115029

The FSB is faster on the "Duo". I notice that the Caches on the Quad are doubled over the Duo.
How does this translate to real-time use?

Thanks
 
The Quad has twice as many cores. If you are using PhotoShop or anything simular then you will notice a huge benifit with a quad.
 
RoBo said:
The Quad has twice as many cores. If you are using PhotoShop or anything simular then you will notice a huge benifit with a quad.
Click to expand...

Will I notice a difference in working with music file editing and gaming?

--
 
Maybe a little with music stuff but zero in gaming. There are very few applications that are muti-threaded at this time.
 
GreenGoose said:
Maybe a little with music stuff but zero in gaming. There are very few applications that are muti-threaded at this time.
Click to expand...

eh? maybe last year this time that would have been a good answer, but not now.
 
I just pulled the trigger on a Q6600 GO stepping from Clubit, will be here tuesday.
I am currently running an E6750. I decided that the price was finally low enough, got it for 277 shipped. I have a few games and software that will take advantage of it. Mainly I just get tired of upgrading my CPU several times a year so I'm hoping this will last me awhile ... lol. :D

I have built a number of machines with this CPU and just overall with it compared to a single core or dual core they have felt a lot faster overall in just day to day windows stuff. By that I mean when you click an icon theres always just an ever so slight hesitation, with the quad theres no hesitation at all. :p Programs open faster, especially Office 07, what a difference it makes. Anyway you cant go wrong with either of those CPUs. :eek:
 
Kangg said:
I just pulled the trigger on a Q6600 GO stepping from Clubit, will be here tuesday.
I am currently running an E6750. I decided that the price was finally low enough, got it for 277 shipped. I have a few games and software that will take advantage of it. Mainly I just get tired of upgrading my CPU several times a year so I'm hoping this will last me awhile ... lol. :D

I have built a number of machines with this CPU and just overall with it compared to a single core or dual core they have felt a lot faster overall in just day to day windows stuff. By that I mean when you click an icon theres always just an ever so slight hesitation, with the quad theres no hesitation at all. :p Programs open faster, especially Office 07, what a difference it makes. Anyway you cant go wrong with either of those CPUs. :eek:
Click to expand...

Upgrade to 4GB and you'll be all set. ;)

I just upgraded from a Opty 165 to a Q6600 w/ 4GB ddr2-1000. Big difference in running applications.
 
If you upgrade often, then get the dual, if you keep your system for a few years, then get the quad.
 
yeh, but is there any problem with the quad core being effectively 4 processors? my friend keeps saying that i'll need a 4 processor licence for xp...
 
soundguy said:
yeh, but is there any problem with the quad core being effectively 4 processors? my friend keeps saying that i'll need a 4 processor licence for xp...
Click to expand...

Your friend is wrong. The license is by socket, not processor. Get the quad, Shred
 
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
 
Why are people getting 4gigs of ram? I see that all the reviewers have 4 gigs now and yes it's become cheap. Does gaming or photoshop require it now?

//tone = curious, not criticizing
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

rofl take the bet on, you win $100.
 
jcll2002 said:
Why are people getting 4gigs of ram? I see that all the reviewers have 4 gigs now and yes it's become cheap. Does gaming or photoshop require it now?

//tone = curious, not criticizing
Click to expand...

I think people run 4GB because it is so effing cheap. I just upgraded my comp and 4GB literally cost me $110 shipped.
 
yeh, i prolly will take on the bet... he's just spent like $500 on an iphone, and that has taken him most of the year to get, so that would be very funny...

4GB of ram is cheap yes, but (as in my sig) i have xp and vista in dual boot, and gaming under XP is very very different to gaming under vista, so i am guessing that the more memory you have will effect how well performance goes.

especially things like GRAW at 1024x768 is fine (well, just) under XP but is god awful under vista (this is in my rig, which at the mo is crap...) so i would guess that more ram would help with performance...
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Where my $100?
 
i will take that bet as well, tell your friend to come sign up on here , also ask him,how many quad core rigs does he own, or has installed an OS on.
 
Look at it this way. XP Pro can only handle 1-2 processors. A quad core according to your friends philosophy is 4 processors. XP can NOT handle 4 processors. So yeah he is way wrong.

Also, look at the terminology: "A dual core processor (single processor)", not "a dual core processors". Sorry I don't mean to be so basic.
 
anthongy817 said:
Upgrade to 4GB and you'll be all set. ;)

I just upgraded from a Opty 165 to a Q6600 w/ 4GB ddr2-1000. Big difference in running applications.
Click to expand...



Why not wait until Phenom arrives,is reviewed,and on sale ? It'll be days before all of this is done. :)
 
Manny Calavera said:
Why not wait until Phenom arrives,is reviewed,and on sale ? It'll be days before all of this is done. :)
Click to expand...

Well I purchased it about a month ago for my HTPC, but decided to swap the Q6600 into my gaming rig. As for the Phenom, I am not aware of the MSRP price, but I would assume it will be quite expensive.
 
i have told him to sign up, but i definately won;t be doing this untill at least Jan/Feb anyway, so i will definately be going for one of the 45nm cpu's anyway...
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO

God, I wish someone had bet me that when I got my quad.

He's wrong on both accounts.
 
tell ya what, I'm getting a quad core and installing XP home on it

Send me $100 if it sees all 4 cores ;-)
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

yeah ...me thinks your chum is in dire error :)

I went quad and even at default 2.4GHZ it "seemed" smoother than my e6600 @ 3.4GHZ .. I run F@H 24/7 and on the e6600 , CS:S would get choppy sometimes (Source games are basically all I play on my PC anymore) ..so I would have to disable F@H ..

now I just have whatever running and don't have to disable anything at any time out of necessity

Q6600 @ 3.0GHZ @ Default v's



[F]old|[H]ard
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

I have a quad and am using XP Pro 64-bit, I see 4 processors. I upgraded from a dual-core AMD. Windows loads a bit faster, and games like Supreme Commander and Crysis actually put a bit of load on all 4 cores.

Take the bet, that'll be 1/3 of your CPU cost.
 
jcll2002 said:
Why are people getting 4gigs of ram? I see that all the reviewers have 4 gigs now and yes it's become cheap. Does gaming or photoshop require it now?

//tone = curious, not criticizing
Click to expand...
I have seen my setup reach 3gb/4gb on my system..however I am running vista 64 bit so it utilizes a lot of RAM.
 
soundguy said:
His response (my friend that is):

Each core is seen by Windows XP as a CPU. i will bet you $100 that if
you try to use a quadcore on a XP 1-2CPU license it will only enable 2
of the 4 cores.

and besides, a quadcore provides minimal advantage for too much cost.
Stick with the 6750.
Click to expand...

LOL
q6600hm6.png

/post.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Because Phenom is an under-performer.
Click to expand...

Just as a sidenote and a bit of a confirmation to that statement:

amdnearlydeadxe0.jpg


AMD's best of 2007 barely keeping pace with even the low end Intel from last year at nearly a 25% performance hit. What the hell is AMD doing wrong?
 
jcll2002 said:
so people have 64bit just to use 4gigs of ram and they have 4 gigs of ram just to use 64 bit? lol.
Click to expand...

I have 4 gigs of RAM because some current games are already breaking the 2 gig barrier. Supreme Commander is first and foremost among those for me, but I know there are a few others.
 
he still hasn't emailed me back and i don't know what alias he will use...

it might be neg, but i'm not sure...
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Just as a sidenote and a bit of a confirmation to that statement:

amdnearlydeadxe0.jpg


AMD's best of 2007 barely keeping pace with even the low end Intel from last year at nearly a 25% performance hit. What the hell is AMD doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Notice what your graph also shows. For gaming, there is no reason to quad now. (If you do video editing, that is another story...) Even Supreme Commander, one of the few games to use more than 2 cores at all, uses the 3rd and 4th much, much less than the 1st and second.

That said, I agree with the earlier advice to go quad if you're going to keep it for more than a couple years, as programmers will eventually learn how to program multi-core more effectively. I'll probably replace my E6850 with a Penryn in a year, or Nehalem or Phenom in two years, hence why I have a dual-core right now.
 
I can run everything at once, Folding at Home at 100 percent, Itunes, UT 3, downloading virus updates, spybot, and it doesnt even hiccup. Can you ask for much more??? This thing is unstoppable.... (for now). I have yet to make 4 cores hit 100 percent. O yeah, crysis takes advantage of quad core. <-- more games supporting quad core comming soon to a store front near you.
 
quik said:
I can run everything at once, Folding at Home at 100 percent, Itunes, UT 3, downloading virus updates, spybot, and it doesnt even hiccup. Can you ask for much more??? This thing is unstoppable.... (for now). I have yet to make 4 cores hit 100 percent. O yeah, crysis takes advantage of quad core. <-- more games supporting quad core comming soon to a store front near you.
Click to expand...

Crysis doesn't, at least not yet. Look at the graph above. The dual-core E6600 is slightly faster than the quad-core Q6600, both at 2.4GHz. And this is with the game being artificially CPU-limited at that; most of the time at real resolutions it will be GPU-limited.

I do agree with one of your points though; if you want to fold and game at the same time, quad might be worth it today. Virus/spyware scanning and music playing will barely be a hiccup on any modern dual core (even my old 2.0 GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ barely noticed those running in the background); no reason to go quad for that.
 
farfromhome said:
Crysis doesn't, at least not yet. Look at the graph above. The E6600 is as fast as the Q6600, both at 2.4GHz. And this is with the game being artificially CPU-limited at that; most of the time at real resolutions it will be GPU-limited.
Click to expand...

Did that site do the CPU benchmark at a higher res than 800x600? I understand doing it at that res to isolate the CPU, but you're going to have a lot more physics to calculate with a higher res showing more stuff on the screen.

Running the CPU benchmark on my box at 1680x1050 showed 15-35% usage on cores 3 and 4, only when a ton of crap was flying around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top