• 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.

yet another dual vs. quad thread

C

cytech

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
284
I know everyone gets annoyed by these threads but im gonna ask any way so flame on :)

i currently have an E8600@4.05Ghz im my main gaming rig (EP45-DS5, GTX260, 4x2Gb 1066 ocz reaper water cooled) and my old Q6600 in my GFs Rig (actually my old gaming PC)

the quad used to run solid@3.2Ghz and i never tried to push it further, now I think that 3.6 would be obtainable and maybe at a push 3.8

What would you do?

2x4.05 Ghz
or
4x3.6 Ghz?

I use this PC for everything, gaming, Photoshop, dvds etc
 
cytech said:
the quad used to run solid@3.2Ghz and i never tried to push it further, now I think that 3.6 would be obtainable and maybe at a push 3.8........



I use this PC for everything, gaming, Photoshop, dvds etc
Click to expand...

One thing is- there is no way to know how high that q6600 will overclock without doing it. It may have overclocked like butter up to this point, but hit a flat out wall at 3.3Ghz. You can't make your decision with a 'possible overclock', you got to stick it on and see how it does.

Your e8600 is a gaming chip, pure and simple. Your going to do better in most games with it then your quad. Your going to do better in Photoshop and encoding/burning DVDs with the quad. DVD playback will be the same, both are overkill for that.

So you have to decide which takes more of your time, games or other stuff. Personally I dont think the differences at this point are going to effect you much either way unless you use a stopwatch while you are on your computer.
 
Direfox said:
One thing is- there is no way to know how high that q6600 will overclock without doing it. It may have overclocked like butter up to this point, but hit a flat out wall at 3.3Ghz. You can't make your decision with a 'possible overclock', you got to stick it on and see how it does.

Your e8600 is a gaming chip, pure and simple. Your going to do better in most games with it then your quad. Your going to do better in Photoshop and encoding/burning DVDs with the quad. DVD playback will be the same, both are overkill for that.

So you have to decide which takes more of your time, games or other stuff. Personally I dont think the differences at this point are going to effect you much either way unless you use a stopwatch while you are on your computer.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you have it based on outdated info. Games that are not core restrained are 99% of the time GPU restrained, in which case the dual core is no different then the quad core. When CPU intensiveness does become an issue while gaming, it will usually be in RTS and flight sim games, and most of those today have quad core support. More cores is better for those.

The only thing the dual has going for it, is price.
 
Most games coming out are going to be multithreaded to support more cores. So the quad will start to edge ahead when that transition happens.

Like others have said, if you do a good amount of video encoding and such the quad is the better choice.
 
I'd go for quad. More and more games nowadays are now taking advantage of quad-core CPUs. Left 4 Dead will and does utilizes the extra two cores on quad-core CPU. GTA4, Far Cry 2, Assassin's Creed, Supreme Commander, Bioshock, and Mass Effect takes advantage of quad-core CPUs as well.
 
Bottom line, the difference between the two will be negligible in most games one way or another... But looking towards the future, when the quad core does have an edge it will start to be a more substantial one. It's gonna shave time off any encoding/DVD/photoshop tasks as well anyway, so why not at 'least try and see how far you can OC it.
 
seriously, if you *still* have to ask this question and make yet another thread on this subject (and having full knowledge of the other threads...), you really need to shoot yourself in the face
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
seriously, if you *still* have to ask this question and make yet another thread on this subject (and having full knowledge of the other threads...), you really need to shoot yourself in the face
Click to expand...

meh sorry I tried that once and missed :(


I want other peoples opinions as ive been thinking of this for about 3 months and in the end decided that I prob wont notice a F'ing difference any way lol.


the third option of course is to build an i7 at the end of the year :eek:
 
Direfox said:
Your e8600 is a gaming chip, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Oh noes, I wish I had a "gaming chip" :rolleyes:

The fact is, new games will make increasing use of multiple cores. Old games are old and won't matter how many cores you have, and certainly won't run poorly with 4.

Sooner than later, only having two cores will be like having a Celeron.

Consider that all of the i7's that have been released are quads, and the duals on Intel’s future roadmaps are mainly in the “Value Desktop/Mobile” category.

Why gimp yourself now, when it is plain as day which direction the industry is moving?
 
GotNoRice said:
Oh noes, I wish I had a "gaming chip" :rolleyes:

The fact is, new games will make increasing use of multiple cores. Old games are old and won't matter how many cores you have, and certainly won't run poorly with 4.

Sooner than later, only having two cores will be like having a Celeron.

Consider that all of the i7's that have been released are quads, and the duals on Intel’s future roadmaps are mainly in the “Value Desktop/Mobile” category.

Why gimp yourself now, when it is plain as day which direction the industry is moving?
Click to expand...


Wat

i7 of course has been all Quads since its a high end socket, we might see dual/tri cores in their i5 socket (I forget, 1166 is it?), Who knows we will have to wait and see.

As for right now, Dual cores are right up there in gaming with Quads, This indeed might change when more and or the majority of games are taking advantage of multi cores. Will Duals be outphased by Quads? I say no, for most gamers im sure a well clocked Dual core will be more than enough. I seriously think duals are gonna still be made, which to me will depend on how intel/amd does their pricing.
 
Why does this keep coming up over and over? Dual core might be faster in games, but if you're getting 60FPS with a quad and your dual makes it 80, does it matter? I think not.

I believe increasing parallelism is the future, since we have seen that with current technology, endless ratcheting of clock speeds is just not possible. A year ago, a quad might have been at a distinct disadvantage, but I think this is less so today. If you're building an "everything" box on which you plan to do Photoshop and DVD encoding, go quad and take the small game performance hit.
 
Quads are the only choice, and soon these questions are going to be, should I keep my Quad for gaming or get the new Octo :D

My Q9400 at 3.8 blows my E8400 out of the water in almost everything I do. Photoshop, Premiere, Maya3D etc are insanely faster than the Dual. No reason to even think about a dual anymore unless you are price conscious.
 
Haven't seen one of these threads in a long time, and I don't even have to read the posts... the answer remains:

Quad core, period.
 
Though I haven't tried it, I guess you could shut off 2 cores in the bios, and see if it gets you another 100-200 mhz o-all. Not sure if this is possible on the Q6600, but it is on the i7 ?

As for Intel only selling 10% quads, there saving grace in this economy is the Atom processor, and they still seem to sell Celerons, not to mention there are few if any quad laptops out there, emerging markets, etc.
 
The e8 series is too expensive for dual core, imo, but for those on a budget an e7400 or e5200 is still a great choice at half or 1/3rd the price of a quad.
 
Sovereign said:
Why does this keep coming up over and over? Dual core might be faster in games, but if you're getting 60FPS with a quad and your dual makes it 80, does it matter? I think not.
Click to expand...

Two words. Minimum. Framerate. At the top end it might not matter so much, but when you're frame rates are bottoming out I think you would be more inclined to notice the difference between 20 and 30fps. While quads definitely have their advantages, gaming quite isn't yet one of them.
 
Me E6600 @ 3.7 for the moment is more than enough me thinks. Depends on the user, but of course if buying new go quad. If buying used or cheap, consider a nice dualie.
 
Overclocking (if you're not particularly averse to it) makes most of these points moot anyway... You can get any Q6600 or Q9300 to 3.2-ish, I doubt dropping to a dual core for another 200-600 MHz is gonna make any difference in the vast majority of GPU-bound games. If you're on a super tight budget then sure, an E5200 makes plenty of sense since it's still $110 or so cheaper than the cheapest quad, but that's about the only reason I'd go for a dual core imo.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Two words. Minimum. Framerate. At the top end it might not matter so much, but when you're frame rates are bottoming out I think you would be more inclined to notice the difference between 20 and 30fps. While quads definitely have their advantages, gaming quite isn't yet one of them.
Click to expand...

huh? My i7 quad runs circles around my previous e8500 in gaming... granted, both are at 4ghz but still ;)
 
I have to agree with Mr.Bluntman as far as min. framerate is concerned, I'll take a framerate of 50-70 over 20-130 anyday. Having said that, I think dualies will have more and lower frame dips than any quad core. There's a current thread in here showing it, when someone moved from a dualie to quad. Max stayed the same, minimum jumped up by a lot. Makes sense though, with all the background nonsense going on in the OS nowadays, AV, services, etc. Sure you can turn it all off and reduce it, but why bother ? Just get a quad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top