# Q6600 or Q9450?



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

Hi guys,

I'm gonna need a new processor for a gigabyte mobo GA-P35-DS3 with 4GB DDR2 Mushkin 1066 Redline and a GeForce 7950GT 512MB.

With the new Quads Q9xxx being released, I'm not sure whether to buy the hard to get Q9450 or instead go for the ubiquitous Q6600.

I intend to make the most of my 7950GT in WinXP with current and old games for a year or so before upgrading to a DX10 graphics card, as long as I can play @1027x768 @ 60fps with full details on .

What CPU would you recommend? Will the 12MB cache in the Q9450 make a big difference over the 8MB in the Q6600?


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 22, 2008)

I'm not an Intel guy, but I will tell you this.  The large amount of cache on Intel CPUs might be a gimmick.  I did hear this from an AMD lover, though, so I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference that it makes.

If you do decide for the Q6600, I have one on sale that's sealed in its retail box.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 22, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> I'm not an Intel guy, but I will tell you this.  The large amount of cache on Intel CPUs might be a gimmick.  I did hear this from an AMD lover, though, so I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference that it makes.
> 
> If you do decide for the Q6600, I have one on sale that's sealed in its retail box.



Unfortunately it's not a gimmick. The cache is needed because everything uses the FSB instead of using a HTT link like AMD does.

Anyway, I guess it depends entirely on what you need it for and how much you'll overclock it.

Also, with your 7950GT I think you should be able to play at 1280x1024, and even with medium settings it'd look far superior to 1024x768 at any setting....


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

I don't want to go below 60fps in Crysis with full details and filters on, which sould be possible @1024x768, but probably not @1280x1024 with a 7950GT. I'm using a 19" monitor, and I don't see a big gain from one resolution to the other.


----------



## Darknova (Mar 22, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I don't want to go below 60fps in Crysis with full details and filters on, which sould be possible @1024x768, but probably not @1280x1024 with a 7950GT.



35fps is all you need for smooth play. And even at medium Crysis looked amazing at 1280. That's what I used to run it at when I had my 1950XT.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 22, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I don't want to go below 60fps in Crysis with full details and filters on, which sould be possible @1024x768, but probably not @1280x1024 with a 7950GT. I'm using a 19" monitor, and I don't see a big gain from one resolution to the other.



I don't think it's even possible at 1024x768 maxed out. Crysis is a hog.


----------



## X800 (Mar 22, 2008)

Here you can fin find an early test of Q9450 vs Q6600 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287
But this is an protype of Q9450 but it is still faster even if the Q6600 have higher clocks.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

X800 said:


> Here you can fin find an early test of Q9450 vs Q6600 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287
> But this is an protype of Q9450 but it is still faster even if the Q6600 have higher clocks.



In the test, both cpu's run at 3.6Ghz (8x450Mhz). Performance wise, you gain 6.66% with the Q9450. I like the fact that the Q9450 runs cooler and needs less power, which means less noise, or stable overclocks with lower cooling costs.

However, $100 more for the Q9450 is a deterrent. I find the Q6600 a much better value for money proposition, given the small performance gain with the Q9450. I can't see this making a significant difference in games but it's still very early days I guess.


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 22, 2008)

With almost all games, your video card is going to matter a lot more than your processor, so you won't see a difference in games.  You might get an extra FPS or two in Crysis with a 7% better processor.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

oh wow, a whole 2 fps! Absolutely no point.


----------



## X800 (Mar 22, 2008)

This is can be compared to a Q6600 or a Xeon 3220http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181405


----------



## X800 (Mar 22, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> oh wow, a whole 2 fps! Absolutely no point.



Ofcourse its no point but you get a cooler cpu=less heat a little preformance gain 
But then again if you want the newest you have to the little extra 
I the end of the month the Q6600 is going to be much cheaper becuse intel is cutting prices (the new 45nm cpus is the reason) and then the Q6600 is great cpu for the money.
I did order an Q9450 and hope it meets my expectations


----------



## Jarman (Mar 22, 2008)

i had a 7900gt extreme running crysis.  It was voltmodded and heavily clocked (was in excess of a 7950gt) and it could not really do 1280x1024 at medium settings.  It would do it....but was very choppy in places.  Probably better investing in an 8800gt or something


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

Jarman said:


> i had a 7900gt extreme running crysis.  It was voltmodded and heavily clocked (was in excess of a 7950gt) and it could not really do 1280x1024 at medium settings.  It would do it....but was very choppy in places.  Probably better investing in an 8800gt or something



yep, that's what I thought, which is why I'll stay at 1024X768 in Crysis. I'd rather play at a lower resolution with better IQ than the other way around, and hopefully gain a few fps (10-20?) as well.


----------



## PaulieG (Mar 22, 2008)

As others are saying, right now the q6600 is a much better price to performance cpu. You just have to ask yourself, is a Q9450 and a 2-7% difference in overall performance worth an extra $100? In my eyes it's not.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 22, 2008)

There aint nothing out that would run crysis at 60fps on full detail {very High} 2 or 3 GX2s might but i wouldnt put money on it or spend the money on it lol.
Crysis is more advanced than current hardware atm even the best cpu overclocked might not buy you that much fps its one awsome power hungry game.


----------



## Squirrely (Mar 22, 2008)

With the q6600 and q6450, Intel is getting as bad as Nvidia with naming its chips. 

From reviews of the q6450 and q6600, its all price vs performance. The q6600 still wins in that catergory, so I would go with that.

Also, 60fps in Crysis with maxed settings is almost unheard of. Crysis is a beast, lol. Crytek realized this, so they took the Ultra High setting out of the game. They are going to release it down the road, since the current graphic cards are having a bit of trouble with the current Highest setting (with AA and AF on).


----------



## Jarman (Mar 22, 2008)

ultra high is directx 10 "only".  can run in XP though.  I just bought an E8200 wolfdale for a second pc...really good, running at 4.2GHz.  I have a quad in my main machine..but theres really no need for it.

An e8200 with an 8800GT will get u a hell of a lot more fps than a q6600 with a 7950GT.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

why are people so misinformed.. buying a new super quad aint gonna make any difference to how games like crysis play.. only a better grafix card (or two) will do that..

the new 45nm quad cpus when they arrive are better than the older ones.. but the only way the difference will be seen is by running benchmarks.. in real life the difference wont be noticed..

but being as the things aint gonna be available in quantities for two or three months the argument is purely academic..

just dont kid yourselfs that buying one will help u play crysis.. it wont..

trog


----------



## Jarman (Mar 22, 2008)

they r good 4 rendering though


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

i'd get the q6700 that's on sale today and every saturday at www.ClubIT.com for $299. (i ordered one last night)

the q6700 is an awesome chip with a 10x multi and almost guarantees into 4ghz for sure.


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i'd get the q6700 that's on sale today and every saturday at www.ClubIT.com for $299. (i ordered one last night)



Wow! That's an excellent deal. You think 4GHz is achievable with air cooling? I'm runnin the Zalman 9700, at the moment.


----------



## Jarman (Mar 22, 2008)

im not sure that they do a G0 version of the q6700..no1 ever buys 1


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

Jarman said:


> im not sure that they do a G0 version of the q6700..no1 ever buys 1



what? the Q6700 IS a G0 chip. they only made G0 q6700's. your thinking of the QX 6700. the Q6700 is way better than a Q6600, q9450, and q9550.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i'd get the q6700 that's on sale today and every saturday at www.ClubIT.com for $299. (i ordered one last night)
> 
> the q6700 is an awesome chip with a 10x multi and almost guarantees into 4ghz for sure.



10 x 400 = 4 gig.. 9 x 450 = 4 gig.. its possible that it wont go any better than the 6600.. but 4 gig should be easier if its the fsb holding the 6600 back.. i wouldnt be so sure.. the big money difference stopped most from buying it.. but a higher multiplier aint gonna do any harm..

think what the next step up costs.. he he

trog


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 22, 2008)

i heard those DS3's have a FSB limit slightly above 400 for quads (mine does), and that the rev1 can barely get up to 400, past that you really gotta start cranking NB and SB voltage.  You would get higher clocks for the 6700...


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

Jarman said:


> An e8200 with an 8800GT will get u a hell of a lot more fps than a q6600 with a 7950GT.



how much is "a hell of al lot" ?


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> i'd get the q6700 that's on sale today and every saturday at www.ClubIT.com for $299. (i ordered one last night)
> 
> the q6700 is an awesome chip with a 10x multi and almost guarantees into 4ghz for sure.



I like that


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> how much is "a hell of al lot" ?



double the frame rates at any given resolution.. more at lower ones..

multicore was a scam when it first came out and sadly due to lack of real software development it still is.. 

trog


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 22, 2008)

I though your moto was to "Ignore the truth.. follow the herd.."


----------



## Jarman (Mar 22, 2008)

ye...roughly 2x the speed...if not more of a 7950gt.  Plus the E8200/E8400 will clock further than a Q6600 and its faster clock for clock (partly down to the extra cache) cheaper and runs cooler and has SSE4 instructions....if u arent that bothered about having 4 cores and have a board that will support 45nm its probably a better bet


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

i agree... if you dont need 4 cores, the 45nm duals are THE chips to get. the e8400 and e8500 are the best dual core chips you can get no doubt. their quad core cousins are crap for the price though.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

well higher multiplier = less stress on the mobo. the Q600 has a 9x multi so to hit 3.6ghz you need 400fsb. the Q9450 has an 8x multi meaning, you would need a 450fsb to 3.6ghz.


edit: i know the new dual cores are nice and all but i hear they cant take high voltages. a lot are burning up even when temps are low on the cores. i heard they dont like more than 1.38 volts, which isnt too high either


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

yeah but if your thinnking of spending $360 on a q9450, why not go for the q6700 for $299? it's far better than both the q6600 and the q9450... and even the q9550.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> yeah but if your thinnking of spending $360 on a q9450, why not go for the q6700 for $299? it's far better than both the q6600 and the q9450... and even the q9550.



agreed. the Q6700 or Q6600 would be my choice over this current batch of processors


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I though your moto was to "Ignore the truth.. follow the herd.."



said in jest dude.. satire perhaps.. could even be called sarcasm.. he he

Oscar Wilde.. "apart from the majority being right they are invariably wrong".. 

the other one i like is.. "The law is for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"..

i should have been locked up long ago.. he he he

trog


----------



## MikeJeng (Mar 22, 2008)

I thought the Q6700 was just a Q6600 with a 10X multi.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

Spacegoast said:


> well higher multiplier = less stress on the mobo. the Q600 has a 9x multi so to hit 3.6ghz you need 400fsb. the Q9450 has an 8x multi meaning, you would need a 450fsb to 3.6ghz.
> 
> 
> edit: i know the new dual cores are nice and all but i hear they cant take high voltages. a lot are burning up even when temps are low on the cores. i heard they dont like more than 1.38 volts, which isnt too high either



mostly rumour not really proven.. but heat isnt the problem voltage is.. mine runs sweet 24/7 at 4 gig 1.33 vcore.. i could probably kill it by feeding to many volts thru it thow.. it needs 1.6 to do 4.6 gig.. up to how stupid the user is mostly.. 

trog


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 23, 2008)

That's it, I'm waiting for the Q9450 to become more widespread so that the Q6600 comes down in price a bit more, and that's when, ladies and gentlemen, coming from behind the bushes, I go and snatch the Q6600!!!


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> That's it, I'm waiting for the Q9450 to become more widespread so that the Q6600 comes down in price a bit more, and that's when, ladies and gentlemen, coming from behind the bushes, I go and snatch the Q6600!!!



just bear in mind its not likely to happens for some months.. if it happens at all.. sometimes the old stuff just stops.. end of lined.. no more.. its planned this way..

trog


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> just bear in mind its not likely to happens for some months.. if it happens at all.. sometimes the old stuff just stops.. end of lined.. no more.. its planned this way..
> 
> trog



Maybe, but I'm prepared to take the risk. They're still doing pentium D's almost 2 years after launch. The demand for the Q6600 will fall once Q9450's demand kicks in, and we should expect a price drop for the Q6600 in the next couple of months.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> multicore was a scam when it first came out and sadly due to lack of real software development it still is..
> 
> trog


How many times are you gonna spew this nonsense? Ok, a quad might not help 99% of all games out there, but games aren't the only programs written. A quad can benefit in many areas, especially anything to do with encoding/rendering. Not to mention massive multi-tasking or those few oddballs that actually like to benchmark for sport.

Just because it isn't useful to *you*, doesn't mean it's a scam.


----------



## Grings (Mar 23, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> Maybe, but I'm prepared to take the risk. They're still doing pentium D's almost 2 years after launch. The demand for the Q6600 will fall once Q9450's demand kicks in, and we should expect a price drop for the Q6600 in the next couple of months.



One thing to bear in mind here, is that there are only still pentium d's available because no-one in their right mind would buy one, trying to find chips people actually want that are discontinued can prove much harder, as an example amd single core 939 chips are really easy to find (no one wanted them) wheras dual core ones/opterons were like rocking horse shit


----------



## Jarman (Mar 23, 2008)

@ spaceghost.  Temperature isnt the only thing that matters to a chip.  Of course a 45nm chip cant take as much voltage as a 65nm.  But then its a smaller process with less current leakage etc.  A like for like 45nm chip will clock further at 1.4v than a 65nm at 1.6v and produce alot less heat.  I could quite easily cool my E8200 with an air block @ 4.2GHz.  As it is, with a DTEK fuzion the chip doesnt go above 38 degrees under load, which is fantastic.  My Q6600 (1.58v 3.825GHz) on my main machine (with much better pumps and more radiator area) gets to 55 degrees under load.


----------



## X800 (Mar 23, 2008)

According to Fuzilla Intel is going cut prices ,maybye allready done.

A massive cut 

Intel plans it usual price cut that will affect mostly the old 65nm parts. On April 20th Intel will cut Core 2 Quad Q6700 from the current $527 suggested retail price to $270. The super popular Q6600 at 2.4GHz will drop from $270 to $229. At the same time, Intel plans to introduce its Core 2 Duo E8300 45nm based CPU with 6MB cache and 2.83GHz clock and it will start selling it for $169.

The Core 2 Duo E4600 2.4GHz CPU with 2MB cache will drop from $139 to $119. Pentium Dual core E2200 with 1MB cache and 2.2GHz clock speed will drop from current $87 to $77. Dual Core E2180 clocked at 2.0GHz clock will drop from current $77 to $67.

The last two price cuts will affect the Celeron 440 at 2.0GHz and 512KB cache, it will drop from current $54 to a new low of $45. The last planned price cut affects the Celeron 430 at 1.8GHz 512KB cache and FSB 800MHz. It will drop from current $45 to $35.

All this is expected on April 20th


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 23, 2008)

I'm happy to wait till April 20th to get a Q6600 at $229, although the Q6700 becomes an interesting alternative at $270, considering its partially unlocked multiplier  (up to x10).

With my mobo (Gigabyte P35-DS3) at 1600 FSB max, what would be the higher clock speed I could get with Q6700 compared to the Q6600?

Am I right in thinking that the Q6700 would give me 400x10= 4GHz on that mobo, as opposed to 400x9=3.6GHz with the Q6600?


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 23, 2008)

yep but you still need the voltage to back it up. Dunno if aircooling can keep it at 4ghz 24/7 with out getting hot.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 23, 2008)

Is there a point in chosing the Q6700 over the Q6600 if the overclocking is limited to say 3.0GHz? What I'm trying to get at...: is it better to achieve a target OC using a higher multiplier and keeping the FSB lower instead of the other way around? Or to put it differently, does an increase in FSB generate more instability than an increase in the multiplier?


----------



## Jarman (Mar 23, 2008)

chips with a higher multi are generally easier to overclock because you dont need as much FSB.  On the other hand the higher FSB needed on lower multi chips gives the chips more bandwidth to play with.  Even on a Q6600 if you find you can get it to run at your max MHz on a multi of 8 rather than 9, then do so, as the cores will have more bandwidth.

Depends alot on how good (patient) you are with overclocking and how good your motherboard/psu is.  

For a quad core u need a P35 or better imo.  965 boards are also "supposed" to be good for overclocking quads.  However the DFI P965-S dark i have is AWFUL for them.  I would tend to lean towards a high end asus p35/x38 chipset if you are serious about overclocking a quad.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> just bear in mind its not likely to happens for some months.. if it happens at all.. sometimes the old stuff just stops.. end of lined.. no more.. its planned this way..
> 
> trog



true, it may not happen for some time. look how long it took the Q6700 to come down. the E6700 never even came down in price when the E6600 price dropped. so anyone planning on waiting for prices to fall dont hold your breath.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 23, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> Is there a point in chosing the Q6700 over the Q6600 if the overclocking is limited to say 3.0GHz? What I'm trying to get at...: is it better to achieve a target OC using a higher multiplier and keeping the FSB lower instead of the other way around? Or to put it differently, does an increase in FSB generate more instability than an increase in the multiplier?




from my understanding it is better to have a higher multiplier and lower FSB. the max multi on the Q6700 is x10. So to hit 4ghz you would need 400FSB to reach it. on a Q6600 the max multi is x9, and to reach 4ghz on that you would need 445fsb. its easier to hit higher clock frequncies with lower fsb and high multi's. if you run a 1:1 memory divider you also wont have to oc the ram as much, when using a lower fsb. when running RAM at lower frequencies you can tighten the timings. or loosen the timings and use a 4:5 or 5:6 mem divider to run them higher. 

for your 2nd question, yes a higher fsb does generate more instability. also there are only a  of motherboards that can achieve very high fsb frequencies, im talking 500-550+ though. 

overclocking is very tricky but once you get the hang of it its not all that bad.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 23, 2008)

445fsb isnt impossible though on the right mobo asus maximus / gigabyte DQ6/ etc.... should manage it with ease.

With good cooling like phase its worth getting the Q6700.

But on air the Q6600 is just as good.

Both cpu's are limited on air.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 23, 2008)

ya 445 fsb is not really difficult at all. in fact most P35 boards will hit that mark fairly easy. the X38's  should have no probelm either.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Wile E said:


> How many times are you gonna spew this nonsense? Ok, a quad might not help 99% of all games out there, but games aren't the only programs written. A quad can benefit in many areas, especially anything to do with encoding/rendering. Not to mention massive multi-tasking or those few oddballs that actually like to benchmark for sport.
> 
> Just because it isn't useful to *you*, doesn't mean it's a scam.



till its no longer true.. just get used to it.. 

trog


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> why are people so misinformed.. buying a new super quad aint gonna make any difference to how games like crysis play.. only a better grafix card (or two) will do that..
> 
> the new 45nm quad cpus when they arrive are better than the older ones.. but the only way the difference will be seen is by running benchmarks.. in real life the difference wont be noticed..
> 
> ...



Actually overclocking the cpu can add alot of fps in games its just people keep comparing  it to crysis you probably will only get 3-6fps gain {not  confirmed} because of the advanced graphics it takes alot more power to gain anything and as trog says in crysis the card used makes more of the difference.

In this review it clearly shows a 80fps gain in quake 4 though.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9615&page=5

First person to hit 60fps in crysis on very high has one hell of a gaming pc.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> Actually overclocking the cpu can add alot of fps in games its just people keep comparing  it to crysis you probably will only get 3-6fps gain {not  confirmed} because of the advanced graphics it takes alot more power to gain anything and as trog says in crysis the card used makes more of the difference.
> 
> In this review it clearly shows a 80fps gain in quake 4 though.
> http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9615&page=5
> ...



the problem with the hexas review and many other cpu reviews is the silly unreal resolution and settings they use..

now if u turn the crysis resolution and settings right down.. u could play the same silly games as the hexus review does and show big frame rate gains from a faster more powerfull cpu.. try this one..







176 average fps in crysis.. and yes at such frame rates the cpu does make a big difference.. but who the f-ck wants to play crysis at the settings and resolution i have used to show how cpu speed makes a difference..

for the curious.. 800 x 600 settings all on low.. cpu at 4 gig.. 

people being fooled by this crap bugs me.. people are fooled by it thow..  people being fooled in larges numbers bugs me even more.. 

trog


----------



## Wile E (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> till its no longer true.. just get used to it..
> 
> trog


That's the problem. It isn't true. It's just your *opinion*. You just try to pass it off as truth. Going quad benefited me greatly. It is not a "scam", it just isn't useful to *you*. Get it right.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

just for interest i ran the same test with crossfire enabled.. the pic is just with one card running.. 

i expected a better score.. nope.. exactly the same.. conclusion.. at silly low resolutions crysis is 100% cpu/system bottlenecked..

at normal gaming resolutions its pretty well 100% grafix card bottlenecked..

its all about resolutions and settings.. basically by playing with resolutions and settings u can pretty much prove what u like.. its the grafix card or its the cpu.. take yer pick.. 

one is real life gaming the other is silly benchmarks.. take yer pick again..

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> mostly rumour not really proven.. but heat isnt the problem voltage is.. mine runs sweet 24/7 at 4 gig 1.33 vcore.. i could probably kill it by feeding to many volts thru it thow.. it needs 1.6 to do 4.6 gig.. up to how stupid the user is mostly..
> 
> trog



Electron Migration isnt really rumour, it happens to anything electronic at a certain voltage point and leads to degradation, anyone who has ever owned a chip and really thrashed it with voltage, even when they have kept the temps safe to find a few weeks later that they can no longer maintain the same overclock on the same voltage stabily has witnessed first hand the degradation due to electron migration, me included   Now the fact is, the lower the fabrication process, the lower point that degredation will set in........generally, this will become more of an issue as the fabrication processes reduce......watch out for voltage mods of GPU's perhaps a better example of degredation, there were quite a few reported incidents where 8800GT's, even with the BIOS mod to 1.1V only could not maintain their early overclocks after a while, whether that was only or directly due to degredation IDK TBH, this is quite an interesting little piece..................

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=7


----------



## trog100 (Mar 23, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's the problem. It isn't true. It's just your *opinion*. You just try to pass it off as truth. Going quad benefited me greatly. It is not a "scam", it just isn't useful to *you*. Get it right.



dude u accuse me of being just me.. yet u claim to speak for many.. it is truth dude.. multicore is a scam.. it will not benefit the average user.. how it benefits u is no more relevant than how it dosnt benefit me..

lets talk how it benefits the average user.. joe public..  why are u so bothered about "my oppinion" if it is only my oppion u shouldnt be..

i am tempted to start a quad or dual thread.. u wanna join in.. ???

trog


----------



## Jarman (Mar 23, 2008)

u dual core doesnt cost any more than single cores used to anyway :S so i dont really see how that can be seen as a scam  i can almost see where ur coming from with quad cores though...average people dont need them, but its not usual for companies that sell to average users to put them in.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> dude u accuse me of being just me.. yet u claim to speak for many.. it is truth dude.. multicore is a scam.. it will not benefit the average user.. how it benefits u is no more relevant than how it dosnt benefit me..
> 
> lets talk how it benefits the average user.. joe public..  why are u so bothered about "my oppinion" if it is only my oppion u shouldnt be..
> 
> ...


What I'm bothered by is that you state it as fact that multi-core is useless or a scam, when in fact it isn't. I agree, it doesn't benefit everyone, but it does also benefit many. If you mean multi-core isn't useful to most people, you need to state it that way. As it stands, you state in a manner that makes it sound as if it's not useful to anyone.

I never said everyone benefits from a quad. But I do believe they will soon. It's the same argument that happened with single vs dual. A dual is beneficial to many, many people, if for no other reason than the boost in multi-tasking.

And I don't think a dedicated thread is a good idea. We already walk a fine line between discussion and flame war. Can you imagine how bad a dedicated thread would be? lol.

EDIT: Have to go. We can continue debating later if desired. lol.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 23, 2008)

I think in reality, a quad cores potential is probably will only be fully utilised by 5-10% of PC users, from what I gather, quad cores only make up around 5-10% of CPU sales so thats about right to me.......however, whether it's the right 5-10% in all cases is a different matter ........if that makes any kind of sense?...damn I am confused now


----------



## Judas (Mar 23, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I think in reality, a quad cores potential is probably will only be fully utilised by 5-10% of PC users, from what I gather, quad cores only make up around 5-10% of CPU sales so thats about right to me.......however, whether it's the right 5-10% in all cases is a different matter ........if that makes any kind of sense?...damn I am confused now



Oh no Tatty please change yur picture......really


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 23, 2008)

Judas said:


> Oh no Tatty please change yur picture......really



It's me on a good day!


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

just for the record tatty.. it wasnt suggested electro migration was rumour.. the rumour comment refered to 45nm chips dieing rapidly thru over volting.. thow where heat isnt the problem.. continutng with the volts could well kill the poor things off.. but i just put that down to user stupidity.. or the normal risk of record breaking.. he he

mine has had 1.6 thru it for a quick super pi bench or two.. its still alive.. if running at 1.6 all day thow in a silly attempt at getting 24/7 4.5 gig stability killed it i wouldnt be entirely surprised.. 

but stupid is as stupid does.. there aint no shortage of it..

the theory is changing from will my temps kill my chip to will these volts kill my chip.. the simple cure of better cooling praps aint good enough anymore.. now it requires user restraint.. how many overclocking kiddies have that.. he he

trog


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

Trog your the kind of guy that would argue RED isnt RED its yellow and orange mixed together.

I think you also talk to your mirror image to make yourself feel important and tell yourself you are some sort of god sees all and knows all 

Ignore the truth..


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

I know yellow and orange doesnt make red but trog seems to dissagree alot.The guy just seems to know so much anyone would think he invented the micro processor.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> Trog your the kind of guy that would argue RED isnt RED its yellow and orange mixed together.
> 
> I think you also talk to your mirror image to make yourself feel important and tell yourself you are some sort of god sees all and knows all
> 
> Ignore the truth..



yep.. its part what i come here for.. i like a good debate always have done.. i also dislike misinformation.. plenty of that here so i get to debate quite a lot.. he he he

plenty of know it all children here as well.. they might not believe in the wisdom of age.. but in my case its true.. 

when the weather gets better i will piss off and do more sensible things.. i am only a part time "enthusiast".. just bear with me while i am here.. 

trog

ps.. i need to change my sig.. too many think i mean it..


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

I like your sig trog leave it.

I like it because i dont follow a herd ive always tried to be different. im a guy that hates fooball lol. Hows that for different! But when it comes to my quad id rather have that than anything else on offer. But you can see im different when looking at my case modding i have my own style my own taste. Even my case isnt the normal antec 900 etc...When i see somthing i like regardless of price or make i buy it cos i like it not cos the herd has it.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 24, 2008)

Spacegoast said:


> from my understanding it is better to have a higher multiplier and lower FSB. the max multi on the Q6700 is x10. So to hit 4ghz you would need 400FSB to reach it. on a Q6600 the max multi is x9, and to reach 4ghz on that you would need 445fsb. its easier to hit higher clock frequncies with lower fsb and high multi's. if you run a 1:1 memory divider you also wont have to oc the ram as much, when using a lower fsb. when running RAM at lower frequencies you can tighten the timings. or loosen the timings and use a 4:5 or 5:6 mem divider to run them higher.
> 
> for your 2nd question, yes a higher fsb does generate more instability. also there are only a  of motherboards that can achieve very high fsb frequencies, im talking 500-550+ though.
> 
> overclocking is very tricky but once you get the hang of it its not all that bad.



That makes sense. 

Given these:
- 1600MHz FSB mobo 
- 1066MHz DDR2, 
- cpu air cooling, 
- target OC 3.0GHz for argument's sake

Am I right in thinking that the best way to optimize the overall system performance on a Q6600 (x9) would be to:
- keep the multiplier as its max, i.e. x9
- increase the FSB to 333MHz
- the 2x2GB DDR2 1066MHz can take in theory 533MHz FSB right? So there's a 200MHz leeway there which I'm not making the most of. Should I tighten the timings to make the RAM faster? Would that compromise the stability of the RAM and make it crash more frequently?


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> the problem with the hexas review and many other cpu reviews is the silly unreal resolution and settings they use..
> 
> now if u turn the crysis resolution and settings right down.. u could play the same silly games as the hexus review does and show big frame rate gains from a faster more powerfull cpu.. try this one..
> 
> ...



interesting, how many frames would do you get with your current specs if playing Crysis @1024X768 full details on and with best possible IQ?


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

I know plenty of people that still game at 1024x768 my dad does for one.
I game at 1280x1024 its ok buying a huge monitor if you have the space for it.
I dont so i use a 19"  I think its a little hasty to say no one uses 1024x768 when i bet millions still do for money reasons or space etc..take ya pick.


----------



## Jarman (Mar 24, 2008)

u game at 1280x1024 and have a 3870x2???


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

Jarman said:


> u game at 1280x1024 and have a 3870x2???



yep plus i have a 3870 on order tri-fire

The advantage is i can play full details and still have good fps


----------



## Jarman (Mar 24, 2008)

i can play pretty much any game at 1900x1200 max settings with an 8800gtx :S cod4 runs at 100+ fps


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> interesting, how many frames would do you get with your current specs if playing Crysis @1024X768 full details on and with best possible IQ?



i can run a test on high settings at 1024 x 768 just to see.. i am xp so only dx9 high..

its more the settings that make the difference thow not the resolution..

trog

ps... 1024 x 768 all high but no AA.. 54 fps average with two cards.. 48 fps with one card.. as i said its all down to the settings.. a huge difference between high and low.. i normally would run textures and shaders on high the rest medium.. at 1680 by 1050.. that gives me about 57 fps average with two cards 48 with one card..


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 24, 2008)

Jarman said:


> i can play pretty much any game at 1900x1200 max settings with an 8800gtx :S cod4 runs at 100+ fps



I get over double 400+ if i look at the sky  but anything above 60fps is fine.


----------



## VroomBang (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i can run a test on high settings at 1024 x 768 just to see.. i am xp so only dx9 high..
> 
> its more the settings that make the difference thow not the resolution..
> 
> ...



I'm surprised. From your numbers, it looks like settings indeed need more ressource than resolution. I wouldn't have thought so.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 24, 2008)

VroomBang said:


> I'm surprised. From your numbers, it looks like settings indeed need more ressource than resolution. I wouldn't have thought so.



yes with older games it used to be that way.. but crysis has some pretty mean settings.. many that never used to exist..

the other interesting thing is..  the test i ran proves crysis is very playable even on a low end machine.. if i can bang off those over the top frame rates.. something a lot further down the food chain would produce very playable frame rates.. 

crysis scales very well and is playable on any low end gaming machine..

its just like oblivion.. folks with normal machines were happy they could play it at all..  folks with e-peen machines were pissed off cos they couldnt play it maxed out.. he he he

trog


----------



## Wile E (Mar 24, 2008)

trog100 said:


> yes with older games it used to be that way.. but crysis has some pretty mean settings.. many that never used to exist..
> 
> the other interesting thing is..  the test i ran proves crysis is very playable even on a low end machine.. if i can bang off those over the top frame rates.. something a lot further down the food chain would produce very playable frame rates..
> 
> ...


Count me in the latter group. lol.


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 1, 2008)

In the end, in spite of my original thoughts, and after doing some research, I've decided to go for the E8400 which, given my usage, should give me the best perfomance/price ratio for today's and near future applications and games. 

I'm sure more demanding apps and games will come out in the future and will make a better use of quads. No doubt about that. The question is when, how many and am I going to use them? My personal guess is by the time it makes sense to get a quad because most applications are optimized for it, there'll be much better quad cpu's out there than the "old" 65nm Q6600 and "not so new" Q9450, which will only be average by then. 

It really depends on what you want:
- Best possible performance now and struggling in 2 yrs time but ok since you'll upgrade the cpu: go for the E8400

- Inferior performance now relative to other cpu at same price (in games), and average perf in 2 yrs time when apps and games use quad threads more, and no intention to upgrade by then: go for the Q6600

I’d like to add that if it wasn’t for the games, I wouldn’t even upgrade my Pentium D 925 3GHz, as it’s doing a great job in all applications, and provides more than enough power to watch films, browse the web, use word and excel, encode music and films every now and then etc.  Games are what make the upgrade necessary, as my Pentium was bottlenecking my graphics card (ATI x1950pro). So as long as games benefit more from higher clocks than multiple threads, the E8400 wins. 

Quads will be the future, but by the time they are, better cpu’s will be on offer and current quads will be obsolete.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 1, 2008)

yep.  E8400 a much better choice ATM for games.  Q6600 only good if you have water and know you can get it close to 4GHz.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 1, 2008)

I think many are over-hyping Crysis in a fanatically way that I found disturbing.  There are no other note worthy games currently using the CryEngine 2 engine.  I believe that Unreal Engine 3 is found in most popular games like:
Frontline Fuels of War
Unreal Tournament 3
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Mass Effect
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield
America's Army
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2
Gears of War
BioShock
Tactical Ops
ETC

There are other engines being used in current and future titles like:
Unreal Engine 3
Unreal Engine 4
Far Cry 2 Engine (maybe Dunia) or whatever they decide to call it (Far Cry 2 doesn't use Crytek Engine which speaks Volumes in my book!)
id Tech 4 for Doom 3, Quake 4, Pray and Quake Wars.
Euphoria which is scheduled for release to the PC market in 2009 (I believe, going on memory)
Frostbite Engine which is rumored to be used in Battlefield 3 for the PC!
Source engine TF2, HL series, Portal, etc
The Alan Wake engine for Alan Wake (or whatever they decide to call it)

As you can see, Unreal engine is the most popular.  There are no worth while games being developed that are using CryEngine 2.  Therefore, placing more weight on Crysis then any other game is not a wise thing to do when the engine has no "teeth" in future gaming development.  So far CryEngine 2 is just a blip on the radar with Crysis. 

Having said that, most engines can or will take advantage of 2 cores.  I would go with a dual core CPU like the E8400 or E8500 until it's *proven* that *current, popular games* are showing a *sizable performance boost* in frame rates using mid range to high end video cards.  However, if gaming is more a secondary reason for how you use your PC and your do a lot of multitasking with resource hogging applications then a QX9650 maybe something to consider.  When getting a quad core cpu it's best to get one that offers the same clocks as a E8400 or E8500.  That way if a program or game doesn't use all 4 cores you are still using 2 of them at the same clock rate as a dual core.  This should prevent performance drops as seen with Q6600 in some games.


----------

