e8400 vs q6600

[Tatty_Two]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want proof, like I presented. Is that too much to ask?

Proof of what? 2 cores cannot do 4 things at a time?

 

[asb2106]

I just sent TRT a message asking if he could PLEASE do a CPU queen score from everest, hope he has it!

 

[trog100]

five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..

okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..

imagine a cpu bench picked not to show the benifits of a quad.. it could easily be done.. shame it never is..

now if they showed average apps as opposed to those picked to show how wonderfull multcore is things would look well different..

speeds works for everything.. multicore cpu or gpu only works for whats written to use it.. and at the moment that stuff is in a minority.. fact

as for the future well that aint here now so we dont know..

trog

ps.. just to add.. everyone knows a faster single gpu is better than a slower multi gpu..how come they dont know this about a cpu.. the same principles apply..

as for heat.. well the expensive 3 gig quad that can now be bought is simply two e8400 chips sat side by side.. in theory twice the heat and twice the power draw.. in reality three of the chips sit there doing bugger all most of the time..

 

[asb2106]

 

[BullGod]

Proof of what? 2 cores cannot do 4 things at a time?

Yeah exactly that. A P4 which has just one core can run 4 programs just fine if they are not that heavy on the CPU usage. Actually in Windows the system is normally running around 20 processes at any time...

 

[asb2106]

five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..

okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..

imagine a cpu bench picked not to show the benifits of a quad.. it could easily be done.. shame it never is..

now if they showed average apps as opposed to those picked to show how wonderfull multcore is things would look well different..

speeds works for everything.. multicore cpu or gpu only works for whats written to use it.. and at the moment that stuff is in a minority.. fact

as for the future well that aint here now so we dont know..

trog

ok, like ripping with most programs, only uses 2 cores max, ok, run the program twice at the same time, I do it all the time and it is better for the quad. So he sees maybe a 10% increase with the faster FSB, but he gets more power with the extra cores.

Its like a souped up 4 banger against an v8.

 

[BullGod]

Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?

 

[asb2106]

Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?

i wasnt comparing it to the qx, I was giving it incase anyone could post with a 8400, what the hell is your problem, dude chill

 

[asb2106]

Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?

and the qx costs 1100 bucks and mine cost 260, that seems worth it to me.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Yeah exactly that. A P4 which has just one core can run 4 programs just fine if they are not that heavy on the CPU usage. Actually in Windows the system is normally running around 20 processes at any time...

Here ya go, have a read of this, a quadcore at 2.4 versus a dual core at 2.4, at least in this one it is showing some multithredded apps, the majority of benches in yours were single or dual core optimised which was my ONLY point, of course a dual core at 3gig will be faster than any corred cpu at 2.4gig in an app using only 1 or 2 cores,.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q6600/4

Ohhhh and by the way.....this is from techgauge also

 

[BullGod]

Lol, now you are trying to decide what a PC users wants to do with their PC, the person who posted origionally clearly stated what he would use the CPU for so let him decide, most people TBH dont really need more than 2 cores, a few do, let them decide who they are......I am not about to.

No actually you are trying to do that. Not everybody plays games or renders while watching a movie like you obviously do. Also you said those tests are not suited for multithreaded processors. My friend then WHY IS A QUADCORE THE FASTEST IN THOSE GRAPHS? Why all of a sudden I hate quadcores or so it seems? READ THE FRICKING TITLE OF THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not quads versus dualcores. IT'S e8400 vs q6600. IN THIS CASE THE NEW e8400 IS FASTER THAN THE OLD q6600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tatty_Two]

five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..

okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..

imagine a cpu bench picked not to show the benifits of a quad.. it could easily be done.. shame it never is..

now if they showed average apps as opposed to those picked to show how wonderfull multcore is things would look well different..

speeds works for everything.. multicore cpu or gpu only works for whats written to use it.. and at the moment that stuff is in a minority.. fact

as for the future well that aint here now so we dont know..

trog

ps.. just to add.. everyone knows a faster single gpu is better than a slower multi gpu..how come they dont know this about a cpu.. the same principles apply..

as for heat.. well the expensive 3 gig quad that can now be bought is simply two e8400 chips sat side by side.. in theory twice the heat and twice the power draw.. in reality three of the chips sit there doing bugger all most of the time..

Noones denying that? Although you are only covering multithredding there....not multitasking. My point is....who are we to decide what uses someone has for their PC, if a guy asks me whats the best CPU to run his 10 multithredded apps I will likely answer with a quadcore, if he is talking about gaming (apart from the odd multithredded game) i would say a dual core, that is actually all my point is, I have maintained all along that the E8400 is faster, I just beleive that for some people it is not the only answer dependant on what they do.

 

[Tatty_Two]

No actually you are trying to do that. Not everybody plays games or renders while watching a movie like you obviously do. Also you said those tests are not suited for multithreaded processors. My friend then WHY IS A QUADCORE THE FASTEST IN THOSE GRAPHS? Why all of a sudden I hate quadcores or so it seems? READ THE FRICKING TITLE OF THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not quads versus dualcores. IT'S e8400 vs q6600. IN THIS CASE THE NEW e8400 IS FASTER THAN THE OLD q6600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look above.....I said exactly that, but as my link suggests, when running a multithredded app, the dual core is not usually as quick think quick as in time to get the job done as opposed to raw singlwe thredded speed. If I ran any of those test that i posted from techguage against an e8400 I think I would beat the e8400 because they are multithredded, you obviously think I am wrong.......fine, the concept of multithredding/multi tasking is at least real to Intel as they are bringing Yorkfields out, and the people who want them have the choice to buy them.

Do you deny the facts from techguage that I posted and just beleive the facts from techguage that you posted?

You only need look as far as 3D Mark 2006, forget about the whole bench just look at the CPU score,2006 is multithredded so it uses as many cores as you have, an E8400 @ 3gig WILL not score as much as a Q6600 at 2.4gig, my setup on an E6850 at 4.1gig scored 15,600, with the same grafix settings etc but with a Q6600 at 3.8gig I scored 17,211.....simple really.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Hey this is fun! shame I gotta go to bed now, let's meet up tomorrow night for some more discussions Bull.

 

[asb2106]

night tatty, still only 5pm here but im going to play volleyball here soon,

still say go quad, who knows, maybe future games will be using more multithreading, maybe they can work the physics into that

Im sure more and more apps will be utilizing 4 cores, probably sooner than later too

 

[BullGod]

Hey this is fun! shame I gotta go to bed now, let's meet up tomorrow night for some more discussions Bull.

At the rate this is going. We probably wont, I already told you this is not about dualcores vs quadcores. I DON'T CARE HOW OTHER PROCESSORS PERFORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nor do I care to participate in endless arguments. I think that regarding this topic I have proven my point. And that's that. Anyways I'm always open for discussions as long as people stay on the subject. Actually I might have some beer laying around. I gotta check that out...

 

[BullGod]

Yep, a bottle of Timisoreana! Here's for you dudes!

 

[asb2106]

Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?

oh and this proves that overall power of the chip will be greater, meaning do more things at once.

 

[asb2106]

Yep, a bottle of Timisoreana! Here's for you dudes!

Timisoreana, sorry but unfamiliar, whats this? A beer?

 

[BullGod]

Timisoreana, sorry but unfamiliar, whats this? A beer?

Yep. It's a beer from my country. It says on it Anno 1718 so I guess it's one of the oldest brands here. Skol is better tho. You have Skol in America?

 

[asb2106]

Yep. It's a beer from my country. It says on it Anno 1718 so I guess it's one of the oldest brands here. Skol is better tho. You have Skol in America?

Ive heard of it, never had it

 

[Cold Storm]

here's what we need to do.. tomorrow when tatty gets on.. every one get on meebo, and have a beer for a hard day at work.. I see where you are coming from bull. I was just stating on how it would of gone better if worded differently... thats all. We really don't know unless testing for our selves what ether processor can do for us..

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

OP ... get a QUAD

 

[Nitro-Max]

Theres only one answer to this at the moment the e8500 kicks ass in games and overclocks very well my local pc shop has one set to 4.4GHz on air cooling and are great for most games on the market ""at the moment""

But if you went for the quad it speeks for its self you have four cores that can potentially run at 3.6ghz but very few games support quad cores at the moment this makes a big difference in crysis and 3d mark Future games will support quad cores and maybe more just as there is support for multi gpu crossfire and sli and soon to be quad configs Games and games details will always continue to advance and so will hardware to me the E8400 is going back a step not forward.

E8400 for the present
Q6600 for the future

your choice

 

[PaulieG]

Here. Now all you people can go bash Paulieg because he is claiming he got his e8400 stable at 4.3.

This screenie is trt740's. However, I've had 4.3 stable on air on lower volts, if you check the wolfsdale thread, you'll get a good idea of initial clocks. I've got mine at 4.5ghz on 1.54v. for benching. It's superpi stable but not prime.