by all means yess!!!!!!!! e8400 will suit you.q9650 is gonna come out in 1-2 yrs and 32nm is also round the corner
q6600/e8400??
- Thread starter coolest111
- Start date
-
- Tags
- account orkut pls q6600/e8400
- Status
ring_wraith
=--=l33t=--=
but I just dont buy into that idea
You don't buy the idea? What the hell does that mean? More cores are the future, and you know it. There's only so far you can push one core without increasing power requirements irrationally.
OP
coolest111
Journeyman
every tech have to b old someday.......
thanx anyways waiting 4 more suggestions....
getting in a weak or two so pls reply....
DigitalDude
PhotonAttack
you are perfectly correct... more cores are the future and that more than one core you say is 'dual' for me at present... maybe I dont forsee a bleeding edge requirement for me in the near future
so I dont believe C2Qs can be fully exploited at present or in the near future by ppl who dont have anything to do with rendering/media encoding and allied segments that already have softwares that take advantage of that much cores
what I dont buy is the idea of getting a 65nm C2Q for some more price, with the anticipation of quadcores being utilised fully in the near future, infavour of a better 45nm C2D with a higher clock and bus speed
that will give me full bang for the buck right from day 1.....this survey is the most comprehensive hardware survey representing gamers system profiles.. just have a look:
*www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
btw not much affecting our discussions but still I will just tell this... Intel C2Qs are just two dualcores sandwiched together... only AMD has native Quadcores though performance wise it sucks...
_
crysis,the only game using a quad,scales better with a duo.what can you say to that?quads will be needed 2-3 years later
OP
coolest111
Journeyman
no way we will see a change in 6 months(approx)
you are perfectly correct... more cores are the future and that more than one core you say is 'dual' for me at present... maybe I dont forsee a bleeding edge requirement for me in the near future
so I dont believe C2Qs can be fully exploited at present or in the near future by ppl who dont have anything to do with rendering/media encoding and allied segments that already have softwares that take advantage of that much cores
what I dont buy is the idea of getting a 65nm C2Q for some more price, with the anticipation of quadcores being utilised fully in the near future, infavour of a better 45nm C2D with a higher clock and bus speed
this survey is the most comprehensive hardware survey representing gamers system profiles.. just have a look:
*www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
btw not much affecting our discussions but still I will just tell this... Intel C2Qs are just two dualcores sandwiched together... only AMD has native Quadcores though performance wise it sucks...
_
i agree 2 u.....
Last edited:
the only way crysis will run properlyis by using GT200 cards which are supposed to be the 9900's
OP
coolest111
Journeyman
no one is going to buy a card just 2 support a single game......
nish_higher
Wise Old Owl
^ not much and if i'm not wrong isn't Crysis optimised for Core 2 Extreme?
i've used both a Q6600 and E8400 (E8400 is my current procy) and i wud say that E8400 is better suited for current apps.
Q6600 did allow me to do some heavy multitasking but then i did that sort of multitasking rarely.my bootup time has decreased with the E8400 and my 8800GTS 3DMark06 scores hav increased.
so i wud suggest a E8400 to any1 who aint into heavy multitasking.
Q6600 did allow me to do some heavy multitasking but then i did that sort of multitasking rarely.my bootup time has decreased with the E8400 and my 8800GTS 3DMark06 scores hav increased.
so i wud suggest a E8400 to any1 who aint into heavy multitasking.
nish_higher
Wise Old Owl
even an OCed E8400 wont perform as good as a OC'ed Q6600 due to its lower L2 Cache , and a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz isnt a bad OC , which can be achieved using a good cooler like a 90i
^^^ i beg to differ with u buddy.a oc'd quad wud perform better in CPU related benches but the E8400 oc'd to the same level wud perform better in real world apps which dont benefit from quad.the 2MB xtra cache of the Q6600 wont make a world of a difference.
the main thing is if the app is optimised to utilise the full pwr of the 4 cores of a quad then the E8400 just wont be able to match the performance level of the Q6600.but most apps r not optimised to use all the 4 cores
the main thing is if the app is optimised to utilise the full pwr of the 4 cores of a quad then the E8400 just wont be able to match the performance level of the Q6600.but most apps r not optimised to use all the 4 cores
nish_higher
Wise Old Owl
^ yes true but pretty soon games r gonna rock on quad..what abt then?and many apps right now (pro only) run better on a Quad.
in real world , by how much does e8400 lead q6600 ? any links to benchies..
mayanksharma
Ambassador of Buzz
IMO, going for Q6600 should be a good decision. Considering the price and future extendebility, Q6600 rocks in that department. 8400 on the other hand is based on penryn core, i.e. 45nm fabrication technology. That tends to better overclocking ofcourse. Though, opinions may vary. I am happy with my Quad and so are many others.
@hellgate,
3DMark06 scores with a Dual core CPU is always less than a Quad Core CPU, no matter how hard u overclock it! The recent futuremark products and even the upcoming ones scale better with Quad than a Conroe!
@hellgate,
3DMark06 scores with a Dual core CPU is always less than a Quad Core CPU, no matter how hard u overclock it!
The recent futuremark products and even the upcoming ones scale better with Quad than a Conroe!@hellgate,
3DMark06 scores with a Dual core CPU is always less than a Quad Core CPU, no matter how hard u overclock it!
the overall 3DMark06 score will be higher with a Q6600 but wat i wanted to say that for me the SM2.0 and SM3.0/HDR scores for my 8800GTS 320MB has increased with the E8400.
in quad core's alot much improvement is needed, and first being lowering of power reqs. if you buy a quad core now to stop it from burning is alot expense. Add to this, still there arent much applications which can utilize double cores. how can you expect that for quad cores. Applications are not just gaming apps and multimedia apps, theres alot to them. Even, for which you guys recommend quad core for rendering softwares like Maya autocad, what is the performance change from C2D. I dont see why a normal user would go for them, they are like the Pentium D proccessors, just they are showing better performance, unlike Pentium D which were even lower in performance than normal HT proccys and generated alot much heat.
It never means that something is costliest is best.
It never means that something is costliest is best.
OP
coolest111
Journeyman
IF A PERSON BUYS A THING HE HAVE GET HAPPY AS HE HVE NO OPTIONS LEFT....
opinions may vary I KNOW THIS BUT NOW IF I GIVE U 10K WAT WILL U OPT FOR......N THAT WAT I AM ASKING.....?
I AGREE.....
PLS NAME SOME PRO APPS.....
why NOT 2 recommend e8400 over q6600 ?(THING COSTINK 2K LESS WITH SAME PERFORMANCE)
Last edited:
- Status