Duo 3.0 or Quad 2.4 ? (E6850 or Q6600)

I

Iplayloud

New Member
I'm not a big gamer and I don't OC.. just having the itch to upgrade. I was thinking since most applications don't fully exploit multi processors would it not be better to have two fast CPUs than 4 slower ?
 
personally i would go with the quad. its very fast and very future proof. i reckon its worth getting it.

well actually you would be better off waiting for the 45nm processors.
 
You should either wait for the new 45nm cpus coming out in feb-march, or get an E6750. There is no justification to get an E6850 and the Q6600 isn't future proof enough to be worth dropping $280 on, especially when new cpus that will be better will fill in it's spot at that price range.
 
Well, I would definitely go with the quad core, because unless you are a big gamer you don't really need the extra mhz on the dual or listen to Iluvpenguins... he seems to have a good opinion to :D...
 
I don't understand why everyone's argument against quad-core is that applications aren't multi-threaded yet. Seriously. Do you read what you're saying as you're typing it? Unless your computer is running less than four processes, it's advantageous to have four cores.

That said, I'd get an E6750 or wait for newer quad cores.
 
fortyways said:
I don't understand why everyone's argument against quad-core is that applications aren't multi-threaded yet. Seriously. Do you read what you're saying as you're typing it? Unless your computer is running less than four processes, it's advantageous to have four cores.

That said, I'd get an E6750 or wait for newer quad cores.
Click to expand...

It's a natural argument. I have 31 simultaneous processes running right now, but all processes are not equal; none that I have running are demanding in the least. When I pop in a game(or the equivalent), which is inherently demanding of resources, there would be a reason for extra cores, unless of course the game is not coded for multi-threaded SMP chips. Then it's all for naught. The exception would be the avid multi-tasker, running F@H, Ripping an HD-DVD, gaming, any order of doings that managed to stress the quad to it's limit. I'll go out on a limb and suggest there are fewer of these people out there than otherwise.

Anyways, That wasn't his argument alone, it's secondary function was if the higher clock of the dual-core would be of greater service than the unoptimized-for, lower clock speed Quad, which should be responded to in the affirmative, as long as OP doesn't match the above description. Furthermore, At the rate we've been seeing application multi-threading expand, and considering the quality of the current "multi-threaded" programs, it's may well be quite a while till a quad core is utilized to it's full extant, by one, or two processes alone, which seems to be the preferred methodology.
 
personally i am going to go with the e6750, i was going to get a quad, but i dont think that i can justify spending the extra cash on something that cannot be fully utilized right now, and i do not want to spend the extra 100 bucks on an extra 333mhz, so i would say get a duo until they start to fully utilize the quads, just my .02
 
I was actually reading a review the other day with a whack of benchmarks. In todays apps the C2D E6700 actually eats up the Q6600. While the quads are a good idea for commercial applications, it is completely and utterly pointless for the home desktop at this point, unless you're looking for bragging rights. I was thinking of replacing with my E6700 with the Quad, until I found out that my C2D outperforms it.
 
SirKenin said:
I was actually reading a review the other day with a whack of benchmarks. In todays apps the C2D E6700 actually eats up the Q6600. While the quads are a good idea for commercial applications, it is completely and utterly pointless for the home desktop at this point, unless you're looking for bragging rights. I was thinking of replacing with my E6700 with the Quad, until I found out that my C2D outperforms it.
Click to expand...

The C2D probably outperforms it probably because the Q6600 was tested with a Dual Core supported coding... Thus only 2/4 cores are used.
 
Umm.. No, it did very well on synthetic CPU tests. Much better than the C2D. However, in real world applications, the C2D took it in every single test. And as far as I know you don't write code for two processors as opposed to four. It's either multi-threaded or it isn't.
 
No, it actually does. Or at the very least, the code has to be to a certain level, to actively use a higher number of cores. The code has to be able to co-ordinate multiple threads at once, which is supposedly very difficult, managing cache hits, and cache coherency, as well as I/O transmission, and basic thread awareness. If a thread happens to stumble over another toes, it could take hundreds of clock cycles to get back in place. Coding for more concurrent threads requires more effort and more bug testing, which is a huge problem when attempting to lay down basic thread-level parallelism.

In short, it's the reason the tests you saw indicated the C2d as superior in real-world tests, It's the only thing that makes sense as well, if four 2.4 cores couldn't match or beat two 2.8ghz cores, the problem obviously lies in the softwares ability to utilize these 4 core (or higher) SMP chips to their utmost.
 
Ok, I see where you're coming from...And I agree (which is why I mentioned that quads are pointless on the desktop right now). In servers, yeah, for sure. Desktops... Can you say "E-PENIS!!!". lol
 
Yeah.. Looking back, I've actually recommended people get a Q6600 over similarly priced dual-cores, because the issue of Quad multi-threading was promising. Crysis, Sup Com, the revised source engine that went into HL2:ep.2.. They all promised to take advantage of 4 cores, but when they came out it was horrible coding, a terrible showing. It was then you start to realize how difficult it must be to create copious multi-threading code, on a finite budget and a strained schedule. (or maybe the devs were just lazy, hehe)
 
hermeslyre said:
Yeah.. Looking back, I've actually recommended people get a Q6600 over similarly priced dual-cores, because the issue of Quad multi-threading was promising. Crysis, Sup Com, the revised source engine that went into HL2:ep.2.. They all promised to take advantage of 4 cores, but when they came out it was horrible coding, a terrible showing. It was then you start to realize how difficult it must be to create copious multi-threading code, on a finite budget and a strained schedule. (or maybe the devs were just lazy, hehe)
Click to expand...
Well when you really think about it, only a very small percentage of people that play HL2 don't have quad cores, heck most are still on single core processors. So taking time to make full use of a quad-core is not cost effective.
 
That's the argument.. Uniprocessor systems are more prevalent than otherwise. I just don't like that they all promised it, and purchases were made because of that promise, yet they fell on their face. It's very aggravating..
 
...So you reckon a dual core is still better value for money?

I'm still torn between Q6600 and E6850, which are both the same price.
I also thought about the E8500, but for an extra 0.16GHz and £30 I thought no point.

I might just go for the E6850 now, since the main opinion seems to be, that the quad cores are a little gimmiky.
 
I really would get the quad core if you don't want to wait for the 45mm pocessors... The quad-coew will be far more futureproof than the dual core imo... as multi-threading advances.. the performance of the quad-core will be greater than the dual core... at that point... the dual cores will become more obsolete than the quads.... and you can always overclock the quad to 3Ghz quite easily if you are concerned about that

Really I wouldn't go fo the dual core at all... i had the same problem deciding when i was building mine and i decided to stick with the quad because i knew i would get better performance out of it... (after sooooo many people told me so... I;m glad i listened coz my mate has the dual core you were looking at and my computer does perform better... especially when unning multiple tasks
 
i have a quad core because i dont wnat to buy another cpu in the future. So i just future proofed myself. even though when i play css im only using one core. later on down the road when things are more intense then it will get into the other 3 cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top