Yes, I Know

[funkysnair]

so you are saying that whilst you are gaming the other 2 cores dont get used????

maybe not for gaming but im sure there will be background processes that will be using using the 3rd and 4th cores if the game manages to max out the 1st and 2nd core right?

me playing cod4 and using xfire nothing else

 

[g4m3rof1337]

I did all that seamlessly on my E6300, and I barely noticed a difference on my E8400.


Just weigh the Pros and Cons of both CPUs and see what you come up with, since I'm sure this E84 Vs Q66 can turn into a PC Vs Mac discussion pretty fast.

 

[atentora]

I pretty much knew it was going to end up this way...
50/50 in the poll right now.

I like to multi-task, so I figure that the quad is the better choice. But from what I'm seeing it doesn't actually matter either way. The differences are so small they don't really show up?

 

[funkysnair]

exactly!!

but dont be fool'd into thinking the other cores on the q66 range lie dormant cos they dont....

i have dual screen and i have the graph up there to show me what cpu usage is going on and its very rare the 3rd and 4th core dont move!

 

[Kornowski]

exactly!!

but dont be fool'd into thinking the other cores on the q66 range lie dormant cos they dont....

i have dual screen and i have the graph up there to show me what cpu usage is going on and its very rare the 3rd and 4th core dont move!

Aye, Very true. Since I got my Quad I haven't seen one of the cores active on it's own. All of them are doing something, even if it's only using 2% of that core, the load is split between them all. It's amazing for gaming, despite what people may say. Agreed, a high clocked E8400 may pull a few more FPS in games, but the difference is neglable. I'd take a Quad, just because it's more "future proof" than the Dual Core. Just my opinion.

 

[fade2green514]

the differences are huge. i mean, it's all processing power versus speed.

like i've always compared single core to dual core, think of each core as a train that can hold a certain amount of people. while single core can get the people there faster, there's no way it can transport as many people in the same amount of time.

well, this argument is just 2 trains at 80mph or 4 trains at 65mph. it really wont make a huge difference because generally your games require you to use 50mph.

and then there's video conversion and stuff like that, which goes twice as fast for quad core as it does for dual core.

personally i'm completely satisfied with the performance of my quad core. it's a great processor and i really never have to wait for anything. seriously, i burn a dvd and game at the same time. it's awesome.

 

[funkysnair]

i burn a dvd, game, listen to music, xfire, and vent with out a hickup.....

 

[Ambushed]

Well, there is a good side to having the Q6600. You can boost to your friends about having a quad core.

 

[Kornowski]

Well, there is a good side to have the Q6600. You can boost to your friends about having a quad core.

Fo Sho!

 

[cohen]

Q6600 gets my vote

 

[Ramodkk]

This thread should've ended real quick

The E8400 wins in gaming performance, period.

 

[kal2509]

At this point in time and with the gaming technology now, the E8400 is better BUT I got the Q6600 because it allows for more multi-tasking plus gaming really isn't that bad on a Q6600. I'm happy with mine

ya... but grammar is............lol j/k

 

[shenry]

E8400 for me.

 

[atentora]

Why is it everytime I check this thread, I find that it is a tie between the two?

So to sum up what I've been reading is that the Q6600 is better for heavy multi tasking while the E8400 is better for gamming if you don't plan on multi tasking during it. Does that make sense?

 

[scooter]

...its more future proof

I wish people would stop using that term!

There is no such thing as future proofing a computer or future-proof components.

Everything goes down in value the second you buy it and nothing, in computer world, is immune to the ever present time/age depreciating factor.


..Also..I pick e8400

 

[Kesava]

I have a Q6600 but I'm not gonna say stuff like "but you can overclock it to the same as the E8400" and "its more future proof" because when it comes down to it, the E8400 is better for gaming.

 

[Computer_Freak]

games are starting to use all four cores. look at crysis...

And when people say future proof, they dont mean in 5 years time...
They mean in a few months one year, and for the general public (non enthusiasts) that upgrade every 2 years, rather get a Q6600, and with a little OC, it will sweep the E8400 off the floor

 

[Kornowski]

http://www.computerforum.com/131944-quad-core-vs-dual-core-official-thread.html#post1082073

/Thread.

 

[mix1009]

The Core 2 Duo E8400 because of 6MB L2 Cache
unless you want it for Gaming

 

[CdnAudiophile]

How long do you plan on keeping this CPU? The Q6600 is the way to go. The Dual core will become useless far before the Quad does. I can see within this year games becoming more and more reliant on multicore CPU's. Just look at GTA4. The future of gaming is going to be this way.