Originally posted by: magnumty
I have the e8400 on a gigabyte ds3l mobo, can I just drop in a quad Q6600 and be good to go? Or will my xp machine have to bee formatted?
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Originally posted by: nerp
Yeah, it's not that simple. If you're gaming, that Q6600 is going to be a step backwards. No quad can OC quite as well as the E8400. And unless you're doing serious rendering, ray tracing or hard core encoding, the dual is more than sufficient.
Originally posted by: DSF
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Yes and no.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: DSF
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Yes and no.
I suppose it's yes and no in much the same way when talking about a Core 2 being superior to a Pentium 3.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Originally posted by: tim924
This is not a health related forum,we are talking about technology,and as a matter of fact im sure 99.9% of people will agree that 4 people working at the same time will be more beneficial than having only 2 people with 10% more efficiency than each of the 4,face the reality while a Q6600 can overclock to 3.6GHz,there is not a single game or program that it will not run as smooth as the E8400 at 4.0GHz,but in some cases,when you have loads of apps or games that would be more optimized with more cores,that's when the Q6600 advances way ahead,so overall having a 4.0GHz E8400 over a 3.6GHz Q6600 will only grant you some higher number in your system profile as most people would address that as "eye candy",but realistically less effective in certain situations.
A better example of your false "pregnant" example in technology would be:If you are to lift a 50 pound-object,im sure 2 people with 10% more strength will come up with the same result as 4 people having 10% less strength each.You may call them "more efficient" per person,but fact is they both can lift 50 pounds the same way.But what if you are to lift 500 pounds,I guess your so called "more efficient" man will have a hard time,then they would probably start asking more men to complete the task,my example might not be the best,but I think it contradicts your false "pregnant" example perfectly as it rather belongs to the hospital's forum.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Comparing a dual to a quad is really simple. A quad is superior to a dual, nobody debates this except fanboys or jealous people.(Does anybody debate that a single is better than a dual?) The only argument that exists is if someone needs the extra performance or not. Wasn't speaking about specific models, this is in general.
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.
For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.
Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.
You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.
9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.
Originally posted by: SolMiester
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.
For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.
Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.
You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.
9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.
eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......
Originally posted by: nerp
Jealousy? I could buy 10 quads and put them in my wood burning stove if I wanted.
Originally posted by: evilbix
I would recommend going with the dual if you have money, and plan on upgrading again in about 12-18 months
However, if you plan on holding onto the rig for more than 2+ years then go with the quad.
Originally posted by: SolMiester
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.
For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.
Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.
You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.
9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.
eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: SolMiester
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?
Quads are superior to duals.
Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.
For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.
Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.
You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.
9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.
eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......
Then why do duals outperform quads in games with the same video card?