Originally posted by: aigomorla
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: JAG87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: aigomorla
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: JAG87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Im using those numbers because as i have mentioned previously, a 3.4ghz dualcore would seriously spank a 3.0ghz quadcore.
Then that brings us back to this question
1. Why did you get a quadcore? Was it for speed in applicaitons or was it because you thought it would be faster then a dual core?
2. Are you running the proper quadcore optimized programs?
As i have said, 3.6 and 3.7ghz quads are fairly rare. I would say about 10% of the people owning quads can keep it there stable. So everyone likes 3.6ghz as a number. 400fsb on 9x or 450fsb on 8x is a very pretty number.
So people who wants those numbers need to know the price it comes with it. If it doesnt apply to you, then ignore my posts. But if it does concern you, then you should learn from someone who has 2 running quads at those speeds.
If your happy with a 3.0ghz quad being spanked hardcore by a E6600 @ 3.6ghz, my previous E6600, then thats all on you. AS for me, a quadcore should outperform a dual core, even in non quadcore optimized programs. OTherwise, Why did i buy a quadcore to begin with?
Last note, a 3.2ghz quad vs a 3.2ghz dualcore, the quads have a slightly faster clock. But the heat difference between a 3.2ghz dualcore and a quadcore, is almost 2x
To make things simple, dont jump the july 22nd bandwagon for a quad. I dont recomend B3 steppings to anyone thats not prepared to cool these beasts down. The G0 steppings would be the best route to go, as they run a little bit cooler, and they overclock much better.
3.6ghz on a G0 stepping on air is most definitely possible, with a tuniq tower.</end quote></div>
Your so out of this planet buddy.
First of all, there is absoultely no point in comparing a 3GHZ quad to a 3.6GHZ dual core. If you bought a quad, its because you need it, because your applications are multithreaded. But it seems to me like you just bought yours for the bragging rights of having at 3.6GHZ.
Second of all, I can just disable 3 cores in the bios and overclock my now singlecore kentsfield to 4GHZ and spank your 3.6GHZ e6600.
Last but not least, the core 2 architecture was never meant to scale to 3.6GHZ. just because you like the pretty round numbers doesn't mean its the "reference" overclock. Face it, core 2 and 65nm can only scale to 3.2GHZ for stable 24/7 operation, with the exception of a few lucky chips that hit 3.3 to 3.4ghz. your 3.6GHZ number is nice, but I am afraid its not for this generation. Yorkfield should quench your thirst for more MHz, but im sure once that hits, you will make posts about how everyone's Yorkfield should be running at 4GHZ, otherwise its trash because a dual core can clock higher.
</end quote></div>
There NOT worth it, unless you WCG, or encode til no tommarrow. </end quote></div>
out of everything you have said, that was the only sentence that you put thought into. if you analyze it, it kind of answers everything I bashed you about. Basically if you need a quad, you will take it even if its clocked much lower than a Core 2 Duo. If you dont need it, then your a fool for buying one, because it will make your life much harder overall with overclocking + heat.
Am I correct aigo? which is why I was flaming about the pointlessness of trying to crank 3.6 ghz out of a quad. Its nice, but for the true use of the quad, it merely becomes bragging rights. Because a quad will smoke a core 2 duo at multithreading, regardless how much lower its clocked.
</end quote></div>
okey you must have some issues with me because your not thinking how people think once the quads drop near or same price as a C2D.
Lets think about this again shall we.
Q6600 @ 266
E6850 @ 249
Ones a quadcore with 4 cores, the other is a higher clocked dual core with 2 cores.
NOW tell me which people would most likely get. I think they will be more tempted on teh quadcore regardless if they needed it or not.
And i'll be frank, I have quite a large budget for my toys. Yes computers are my toys, and there a very nice big tax write off for me each year. I am telling members that if there getting quadcores with no real use and applications for them, to stay away from them.
Your trying to shove my 3.6 and 3.7ghz quads into this debate about how they all should be overclocked to those specs. Well, I know how these babys handle at stock -> 3.7ghz.
Ive also gone though 8 different C2D chips as well since first release. Ive had L628B 31B and 40F's
Now the sad thing is that people dont take the heat factor into quadcores, and most of them will overclock it. This is what ive been warning people, so there forced to reduce the overclock on the quads to compensate for this.
Your thinking too idealistically on this forum, meaning people will only get what they need. But humans, expecially pepople that overclock, have something CALLED GREED.
We like to push things harder then what they are intended to do. And your missing my first comment about if you run both at stock, the kentsfield will run faster. So can YOU please read what i type and then reply, because im seriously getting tired of your little flames. You have nothing to show me that you know anything about these guys besides owning a QX6700, which i also went though on there first release.
Why dont i have my QX6700 anymore? because my L628B E6600 was spanking it in almost every application out at the time. So i am trying to tell people, if you have real uses for it, which not a lot of people do, DONT GET THEM.
Its that simple. Dont be pushing newbies on quadcores because of promises that they will run faster. The truth is THEY DONT, unless you have real uses for it, or there tuned faster then the dual cores.
So stop trying to hump my leg. The only people that can ever correct me on quadcores would be Yoxxy and Lopri. You have no place in my book on quadcores.
Another note: This is more to people still interested in quadcores.
DONT GET THE 680i unless SLI is a must on your system. The 680i board sucks major dung comapred to the gigabyte P35-DS3P. If your still interested in quadcores, i highly recomend the gigabyte P35-DS3P board. If your not going to overclock these baby's at all, then a P965-DS3 rev.3.0 which is on my X3210 should handle these girls fine as well, even with mild overclocking.