Quad or Dual

[zod96]

Looking at a Quad 9450 or a Dual E8400 what has better raw speed? This is for games btw..

 

[khurios2000]

e8400

 

[Gillbot]

raw speed, or raw speed after OC?

Either way, the E8400 will probably get you more MHz overall.

 

[boomhower]

Pure gaming rig, dual all the way.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are overclocking, and want to save some $$ go for E7200 at $130. Otherwise if you are not overly concerned with electricity costs then Q6600 at $190 is a good processor. Most users on these forums have E8400 hovering at 3.6-3.7ghz while Q6600 should easily 3.4ghz. I would personally get Q6600 over E8400 even if it cost $50 more, but for almost the same price, E8400 just seems like poor value all around.

With the cheapest quad at $190, I just dont see any point in buying a dual core since 3.8ghz will provide 0 tanginble benefit in gaming over a 3.4ghz quad. While we are already starting to see in UE3 engine games the quad to provide superior performance.

 

[taltamir]

quad, faster encoding, faster game performance. The dual core is just not enough anymore for several high end games. Even overclocked the dual core will not be enough. Get a quad core and OC it.

 

[Team42]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you are overclocking, and want to save some $$ go for E7200 at $130. Otherwise if you are not overly concerned with electricity costs then Q6600 at $190 is a good processor. Most users on these forums have E8400 hovering at 3.6-3.7ghz while Q6600 should easily 3.4ghz. I would personally get Q6600 over E8400 even if it cost $50 more, but for almost the same price, E8400 just seems like poor value all around.

With the cheapest quad at $190, I just dont see any point in buying a dual core since 3.8ghz will provide 0 tanginble benefit in gaming over a 3.4ghz quad. While we are already starting to see in UE3 engine games the quad to provide superior performance.

I can't see the sense in this. The Q6600 is unlikely to provide much, if any, advantage for most current games and, given it's the older fab, will be replaced by much more efficient CPUs in the very near future for pretty much the same price. For gaming, as has been mentioned in this thread and many others, a C2D, particularly the E8400, will be more than sufficient for most gaming needs, and will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.

What could you do with the extra $50? Get a decent cooler perhaps?

The benefit of the C2D over the Quad is the running costs. If you're a gamer mostly, a Quad is an unneccessary luxury, in my opinion, until mainstream games become more adept at utilising multicores. Besides, an old Quad is not going to be as good as a new Quad, and the new Quads are out there for not that much more money at the minute. Give them a while, and they'll come down in price.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Team42

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you are overclocking, and want to save some $$ go for E7200 at $130. Otherwise if you are not overly concerned with electricity costs then Q6600 at $190 is a good processor. Most users on these forums have E8400 hovering at 3.6-3.7ghz while Q6600 should easily 3.4ghz. I would personally get Q6600 over E8400 even if it cost $50 more, but for almost the same price, E8400 just seems like poor value all around.

With the cheapest quad at $190, I just dont see any point in buying a dual core since 3.8ghz will provide 0 tanginble benefit in gaming over a 3.4ghz quad. While we are already starting to see in UE3 engine games the quad to provide superior performance.

I can't see the sense in this. The Q6600 is unlikely to provide much, if any, advantage for most current games and, given it's the older fab, will be replaced by much more efficient CPUs in the very near future for pretty much the same price. For gaming, as has been mentioned in this thread and many others, a C2D, particularly the E8400, will be more than sufficient for most gaming needs, and will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.

What could you do with the extra $50? Get a decent cooler perhaps?

The benefit of the C2D over the Quad is the running costs. If you're a gamer mostly, a Quad is an unneccessary luxury, in my opinion, until mainstream games become more adept at utilising multicores. Besides, an old Quad is not going to be as good as a new Quad, and the new Quads are out there for not that much more money at the minute. Give them a while, and they'll come down in price.

already happened. I personally benchmarked overclocked E8400 to be insufficient for certain games TODAY.

Luddites keep on saying "you never need more then X for modern games", where X is:
1. 2GB of ram
2. Dual core CPU
3. etc

Those were true in the past, but no longer are. look around for actual benchmarks designed to test those exact things and you will see that quads are needed for todays games.

The Q6600 will not OC as high as the E8400, and it will cost you more in electricity, probably around 50$ more a year. But it will be worth it due to being so much faster.
Also... OC it.

 

[Team42]

Originally posted by: taltamir

already happened. I personally benchmarked overclocked E8400 to be insufficient for certain games TODAY.

Luddites keep on saying "you never need more then X for modern games", where X is:
1. 2GB of ram
2. Dual core CPU
3. etc

Those were true in the past, but no longer are. look around for actual benchmarks designed to test those exact things and you will see that quads are needed for todays games.

The Q6600 will not OC as high as the E8400, and it will cost you more in electricity, probably around 50$ more a year. But it will be worth it due to being so much faster.
Also... OC it.

I'm not entirely sure that is true, based on this benchmark this benchmark

While Quads may have some advantages, it appears that the Duos can at least hold their own, are generally cheaper, and cost less to run. Perhaps some games benefit from Quads now, and more may do in the future, but I don't think there's enough evidence to indicate that gamers should imediately ditch Duos in favour of Quads now.

Perhaps we need a list of games indicating which CPU (C2D, C2Q, AMD) gives the most benefit. I know for one, there are many popular games that I have no interest in playing, and I'd like my rig to suit what I do play.

 

[AmberClad]

I personally have not found a dual core to be a bottleneck in any of the games I play. I always use the highest eye candy levels I can get away with, and I've consistently found the GPU to be the bottleneck, never the CPU. Are there games out there that can actually benefit from a quad? Sure. I'm sure as hell not going to get a quad and deal with the added heat and power consumption for a handful of games that I don't even care to play.

Microsoft Flight Simulator? Mass Effect on PC? No thanks, not my thing. The vast majority of hit titles that people actually play don't require a quad to get the fullest experience from.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Team42

Originally posted by: taltamir

already happened. I personally benchmarked overclocked E8400 to be insufficient for certain games TODAY.

Luddites keep on saying "you never need more then X for modern games", where X is:
1. 2GB of ram
2. Dual core CPU
3. etc

Those were true in the past, but no longer are. look around for actual benchmarks designed to test those exact things and you will see that quads are needed for todays games.

The Q6600 will not OC as high as the E8400, and it will cost you more in electricity, probably around 50$ more a year. But it will be worth it due to being so much faster.
Also... OC it.

I'm not entirely sure that is true, based on this benchmark this benchmark

While Quads may have some advantages, it appears that the Duos can at least hold their own, are generally cheaper, and cost less to run. Perhaps some games benefit from Quads now, and more may do in the future, but I don't think there's enough evidence to indicate that gamers should imediately ditch Duos in favour of Quads now.

Perhaps we need a list of games indicating which CPU (C2D, C2Q, AMD) gives the most benefit. I know for one, there are many popular games that I have no interest in playing, and I'd like my rig to suit what I do play.

I agree, I actually found out a benchmark showing that a phenom gets TWICE the FPS in company of heroes regardless of resolution, over a 4ghz OCed QX chip. And call of juarez being slightly faster in 1920x1200 but slower in lower res. And then the phenom lost in everything else....

Microsoft Flight Simulator? Mass Effect on PC? No thanks, not my thing. The vast majority of hit titles that people actually play don't require a quad to get the fullest experience from.

Sure, only a few games need it, but with a slower GPU you just lower the settings a bit and shazam, you got smooth FPS. With a slower CPU there is absolutely nothing you can do short of upgrading the CPU to get smooth FPS.
Are those specific games not your thing? well ok, but I say "upgrade often and upgrade cheap". We are talking about two parts that cost the same, (although one is more expensive to operate, I would estimate up to 50$ a year more). One of them is "enough" for most games today, but not ALL. The other is enough for all. I don't know about you but I like my hardware to be able to last 9-15 months before needing replacement, and I like to get more performance for the same price. If it shows that it is slower on some of the games out TODAY, how will it fare in 6 months? I am against future proofing, but this isn't future proofing, this is now proofing.

Anyways, This is simply science folks. two weeks ago I vehemently argued that a quad core is a waste of money for a gamer and they should just get a faster dual core. Since then I have seen EVIDENCE to the contrary and changed my tune. If you choose to not believe me, do so. I am here to learn and teach, but I am not here to preach. I ask for people's benchmarks, I provide my own. If you have none to provide and work solely on FAITH then enjoy your dual core religion. I have nothing to add to that.

(not that I am accusing you amber or you team of being dual core fanatics... just saying it as a general statement. Its my new motto when it comes to quad vs dual arguments)

 

[Team42]

Taltamir,

I have nothing against Quads. If I thought it was the best CPU for me (based on lots of variables) I'd get one. I bought an Intel E4300 last year, and overclocked it to just over 3.0 GHz. At the time, it was the best CPU for me. It hasn't let me down for what I do. But times they are a-changin'... My X1950Pro, however, is my weak link. I'm sure that, in the future (possibly 12-24 months) C2D may not be as ideal, but I can't see that now. I've no reason to go to a Quad at the minute. I've more reason to upgrade my GPU, and when I do that, I'm sure my E4300 may be a bit on the weak side, but I still can't see a Quad helping more than an E8400. The benchmarks I linked earlier support my personal view. It may not be a definitive test, but it reassures me in the absence of anything else.

In Sweet Home CPU-ville, it really is a matter of horses for courses. You've just got to know which course you're on.

 

[taltamir]

all true Team42... but he asked, for the same price. the E8400 or the Q6600 (to which I would say, the Q6600 is actually more expensive due to power consumption, but get it anyways).
Obviously if you are comparing a 100$ C2D then it might be a far wiser choice for some to get a C2D at half the price.
And I agree that in your situation you will get more out of upgrading the GPU.
I was just focusing on the OPs dilemma. which is "at the same price but greater cost of operation, the Q6600 or the E8400 for gaming."

 

[AmberClad]

The OP is considering a Q9450, not a Q6600. And it would appear at first glance that he might already have a E8400.

Me, my views are pretty much in line with Team42. I'm quite ready to jump for a Nehalem quad when those eventually come out, and hopefully by then there will be better support for multicore in games. The quads of today just don't seem like a good proposition if you already have a decent dual.

- In the case of the Q6600, sure it's cheap, but it's questionable whether the added cost related to power consumption is worth it. That additional power usage over a dual is full time, whereas the games that see a measurable benefit are few and far between.
- In the case of a Penryn, it's more power efficient, but it's also more expensive, which is more of an issue since it'll be outclassed by the Nehalems which aren't far off.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Team42

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you are overclocking, and want to save some $$ go for E7200 at $130. Otherwise if you are not overly concerned with electricity costs then Q6600 at $190 is a good processor. Most users on these forums have E8400 hovering at 3.6-3.7ghz while Q6600 should easily 3.4ghz. I would personally get Q6600 over E8400 even if it cost $50 more, but for almost the same price, E8400 just seems like poor value all around.

With the cheapest quad at $190, I just dont see any point in buying a dual core since 3.8ghz will provide 0 tanginble benefit in gaming over a 3.4ghz quad. While we are already starting to see in UE3 engine games the quad to provide superior performance.

I can't see the sense in this. The Q6600 is unlikely to provide much, if any, advantage for most current games and, given it's the older fab, will be replaced by much more efficient CPUs in the very near future for pretty much the same price. For gaming, as has been mentioned in this thread and many others, a C2D, particularly the E8400, will be more than sufficient for most gaming needs, and will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.

What could you do with the extra $50? Get a decent cooler perhaps?

The benefit of the C2D over the Quad is the running costs. If you're a gamer mostly, a Quad is an unneccessary luxury, in my opinion, until mainstream games become more adept at utilising multicores. Besides, an old Quad is not going to be as good as a new Quad, and the new Quads are out there for not that much more money at the minute. Give them a while, and they'll come down in price.

already happened. I personally benchmarked overclocked E8400 to be insufficient for certain games TODAY.

Luddites keep on saying "you never need more then X for modern games", where X is:
1. 2GB of ram
2. Dual core CPU
3. etc

Those were true in the past, but no longer are. look around for actual benchmarks designed to test those exact things and you will see that quads are needed for todays games.

The Q6600 will not OC as high as the E8400, and it will cost you more in electricity, probably around 50$ more a year. But it will be worth it due to being so much faster.
Also... OC it.

I think some of this is being blown out of proportion. You are correct that some games do benifit from Quad Cores, but in general that isn't true. That will be more true as we continue on in the future, but currently the fastest dual core will handle games for the next few years without a problem.

You have to understand that game developers are not going to be coding games that are CPU starved. It wouldn't make sense. They have to develop for the market that will be playing the game, not the 1% of elite gamers that keep hardcore rigs.

I don't think anyone who buys a E8400 and clocks it at 4Ghz is going to have any problems playing games for the next few years. Talt, you give one example that only you and a few others experience. I don't particular think that is the norm for Mass Effect and dual core CPUs.

Though if someone were to buy a CPU today, I'd say just got the Quad Core as it will no doubt have great longevity. Of course, most of us gamers on this forum tend to upgrade before we really *need* to in the first place, so the whole discussion might be moot.

 

[Gillbot]

I look at it this way. Even if you run your PC 24/7, the benefit of a quad over the dual is minimal based on how often you would actially utilize all 4 cores. There is no way you'd be gaming on the rig 24/7 so unless it's a cruncher or something that needs all 4 cores, I think the dual is the better choice overall for MOST users.

I know I was convinced to dump my E3110 for a Q6600. I have seen ZERO improvement in my web browsing, email or solitare play. Even though I do play a good bit of Supreme Commander, the difference from the E3110 to the Q6600 was not even noticeable. I did however have to upgrade to better cooling and a power supply to feed and cool the quad. To me, that was a loss of efficiency and for MOST users, not worth it.

I still say E8400/E3110 or even better yet, the E7200.

 

[aigomorla]

what is this thing you guys call dualcore?

*lost*


everyone has there arguements, and everyone is correct.

Im not going to go against anyone. However what is the level of your greed?

If its great, grab a quad and end it.

 

[OCGuy]

Taltamir, what games are you playing that actually use more than 2 cores? Supcom, FSX, and.....?

For gaming only, a E8400 is the way to go..

 

[Qbah]

It's not like you're buying a new CPU every month... I'd say go for the Q9450. You never miss the cash you spend (so, you'll get drunk twice less this month, big deal) and you won't get second thoughts once thigns start to slow down cause you bought a dual - "what if I bought that quad... I could've spend the 100$ extra". You won't see a difference now in most games, however who knows in half a year? And once you get that Q9450 you'll keep it longer than half a year, that's a given. Not to mention you can do alot of things at once. Have a game on one screen for example, a movie in the corner of another screen, browsers running with flash and chatting on your communicator. You might think that is alot and you would never do so many things at once, but once you try it there's no comming back

So, all in all, I'm voting for the quad

 

[MrStryker]

I'm in the same boat, and after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still lost on what to do. Go Q6600, E8400, E7200 or a E2180. I don't play enough SupCom to justify a quad-core, but most of the games I play are singlethreaded. Yet again, I still have a great difficulty deciding which path to go.

 

[AshPhoenix]

Originally posted by: MrStryker
I'm in the same boat, and after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still lost on what to do. Go Q6600, E8400, E7200 or a E2180. I don't play enough SupCom to justify a quad-core, but most of the games I play are singlethreaded. Yet again, I still have a great difficulty deciding which path to go.

1. Get an E7200 now for only $113 and overclock it.

2. If you need a quad core later get one which will be real cheap by then.

3. Profit !

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix

Originally posted by: MrStryker
I'm in the same boat, and after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still lost on what to do. Go Q6600, E8400, E7200 or a E2180. I don't play enough SupCom to justify a quad-core, but most of the games I play are singlethreaded. Yet again, I still have a great difficulty deciding which path to go.

1. Get an E7200 now for only $113 and overclock it.

2. If you need a quad core later get one which will be real cheap by then.

3. Profit !

QFT!

I still say I should have stopped at my higher clocked E3110 and called it done. I've bounced between both quad and dual core and I still favor the raw MHz of the dual core. That raw MHz gain will help in more apps than the extra cores of the quad will for MOST users.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix

Originally posted by: MrStryker
I'm in the same boat, and after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still lost on what to do. Go Q6600, E8400, E7200 or a E2180. I don't play enough SupCom to justify a quad-core, but most of the games I play are singlethreaded. Yet again, I still have a great difficulty deciding which path to go.

1. Get an E7200 now for only $113 and overclock it.

2. If you need a quad core later get one which will be real cheap by then.

3. Profit !

QFT!

I still say I should have stopped at my higher clocked E3110 and called it done. I've bounced between both quad and dual core and I still favor the raw MHz of the dual core. That raw MHz gain will help in more apps than the extra cores of the quad will for MOST users.

MOST users won't be able to practically tell the difference between a stock 2180 and a Quad at 4ghz in everyday email/office/net tasks, imho

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix

Originally posted by: MrStryker
I'm in the same boat, and after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still lost on what to do. Go Q6600, E8400, E7200 or a E2180. I don't play enough SupCom to justify a quad-core, but most of the games I play are singlethreaded. Yet again, I still have a great difficulty deciding which path to go.

1. Get an E7200 now for only $113 and overclock it.

2. If you need a quad core later get one which will be real cheap by then.

3. Profit !

QFT!

I still say I should have stopped at my higher clocked E3110 and called it done. I've bounced between both quad and dual core and I still favor the raw MHz of the dual core. That raw MHz gain will help in more apps than the extra cores of the quad will for MOST users.

MOST users won't be able to practically tell the difference between a stock 2180 and a Quad at 4ghz in everyday email/office/net tasks, imho

But that's my point. If you compare everything stock vs. stock speeds, the dual core is the way to go for most users. If you add in the OC, most users only game or utilize multiple cores such a small percentage of the time that the extra cost doesn;t justify the performance gain.

That said, if you want to eek out every frame in Supreme Commander then yes, get the quad. Otherwise, Office, IE or Outlook doesn;t know the difference between C2D or C2Q.

 

[The-Noid]

Quad is the wave of the future, dual core is the wave of now.