2 or 4 Cores, Intel

Some evidence to back up the whole quad-cores-running-slower-in-games thing.
cpus.gif


The two highlighted in red are the most powerful quad core processors available from Intel and AMD at the moment.

With benchmarks for every other game used, the performance differences were about the same.

Even in the supposed "strong areas" of quad-core processors, such as 3D rendering, photoshop, mp3/video encoding, and file processing (powerpoint, Winrar, etc.), the quad cores were strongly outperformed by dual core processors, most of which were cheaper than their quad-core cousins.

[link=http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=1074&chart=435]See for yourself.[/link]

Edit: Upon review, the dual-cores that are running faster than the quads are generally much more expensive than the quads so far. However, the E6850 runs 8 FPS faster on Warhammer. $5 for that much of an improvement in a processor? Totally worth it. Plus, you get the bonus of a more time-tested and cooler-running processor.
 
Most powerful, how? Other than getting some of the higher end O/C'd speeds(which doesnt matter to the majority of people out there) I would disagree with you. Your chart really shows that if you are willing and able go with the Quad Cores. I looked thru Tom's site and all the tests I looked at(5 or 6, didnt waste time looking at every single one) had the top 5 being Quads, not Duos.

I dont know what everyone situation is here, but I personally went with top end at the time I had my PC put together so as not to have to worry about running anything for quite some time. And from the looks of those charts I shouldnt have much to worry about for awhile. Yes I know new tech comes out all the time, which makes my comp obsolete fairly fast, I am willing to accpet that knowing I dont have to upgrade anytime soon.

Oh and for the record, I went with the QX6850 Extreme, which in all the tests I looked at placed third to a couple processors that are the next gen versions. I am happy with my choice and will be for quite sometime.

Of course alot has to do as I have read some of you say, with what you pair your processor up with. I have no issues with mine and am glad I went with it.
 
I agree with the duck man. This rig scores 11861 in 3dmark '06 with a Q6600, which I think is pretty awesome. That's with everything at stock speeds (memory, vid card, proc, etc...)

One thing though, if I had to do it over again I don't know that I'd go with a 680i board again. The chipset has a lot of problems that I've read about. I've been really lucky with mine (knock on wood). It seems like a lot of the problem is with the RAID controller and running RAID 0. People are reporting data corruption problems with it. I don't run RAID 0, but I was planning on it in the next month or so. I think I'll scratch that. There are other issues I've read about as well with sound, network, etc. If I had to make a recommendation on a board I'd say go with the one of the intel chipsets. Or I'd wait and see what the 780i chipset does on the Striker II Formula.

My Striker Extreme is a REALLY sweet board, but I don't know if I'd pay $300 for it. I'd probably go for the P5E that has the X38 chipset on it. It's about $70 cheaper too.
 
oh well if we are talking 3DMark '06 scores... this rig fully stock scored a 13986 :D

I have also read about several issues with the 680i boards, and I guess I got lucky as well. No issues either, mine is the eVGA version, and from what I have seen the biggest issue was running in RAID 0 with this board. I don't use the onboard networking card or the onboard sound, so cant actually say if they are an issue or not. lol

I have considered going with eVGA's upgrade to the 780i, but at the same time I am not sure I feel like taking this board out and installing another seeing as I have had no issues.

I still say go with a Quad Core, preferably a higher end one and then you have no processor upgrade worries for quite sometime.
 
[quote1199477259=Ephyu]...Even then, I'm not so sure most games will benefit from four cores, considering each individual core is a lot slower and weaker than the cores in a dual or single core. [/quote1199477259]

Just curious, but where did you get your info on this? Everything I have read and all the specs that I have seen show that the Quads are "in essence" 2 Duos slapped together. So that would make them still better than the Duo's.
 
I actually just read that, too. Huh. I was expecting them to do the quads the same way they did the duos, by more or less splitting the original power of the single-core between two different cores. For Intel's quads, they really are just using two of their "duo" chips in the same processor. These are more like dual-dual-core processors than true native quad-core processors. So, okay, I take that back. It's just like plugging two Core 2 Duos into the same slot. In this case, I'd really just expect heat and bandwidth issues.

Most of my knowledge and experience with quad-core processors has been looking at the way AMD has started doing theirs. Their Phenom processors are 4 individual cores working together in one chip on one die, allowing for much more effecient multithreading, but less overall power. I didn't exactly agree with that method, and though I'm usually an AMD fanboy, I can see Intel at least did better with their quads. Despite the Core 2 Extreme quads being about three times the price of a Phenom. =P

Alright, I'll concede that Intel's top-of-the-line quads are more powerful than their dual-core predecessors, but in a question of value? Between the two processors cited in the beginning of this thread, which are priced the same, the dual core out of the two outperforms the quad core in every benchmark I've seen, synthetic or practical.
 
I can agree that the Core 2 Duo is "better bang for the buck" then the Core 2 Quad in the original post...BUT I still say if you have the cash available go for a higher end Quad and be set for a long long time.
 
Eh, the "being set for a long time" mentality bothers me sometimes when people ask me what parts to buy. By the time a high-end Quad makes a huge (perceptible) difference in gaming, or is needed, chances are parts are going to be physically wearing out in your rig by then and you'll be buying a new one.
Granted, you could just replace them, but, in my experience, things die in this order:
Hard drives, optical drives, cold cathode lighting, fans/cooling systems, parts fans were attached to if you didn't replace quick enough (graphics cards, processors), power supplies (especially if overclocking), motherboards, graphics cards, processors. So, your processor will be the last thing to go most of the time, but by the time you transplant it to the new rig after other parts die, it'll be close to worn out. *shrug*

By the time you need the thing, it'll be cheaper anyway. Pay $200 now, $200 more when you need it, instead of paying $990 now.
 
thats the difference between a high end user and a mid range user and the price your willing to pay. Quad Cores own.
 
Hope I'm not too late but the E8400's are out and they would be the way to go for dual-core. Otherwise, I'd say get a nice bundle with a Q6600. If you work at a retail store like Staples, Office Max, or others in the electronics, go to www.retailedge.intel.com and take the little quizes and tests they have. If you earn enough points at the end of the year, you can get an awesome deal on a processor and some other stuff with it. This year, I got a Q6700, Vista 32 bit Home-Premium, and a decent micro atx intel board for $250!!!!!! So, anyways, there are deals out there but frankly, I LOVE this quad core! I haven't gotten it to max out doing everyday things yet and that's while burning a DVD, Playing Tf2, surfing the web (8 tabs open), and running google earth. I also have a friend with an E6750 that thinks it's "ok but not quite what I expected". So, do yourself a favor and get a quad-core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top