ANOTHER NICE Q6600 VS E6850 BENCHMARK!

[Mousemonkey]

Wrong the Q6600 has a longer life expectancy than any of the C2D's. I don't see how you keep missing this fact. The quads are simply more powerful as they have 2 times the cores of C2D's.

I don't think I'm missing any facts mate, I'm just seeing things from a different perspective.

 

[elbert]

I don't think I'm missing any facts mate, I'm just seeing things from a different perspective.

That perspective is that a slower CPU has a longer life expectancy than a faster CPU?

 

[Mousemonkey]

That perspective is that a slower CPU has a longer life expectancy than a faster CPU?

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Products.ASP?CatID=11&FilterCategories=127&Thumbnails=yes
A CPU that is still available in some places Vs the FX60 or the E6400 which is not available from the same place.

 

[elbert]

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Products.ASP?CatID=11&FilterCategories=127&Thumbnails=yes
A CPU that is still available in some places Vs the FX60 or the E6400 which is not available from the same place.

That makes dual cores more future proof than quads how? Availability has nothing to do with which is more future proof. Performance is the primary means of determining which CPU's are more future proof. IE which CPU's will run new programs at reasonable speeds.

 

[Mousemonkey]

So you haven't managed to get your Q6600 to bog down under any kind of workload then?

 

[Zorg]

So you haven't managed to get your Q6600 to bog down under any kind of workload then?

Just wondering, if you don't believe that the quad cores are more future proof, not future proof, just more future proof, then why did you buy one?

Aha! Got you. :lol:

Seriously, all joking aside, clearly a quad core is more future proof. Not who will be selling what for the longest time, but what CPU, dual or quad, will be better at performing work for the longest time. Clearly, with much energy going toward optimizing applications for multiple cores that would have to be the quad over the dual core.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Just wondering, if you don't believe that the quad cores are more future proof, not future proof, just more future proof, then why did you buy one?

Aha! Got you. :lol:

Seriously, all joking aside, clearly a quad core is more future proof. Not who will be selling what for the longest time, but what CPU, dual or quad, will be better at performing work for the longest time. Clearly, with much energy going toward optimizing applications for multiple cores that would have to be the quad over the dual core.

I'm not denying that quads are the way to go but the reason I got one is pretty much the same reason that people are getting the 8800 series of graphic cards, but what I find strange is that there is a lot of posters recommending that people should hold off getting an 8800 because new cards are on the horizon and the 8800 is a year old but the same thinking is not applied to the CPU side of things.

 

[Zorg]

Yeah, I wish I could have waited for the Yorkfield. Unfortunately, I was waiting for the price drop on the Q6600. One can only wait so long or they wait forever. There is always something around the corner worth waiting for.

 

[elbert]

I'm not denying that quads are the way to go but the reason I got one is pretty much the same reason that people are getting the 8800 series of graphic cards, but what I find strange is that there is a lot of posters recommending that people should hold off getting an 8800 because new cards are on the horizon and the 8800 is a year old but the same thinking is not applied to the CPU side of things.

The reason this is occurring is price, compatibility, and performance. The Q6600 was around $980 9 months ago and due to the price war is a steal at under $300. If we were seeing a price premium for Q6600 of say $500 then it would be a good ideal to wait or get a dual core with equal performance in the short run. To compare the 8800GTS 640mb was about $550 9 months ago and is about $400 now. Not so much a steal or a deal as the 8800GTS 320mb price change doesn't even compare. Prices for the old gen of GPU's fall sharply with new generations.

Compatibility wise speed is the only mark important for CPU's but GPU have DX10.1 to worry about. SSE in CPU's are a use if it have it so it comes down to speed of the CPU in that regard. DX10.1 in GPU's is if you dont have it you have to emulate it and suffer the performance hit. Speed boosts are important also to this as you may see a jump in CPU performance of about 20% with a new generation but GPU see at times a 100% jump.

 

[Guest]

I personally counted down the days to the price cut on the Q6600.

 

[marine363]

The multi-core solution is really just a temporary fix to the Ghz wall that was hit. The reason I say this is Amdahl's Law, which so far has proven true for the last forty years. Here is the basic figure of merit that he came up with.

1/((1-X)+(X/N))

where N is the number of processors and X is the percentage of your code running in parallel

Then plot this on the X axis from 0 to 1.
So for a starting point lets say N is four (like current quad core processors). If you say a program runs 70 percent of it's code in parallel, (plug in .7 to whatever you are using to graph this) you are still at most using just over 2 cores. Now try this with the proposed 80 core processor (N=80). Say the same program is run on this processor you now are using just over 3 cores (kinda sad you got 70 plus core doing nothing). Thus the true benefit lies in the ability to multi task on a quad core, because coding in parallel is really hard for anyone who has tried it. Just ask the guys who write the code for the supercomputers.
So if we want to adhere to Moore's law the solution is faster processors. Right now to solve this research is going in a different direction than the standard CMOS idea. They are using the old bi-polar approach for computers. Right now they are at about 20 Ghz for one processor running on 1 watt. Kinda crazy I didn't think it was possible until I saw it for myself (professor at my college showed us). But, the problem still lies in where are we going to find memory to keep up.
So in closing we are in an exciting time for the development of computers much like the time when the microprocessor was first invented. So I am excited and everyone else should be as well. =)

 

[little_scrapper]

F.E.A.R. is actually a single-thread game. Nevertheless, the overclocked to 3.6GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 is considerably faster than the dual-core Core 2 Duo E6850 working at 3.85GHz.

what kind of retard calls a .8 fps lead at 180 fps "consideraby faster"? less then 1 fps is the SAME!!!! what a dork

 

[SirMonarch]

The tests were run in 1024x768 resolution, without FSAA. The image quality settings were left at defaults.


HA as soon as you crank up resolution and IQ with AA, neither of those will bottleneck your video card, if you want an extra 15 frames at 1024 x 768 with crappy IQ be my guest, i'll be sticking with the q6600