Q6600 isn't real quad?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


I OC'ed so I wouldn't have to pay $600+ for a 3GHz CPU. Is that a good enough reason for you?



Um why does any company create newer better faster products? To stay ahead of the game and make money.





And I will fight you to the death to. I am constantly running multiple apps no matter what I do cuz thats just the way I am and from what I can tell it is always smooth. Hell I can run a TF2 dedicated server 12ppl usually (yes thats SERVER) while playing, on the same machine no less, either on that server or on my clan server, running HLSS and HLSW (both use a lot of I/O as they are constantly pinging servers for data), WMP, a lot of IE7.0, and hell lets even throw in Windows Live One Care (which I love cuz when in the background it uses very little memory) that is scanning for viruses/spyware and defraging.

So after all this I can ALT+TAB out of TF2 to change something on my server and even when I do that its smooth. I can then switch between apps and even access my drives. Then I go back in game and it reloads and bam. Its like nothing ever happened. Also I still don't loose FPS either. In CS:S stress test I averaged 150FPS, in the Orange Box stress test I averaged 100FPS, TF2 I average around 150 and have seen 200FPS.

My FPS stay the same and the great thing here is that Source (the main engince for HL2, CS:S and TF2 from VALVe) is very CPU dependant and scales much better on multicored and higher clocked CPUs. That means a dual will do better than a single and a quad will outdo a dual at the same clock speeds.



What I said above does not check the raw perfromance. It shows how well my Q6600 can handle multiple apps even while running a dedicated server. But when it does come to looking at benchmarks, as many of us like TC have said, you look at what you are doing and what performs the best in those areas.

Keith I am glad that you got a decent GPU setup. Sad thing is I can OC mye single 2900Pro 1GB and get near 13K. But the problem with that you posted is this. 2 totaly different CPUs and GPUs. Put 2 4850s in CF with that Q9450 then see what the results are. Then you will see a difference between the two.

But I agree. Lets let this thing just die.
 


Thank you for noticing.

Actually a Q9450 with 2x4850 would score between my score and the other score I posted.

(So what difference do you seem to be speaking about? Oh.. you mean the scores will be close to the same? Oh yeah... I already knew that. But thanks for pointing that out.)
 


Good thing I have my trusty zombie avatar...

Oh wait... if you succeed in your saving throw then you aren't a zombie, eh? (Unless the DM says you are.)
 
DM? That's so old school.... They're GM's now.
 


It was until 06-30-2008 at 10:25:53 AM, when you bumped right back to the top of the forum.


I believe we all concluded and agreed that AMD can compete with the Q6600, but offers nothing better than it and that the FSB isn't saturated on a desktop quad.

Oh yeah, on the OP's question, the Q6600 is a real quad. It's a processor you can drop into a socket and have four cores, the design isn't as elegant as AMD's design, but AMD can't deliver anything better than Intel's slowest quad.
 


Your gone! I rolled a natural 20! Seriously, why do I know about d20?
 


Okay.

<inhales deeply>
"The Q6600 isn't a real quad?"
"No.. it is not. It is MCM."
"Your mother."
"But it doesn't matter because the $1200.00 quads beat AMD's $200.00 quad."
"Uh.... like I care."
"But so does the cheapest Intel!"
"Uh... No... actually it doesn't."
"Your momma."
"It makes no difference if Intel has a crappy architecture because it works."
"No it doesn't."
"Shutup."
"No you shutup".
"Your sister."
"The FSB and MCM design is not an optimal."
"But we can't see a difference."
"You can see it if you look at tests."
"Show me a link."
"But we don't want to look at tests."
"But they exist."
"Only for servers. And none of the current popular desktop applications show a problem with FSB/MCM."
"But they will."
"Your momma."
"Where is that the link? I'm waiting." <foot taps>
"Intel sux."
"AMD sux."
<end of breath>

Okay... I think that should just about cover it. I may have paraphrased a tad bit. But I caught the basics.

(Actually I find it amusing how each "side" knows exactly the right buttons to push to get the other side going....)
 
Can't we just... stop arguing about meaningless stuff, and...get on with our lives?

Yes, Q6600 is not a native quad, but does it perform any less than a native quad? Doesn't seem to be at this point.

Yes, Phenom doesn't suck. They just came a little too late, with too little improvement to offer.

Yes, AMD's Barcelona is an amazing chip. Shame that their manufacturing node isn't as advanced as Intel's, and AMD jumped on the monolithic die too early.

Yes, Intel is "copying" AMD's native quad design, and is aiming to do a lot better than AMD.

Intel is the top dog at the moment, while AMD may have the potential to be the top one.

Seriously, are those so difficult to accept?
 

I take it you're not encoding video in your spare time...
 
Or music for that matter - I've been making low res (128k WMA pro) copies of most of my music library (variable bit rate WMA lossless) with Windows Media Encoder 9, and my 2.83GHz C2D has been running flat out for the past hour and a half, with no end in sight.
 
I'm encoding quite alot of videos into the ipod format... almost maxes out my Athlon X2... then I add a few hundred Firefox tabs, a winrar compression, Thunderbird and itunes and it runs at 97%... not bad... no major slowdown...
 
The encoding doesn't slow down my other tasks either, but other tasks do slow down the encoding (it's perfectly happy to use 100% of my CPU, but if another app wants a few clock cycles, the encoder will wait).
 


Sooo.... I must put up with sub-par performance for two years to run on a chip, by then, obsolete, which will be two generations behind what is main-stream and software has moved on.



I think you've had enough.
 

They have probably set the encoding threads as low priority, this isn’t needed on AMD
 



All seem to be fair statements.
 


I did something near the same (only in 320KB/s MP3) for my new Offspring CD (which rocks BTW) to transfer it to my PSP. Took like 2 minutes to rip it. Nothing else was effected at all either. I also will use FRAPs to record sounds I want to use for some things (tricky method of having a game open like Audiosurf and muting it while having the sound from a video playing on youtube) and normally the videos of about 2 minutes hit almost 3GB but it takes like 20 seconds to rip the audio from it and I do that while playing TF2 as well.



Or since he never mentioned which tasks he does he could be doing something else that just likes to take up more resources. Thats like playing a game (Say TF2 or Crysis since both love faster CPUs) while having a video being encoded in the background. Since most games use the CPU more than the memory bandwidth and most encoding programs do as well (not to include that most encoding programs take use of the SSE instructions on the CPU since the memory does not have these) then yes it will slow down because they both want the same resources.

But of course that makes sense but you will find any way to try to say Intel is limiting the performance.

Sorry man but you just stated pure crap right there.

I forgot to mention this is pure BS considering that the one thing that Intels Pentium 4/D always excelled in (even against X2) was encoding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom