Tom's 2007 CPU Charts

[turpit]

Well I don't know if you noticed but the E6850 scored better than the Q6600 at supreme commander, which is supposed to be a game that utilizes multiple cores, as well as nearly all of the other games tested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the E6850 also has greater overclocking potential than the Q6600, which would also make it more appealing.

I bring this up because I am about to build myself a new computer because I am currently running a agonizingly slow Athlon XP 2000+. And one of the things that I have been researching heavily is the choice between the E6850 and Q6600. Based on what I have been reading on these forums over the past week I was fairly sure I was going to go with the Q6600, but after looking at those benchmarks I'm having doubts...

That quad cores will out perform a faster dual core is a common misconception, and one that has been promulgated relentlessly by the 'wide eyed' tennie bopper crowd that is overcome by the 'more is better' theory, but dont understand multi threading or advertising.

Saying that an app is multithreaded or optimized for multicore does not mean it will give better perfromance for a greater # of cores. There are at least 3 ways (that I know of) to write multithreaded programs; fine, course and hybrid. Depending on which method is used to write a given program, that application may or may not see improved performance by increasing core #.

In the case of course threading, it will give you the best overall performance increase of the 3 methods, but a thread must be writen for each core...meaning a course threaded app written for 2 cores will see no improvement by going to 4 cores. It will not scale.

Fine threading on the other hand will scale, but will not give the same performance boost that course threading will. So a fine threaded app will not run as fast on 2 cores as the same app would if it were written in course, but the fine threaded app will improve in perfromance with more cores, up to the point it runs out of individual loops to process.

Hybrid threading combines the two methods and like fine threading will make scale up on more cores, but also like fine threading, does not give as good a gain as course threading.

So, when an app is advertised as making use of, or optimized for mulitcore, it doesnt mean it will scale up in performance for every core added, only that it will use more than one core. Of course, most kiddies see 'optimized for multicore' and just assume it means the app will take as many cores as you can throw at it. Those same kiddies then proceed to run around the internet crying 'buy the quad, buy the quad, it rulz' but as the test results show, clockspeed is still important.

Something to consider. Dual core processors have been around for awhile now. Apps that make use of dual core (with the exception of the heavy data crunchers like 3d rendering, video editing, encoding ect) havent exactly been been 'raining' down upon us. There are a handfull of upcoming big title games that will make use of quad core, but these are only a fraction of apps currently or soon available. But because these games are highly anticipated, and highly hyped, they are getting a lot of attention, making it seem as if every new app to be released is going to be quad capable. Just not true. Trust the benchmarks, not the stuff you read in the forums. 😉

 

[caamsa]

I would like to add that in Supreme Commander you get an extra 10 frames for 2 extra cores. Big deal. I think it will be ashame if they start to make games that don't maximize frames for everyone no matter how many cores you have. Hell I don't want to have to buy a quad core just to play some crappy game because that is what it is optimized for. The programmers need to utilize all the resources of the computer so if I have a high end card then it damn well better be used. But an extra 10 frames is not a big deal I would say that is kinda sad. People are going core crazy. I purchased a AM2 6000+ for $170.00 and it is a great chip and all I will need for a while. I think we are at a cross roads where the software needs to catch up with the hardware. Pretty soon we will have 8-10 cores and if all it gives me is an extra 10 frames I say who needs it.

 

[netburst]

Update your article. Its out of date.

Intel 965, 975, Officially supports 1333FSB CPU with BIOS update as of today.

http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=7866

The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?

If you do not argee with me, then try calling Intel Tech Supp. 😀

In other words the article is not outdated.

Cheers

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Hats off to Toms. Nice article Patrick and Bert. I enjoyed this very much. I really liked the chart showing the differences between the Intel FSB speeds. I hope you do the same with DDR3 as it becomes more popular.

Bravo!

 

[mbs49]

I'm planning a build right now and will buy the CPU after 7/22. I too have been torn between the E6850 and the Q6600. I was leaning towards the Q6600 until Tom's posted their latest CPU charts. In almost every benchmark the E6850 beat the Q6600.

turpit said it well:

clockspeed is still important

I think you have to know what you use your PC for to make a good decision on whether to get a dual or quad core. In my case, I do some gaming, a pinch of video editing, some development, and office applications. So now, after seeing the new CPU charts, I am definitely going with the dual core. It will suit what I do better than the quad. In addition, the new 45nm chips are soon to hit the shelves so all of a sudden the current chips are last generation. I figure the dual core will suit me just fine for a few years until more software is out that will properly utilize quad core chips and at that time I will just upgrade my chip when it makes sense to do so.

Cheers.

 

[turpit]

I would like to add that in Supreme Commander you get an extra 10 frames for 2 extra cores. Big deal. I think it will be ashame if they start to make games that don't maximize frames for everyone no matter how many cores you have. Hell I don't want to have to buy a quad core just to play some crappy game because that is what it is optimized for. The programmers need to utilize all the resources of the computer so if I have a high end card then it damn well better be used. But an extra 10 frames is not a big deal I would say that is kinda sad. People are going core crazy. I purchased a AM2 6000+ for $170.00 and it is a great chip and all I will need for a while. I think we are at a cross roads where the software needs to catch up with the hardware. Pretty soon we will have 8-10 cores and if all it gives me is an extra 10 frames I say who needs it.

Thats true, but the problem is, with the course threading (which would give the best improvement), its more demanding to write. Fine threading just takes loops and divides them among the cores, so its just sub routines that are getting done by the extra cores, and thats limited because the loops must be independant. That is, they can not require, or share information from other loops on different cores, so you gain a little, but not as much as course's full thread. The thing with fine threading is, as many independant loops as there are, they can be divided. So if you have twenty loops, you can keep adding cores up to 21 and continue getting improvement. So for the developers, the question is, go the easier route and use as many cores as possible without getting the maximum benefit, or take a longer time writing for a fixed number of cores, but make the most of them. Valve uses the hybrid method that incorporates both fine and course, so up to what ever number of course threads there are as I understand it, you should see solid improvement until you reach that number of cores. Then after that you should continue seeing improvement, but not at the same rate.

In any event, I sort of agree. Depends on prices and base frame rate. If your only getting 30FPS to start, then 10 more is a big improvement. But if it costs twice the price for the quad, then the heck with it. And I agree with the crossroads on the software, but weve been there for awhile in a lot of apps. And some apps will never change...you're never really going to need a multicore for word processing...then again, if theres a way to bloat a word processing program so much that it needs a multi core, Im sure M$ will find it. 😉

 

[Gh0stDrag0n]

And like you zenze I have been reading a LONG time. I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual. I like AMD, but have never built an Intel system.

Am I reading the article right that a currently available AM2 6000+ running on a Nvidia 680I chipset WILL work on that socket with a future AMD Quad due out in next 6 months? So that the only thing I have to change would be a bios flash and the new quad dropped in to the existing MB, etc.

The nVidia 680I chipset is for Intel processors, The nVidia 680a chipset is on AMD's dual socket L (AMD's quad :lol. If you want SLI on a AM2 platform you will have to get the nForce 590SLI chipset.
Good luck getting a AM2 processor to fit in a LGA775 motherboard.

 

[sailer]

And some apps will never change...you're never really going to need a multicore for word processing...then again, if theres a way to bloat a word processing program so much that it needs a multi core, Im sure M$ will find it. 😉

If there's anything I've learned through the years, its never to underestimate what M$ can do to make something small and easy into something big and difficult.

 

[sailer]

Good luck getting a AM2 processor to fit in a LGA775 motherboard.

I got a big hammer that says it will fit 😱

No guarentees that it will ever power up, but it will fit, one way or another.

 

[Synthetickiller]

I never know what to think with this stuff.

I play games, so therefore I should get a E6850 due to high clock speed (3.0ghz) and OC ability (4.7ghz i've seen so far, probably 5.0ghz with the right set up).

I also do a lot of audio and video conversions which point me in the direction of the quad (specifically q6600). People are almost getting 4.0ghz on the q6600. That seems like the ticket to me, considering the non-gaming things I do, plus I'm usually running a few programs (instant messanger, spread sheet, web browser, word processor) while I do other stuff like encoding or gaming.

Logic would say that the Quad would be better. I hope I'm right, lol.

 

[marky200484]

Many thanks for this article

I'm currently on an AMD 64 3800+ which is adequate for most things but is starting to drop behind in games. As this is what I mainly use it for, I've been doing some research into upgrading for about 8 weeks now.

Looks like the E6850 is the way to go, I was very much considering the Quads but I mainly play HL2 mods so I wouldn't make real use of them. Now I just need to get the cash to make the upgrade 😉

 

[wild9]

marky200484, what graphics card are you using? If you go the E6850 route you'll need a good PSU and good cooling, as well as a good graphics card to make the most of it.

Also, I'm quite pleased at how well the AMD processors compare, taking into account the fact they were there before Intel's mamouth effort in producing Core 2 Duo. From a price perspective I choose AMD because most of the systems I build have to run stable 24/7; they do not need to run at blistering speeds, not when they aren't running the most demanding apps.

The money I save from not buying Intel gets pumped back into better components: PSU, graphics and quality RAM. That's why the systems seldom come back and only then it's due to software or a faulty fan.

For video work it's a different matter: If clients can afford it, Core 2 Duo is good, Quad is better but there's no way I will put together a quad system without forking out for good cooling, not when they're running these rigs at full load.

So all in all considering their price, I don't think the AMD rigs are 'that' far behind. All these processors would make for excellent, general-purpose computers.

 

[Denisimo]

The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?

If you do not argee with me, then try calling Intel Tech Supp. 😀

In other words the article is not outdated.

Cheers

Then the article should state that in the first place. Other wise it gives false information and/or misleading.

 

[Ertman]

Thanks Ghost for your reply. I didn't articulate that very well. Still learning.

 

[marky200484]

marky200484, what graphics card are you using? If you go the E6850 route you'll need a good PSU and good cooling, as well as a good graphics card to make the most of it.

I'm on a 7600GT at the moment but upgrading to an 8800GTX when I buy the CPU

Not 100% on the board yet but looking at an Enermax Galaxy 850W and probably a Zalman Cooler, still undecided on that as well 😉

 

[powerbaselx]

The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?

I have a Asus P5GDC Deluxe mobo which has a 915P chipset. It has currently a P530 cpu.
Do you know if this mobo supports a Pentium D upgrade, even considering a BIOS update?
Many thanks!

 

[xela]

Another way of looking at the choice between Q6600 and E8850:

In all games that are out today Q6600 will give you enought preformance to enjoy the gameplay to the fullest. On the other hand in most of the future games they claim to have an "optimised" support for Quad CPUs. In 2006 chairman of Remedy went as far as claiming that they got Alan Wake to the point where they can use one core just to calculate physics. I couldn't find any detailed info on what they mean by Quad core support in games besed on new Crytek/Unreal engines or even an "optimised" Valve engine but if they can use the extra two cores for physics and AI E8850 will plainly fail vs Q6600.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro

Some here have said that you have to trust benchmarks but all benchies in toms review are based on pretty much outdated games, Q6600 doesn't lag that far off behind the E8850 in Supreme Commander and in the review on anandtech E8850 falls behind Q6600 in Cave and Equals in Snow tests.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=1 5

I belive that it all comes down to your expectations. If you expect the gaming industry to find a way to REALLY USE Quads in the upcoming titles like UT3/Crysis/Wake and/or you work with apps benefiting from Quads - you hit Q6600. If you think that gamedevelopers are slow on the uptake you hit E8850 and live with fear that you might be wrong And overcloking pretty much comes down to the same. If you overclock E8850 to 5 Ghz and Q6600 to 4 but your game/aplication has the ability to use all 4 cores it will be a total 4 Ghz increase for E8850 vs 5.36 Ghz increase for Q6600

 

[Phrozt]

Xela... you're working with a lot of "what ifs," and "supposed" facts.

And let's not forget... Tom's may be using some old games, but a LOT of people play a LOT of old games. Counter-Strike 1.6 still has a HUGE user base, and is the focal point of a large amount of e-sports activity.


EDIT: I haven't gotten to the conclusion of the article yet.. but I hope they tell me why the e6850 failed on some benchs...

EDIT EDIT:
Wow... I just checked out the anandtech article. Since most users are looking at CPU from a purchasing standpoint, the anandtech article BLOOOWS the THG one out of the water. THG should have just posted their CPU charts and left the articles to anandtech.

 

[xela]

Xela... you're working with a lot of "what ifs," and "supposed" facts.

And let's not forget... Tom's may be using some old games, but a LOT of people play a LOT of old games. Counter-Strike 1.6 still has a HUGE user base, and is the focal point of a large amount of e-sports activity.


EDIT: I haven't gotten to the conclusion of the article yet.. but I hope they tell me why the e6850 failed on some benchs...

EDIT EDIT:
Wow... I just checked out the anandtech article. Since most users are looking at CPU from a purchasing standpoint, the anandtech article BLOOOWS the THG one out of the water. THG should have just posted their CPU charts and left the articles to anandtech.

* I was addressing the question of Q6600 vs E8850

I do work with a lot of "what ifs" and "supposed" facts but lets review what we know to be true facts:

Compared to E8850:

- Q6600 has more proccesing power if all 4 cores are used.
- Q6600 does it's part much better in games already released in 2007 (Lost Planet, Supreme Commander)
- Q6600 cannot be overclocked to the hights of E8850 but as far as four core applications go the benefit of 4 slighty less overclocked cores will outway the benefit of 2 overclocked cores. ( I only belive the latter to be a fact because of simple math ( as E8550 oc @ 5 Ghz will give us 2 * 5 = 10 Ghz vs Q6600 @ 3.5 * 4 = 14 Ghz), but there might be factors I am not aware of)
- Many of the upcoming titles such as UT3 + all games running U3 engine, Crysis + all games running new Crytek engine, Alan Wake claim to be Quad core friendly but noone is willing to tell us to what extend... (those games are not years but month away)

and that brings us back to where I've started:

* The answer of choice (for gamers) between the Q6600 and E8550 lies in eather you bet on game manufactures ability to utilise all cores in near future or their failure to do so and to that we do not have an answer based on solid facts.

PS: It's cool that people still play CS 1.6 but will you be better off with 150 FPS with E8850 then with 135 FPS with Q6600? Same counts for most of todays games ---> Q6600 should deliver you a cool gaming experience in any modern game.

PS2: Another two facts:
- I have not yet seen one site that would give a satisfactory prediction or even a guess in how the future gaming will/won't be boosted by Quads. My guess is that they have no solid facts to work with and are afraid to give guess as thier reputation in on the line.
- with a lot of howevers, buts and ifs, Anandtech went for Q6600 in the end

 

[gooman]

Spanki's link seems to indicate that the new G-0 stepped version of the Q6600 should be out for consumers to buy already (16 July 2007). I've pretty much decided on the Quad, but I wasn't sure if I'd be able to wait for the G-0 stepped version. Has anyone seen this version online yet? I would think that it will take some time for the vendors to sell off their current version of the Quad before they start selling the G-0 stepped version (logical?). I would think that any vendor that had the newer version would display that fact prominently...but I haven't seen one.

 

[ethel]

I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual

Socket 939 IS upgradeable to dual-core (Opterons + X2s) - unless you have an unusual motherboard?

 

[ethel]

I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual

Socket 939 IS upgradeable to dual-core (Opterons + X2s) - unless you have an unusual motherboard?

 

[Spanki]

Spanki's link seems to indicate that the new G-0 stepped version of the Q6600 should be out for consumers to buy already (16 July 2007). I've pretty much decided on the Quad, but I wasn't sure if I'd be able to wait for the G-0 stepped version. Has anyone seen this version online yet? I would think that it will take some time for the vendors to sell off their current version of the Quad before they start selling the G-0 stepped version (logical?). I would think that any vendor that had the newer version would display that fact prominently...but I haven't seen one.

Yes, the older stock will need to work it's way out of the market. If you want to be sure to get a G0-stepping, you could get on TankGuys list.

 

[dark41]

So bottom line is that it all boils down to what you do the most, or what is more important to you, gaming vs quad core supported software.

Man, AMD sure has some ground to make up!

 

[chichen0417]

from the test result chats, i see the cpu, e6650.
i don't think e6650 is existed.