Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Somnambul33t
Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600
said by Somnambul33t  :said by Mchart :said by A4L :
Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?
Because it has a higher clock-speed, a faster front side bus, and more L2 Cache. There are currently no games that utilize more then two cores, otherwise, the quad-core would technically be better for gaming. Currently however, it is not. somewhat correct. if he games at 1680x1050 or higher, however, CPU means jack shit. higher clock speed does nothing as almost all current games are GPU-limited at this rez and higher. all the CPU comparisons ive seen show games getting within 1-2 FPS at 16x10 and higher resolutions as long as they have a Phenom X4 or C2D E6300 or C2Q Q6600 and higher. basically if you have ANY decent CPU you wont notice better FPS in games! that being the case, go quad core because it definitely has better multi-tasking! both CPUs are great and this is a case of no wrong choice, but dont believe that any of the CPUs will get you better FPS because thats completely untrue if you play modern games. It is a correct statement. The E8400, even at high resolutions in a game like crysis, shows around a 15% lead over the Q6600.
As for 'quad core is better because it is better at multi-tasking'. That means little right now. For most users a dual-core is just fine. Not to mention there are very little apps that can even take advantadge of quad-core. |
|
Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Mullica Hill, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Mchart
said by Mchart :said by A4L :
Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?
Because it has a higher clock-speed, a faster front side bus, and more L2 Cache. There are currently no games that utilize more then two cores, otherwise, the quad-core would technically be better for gaming. Currently however, it is not. somewhat correct. if he games at 1680x1050 or higher, however, CPU means jack shit. higher clock speed does nothing as almost all current games are GPU-limited at this rez and higher.
all the CPU comparisons ive seen show games getting within 1-2 FPS at 16x10 and higher resolutions as long as they have a Phenom X4 or C2D E6300 or C2Q Q6600 and higher. basically if you have ANY decent CPU you wont notice better FPS in games!
that being the case, go quad core because it definitely has better multi-tasking!
both CPUs are great and this is a case of no wrong choice, but dont believe that any of the CPUs will get you better FPS because thats completely untrue if you play modern games. |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to A4L
said by A4L :
Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?
Because it has a higher clock-speed, a faster front side bus, and more L2 Cache. There are currently no games that utilize more then two cores, otherwise, the quad-core would technically be better for gaming. Currently however, it is not. |
|
The Flash
You don't win friends with salad
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Toronto, ON | reply to A4L
More cores does not mean it's better, right now core speed is better for gaming. |
|
A4L
@co.th | reply to A4L
Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why? |
|
