Dual or Quad - what's best bang for the buck?

B

BoredTiger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
443
It's been a long while since I've tinkered with my rig and with CRYSIS, it's become painfully apparent that my current rig is becoming quite sluggish.

So...having been an Intel user for most of my PC-using life, I wanted to return to the Intel side and enjoy some of the splendor of C2D.

I know we're in the midst of a transition right now with the Quad cores and Penryn processors. This is why I am confused and lost in a sense on which direction to head with my next build.

I'm partial to "BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK" type of rigs. Of course I'd love to ideally have a screaming rig with a QX9770, but that kind of an expenditure is a bit much for me.

With that in mind, I'm in need of some guidance from all the [H]ard members.

I'd like to build a rig that I can game and photoshop (amateur) without too much hangup. I like to see the pretty visuals I see in the magazines and gaming reviews (as close to as possible) without breaking the bank.

Processors:

The Q9450 had caught my eye, but it seems that's something of a wait and costs upwards of 300 dollars.

Should I stay away from Quad core altogether and stick with a C2D chip that can be overclocked?

Motherboad:

Should I wait and purchase the 780i board, or just get a proven, solid OC board (your recommendations) that can throttle some good performance out of a C2D chip?


Cooling:

I've never water cooled before. Do I want to get into this with either my "budget OC build" or for "Quad core" build?

PSU:

Should I go heavy duty on the PSU? My current rig required a new PSU after it hosed my previous one.

EDIT (woops, forgot to ask about motherboards):

Motherboards:

Invest in the 780i? Or go with a solid OC board that's readily available right now?


I truly appreciate any suggestions or comments you all might have.

The main thing here is which way should I go? Budget OC build or go for a Quad core build which will most likely be outdated this time next year with the release of even better performers and what not (e.g. new socket?).

I got some very good use out of my current rig. My main usage will be gaming and photoshop.


I really look forward to your help everyone.
 
How often do you get CPU limited? I got a [email protected] and normally even while gaming and doing other things in the background I normally sit around ~40% total CPU usage. However there are occasions when CPU spikes over 50% to the 60-70% range. In these cases I'd experience slowdowns or freezes if I was using a dual core solution. Very few things will push a quad over 50% on a regular basis, for example I've been known to run a game in a maximized window while using media center with always on top set to watch live TV off my tuner card at the same time. My old dual core AMD couldn't keep up, TV would freeze, quad has no problems.
 
I would just get the Q6600 and OC it, having the Q6600 when the 45nm Quads are here is just like having a S939 3800 X2 that you can OC to around 2.7GHz when the AM2 CPUs are hitting 3.1GHz. My 2 cents..
 
Quad core, period.

<I'll refer you to the other 190+ threads posted over the past year comparing duals vs quads instead of just repeating what I and many others have said so many times.>
 
Ok. So quad it is :)

I guess my main concern was, that since we're on the cusp of some major changes coming up with CPUs for Intel (new architecture, socket, etc.) I was concerned on what kind of processor I should really delve into.

I'm also wary of the motherboard situation right now, with a 780i imminently available and the a 790i soon to be released.

Basically, I don't want to buy a processor and board I'm going to have to chuck again. The socket 939 chip I got really got screwed with the AM2 solution.

Maybe it's all part and parcel of the whole upgrading itch, but I'm sure all of your empathize.


So I see a recommendation for the Q6600. Will the Q9450 be too much or too long of a wait?

If I do go with Q6600, what's a solid board to mate with it that I might be able to use later on, when I just upgrade the processor? Will going down the Q6600 path leave me with another no-win situation with regards to board and chip upgrades?

I guess I can clarify further by stating, I'd like to get a board that I can use later processors on. I've been reading rumblings on the board and around the net that a new socket will be coming with new chips later in the year. If I get the Q6600 cpu now, would it be alright to upgrade within this year to a newer processor (e.g. Q9450)?

If that is the case, (upgrading processor later) should I go ahead and hunt for the 780i board or just wait for the 790i board and mate it with a Q6600 for now?


Sorry for the many questions...
 
-Dragon- said:
How often do you get CPU limited? I got a [email protected] and normally even while gaming and doing other things in the background I normally sit around ~40% total CPU usage. However there are occasions when CPU spikes over 50% to the 60-70% range. In these cases I'd experience slowdowns or freezes if I was using a dual core solution. Very few things will push a quad over 50% on a regular basis, for example I've been known to run a game in a maximized window while using media center with always on top set to watch live TV off my tuner card at the same time. My old dual core AMD couldn't keep up, TV would freeze, quad has no problems.
Click to expand...

My ideal situation is being able to alt-tab out of a fullscreen game instantly, say to use GameFAQs or answer an IM. I have a feeling alot of this is more dependent on fixed I/O though (e.g. chipset/hard drives/page file). Having said that though, say if a game is dual-core optimized.

Then that game would (hopefully) be maxing out both cores for max framerate & performance. How much would having those 2 other idle cores help? Or do quads simply spread it across all 4 evenly (50% for all 4 cores).

Am I thinking about this correctly?

(*This is fairly critical b/c I'd either do a cheap used e6XXX for $120 or so, then move to the 9-series quads as the next step. The other option is "invest" in quads now and OC a Q6600 to 3Ghz, hopefully that being enough for a while.)
 
That's an option...an E6XXX and then pop over to a better quad.

Or start off with a quad (e.g. Q6600).

My main concern is the motherboard. I don't want to do the whole motherboard thing all over again, once I've purchased a quad processor. I'm hoping to be able to hold onto the board awhile longer than the processor.

I'm not sure if this is possible.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Quad core, period.
Click to expand...



Wrong. Some of us don't need more than 2 cores. Why would I want a bunch of extra heat/power draw just to have 2 cores sitting idle? If ya don't use the cores, why limit your speed potential? E8500 @ 4.4Ghz+ on air will be mine in a matter of weeks. (Good luck getting your Q9450's anywhere near that) No quads needed here, just RAW power. When the programs/games I use start utilizing more than 2 cores, I'll get a quad or more. Now, it's a waste for me.

Shouldn't be making a blanket statement on this one...
 
I suggest monitoring your CPU usage and see how often your CPU usage is too much or at a point where you get slow downs... for me.. that happens often because i push my computer past what its meant for.... and somtimes it doesnt like it.:(
 
Mav451 said:
My ideal situation is being able to alt-tab out of a fullscreen game instantly, say to use GameFAQs or answer an IM. I have a feeling alot of this is more dependent on fixed I/O though (e.g. chipset/hard drives/page file). Having said that though, say if a game is dual-core optimized.

Then that game would (hopefully) be maxing out both cores for max framerate & performance. How much would having those 2 other idle cores help? Or do quads simply spread it across all 4 evenly (50% for all 4 cores).

Am I thinking about this correctly?

(*This is fairly critical b/c I'd either do a cheap used e6XXX for $120 or so, then move to the 9-series quads as the next step. The other option is "invest" in quads now and OC a Q6600 to 3Ghz, hopefully that being enough for a while.)
Click to expand...

Depends really, I see a lot where one core is 80% or so and the others are all ~30% and other times the load is pretty evenly distributed. During use I never see one core fully used while all others sit idle, makes for multitasking as you describe to be very smooth. I can have a game running at 50-60fps maximized behind media center and a few other misc non maximized windows in vista running full aero at 40-45% average CPU with spikes to 60-70%. Like I said, dual cores choke on those spikes.
 
I'd say get a good overclocking dual-core coupled with a P35 motherboard. That'll hold you over to nehalem and you can do another full upgrade at that time. If you feel you must have a quad core, which it seems like you don't, then go with a Q6600. Most guys'll tell you to go quad-core, but from what you say you are going to use the machine for you'll get more bang for the buck from a dual. Yes a quad is more "future-proof", but if you plan on upgrading again in, oh say the next year or two, then there aren't going to be any apps that require a quad core anyway. Take it from Intel - they are only making 5-10% of their production quadcore, so what does that tell you about where they think the need is?
 
Brahmzy said:
Wrong. Some of us don't need more than 2 cores. Why would I want a bunch of extra heat/power draw just to have 2 cores sitting idle? If ya don't use the cores, why limit your speed potential? E8500 @ 4.4Ghz+ on air will be mine in a matter of weeks. (Good luck getting your Q9450's anywhere near that) No quads needed here, just RAW power. When the programs/games I use start utilizing more than 2 cores, I'll get a quad or more. Now, it's a waste for me.

Shouldn't be making a blanket statement on this one...
Click to expand...

YES!! Finally someone said that..
I''m going to change my CPU soon - but do not what to choose - dual core e8500 or quad - q9450... I have e6700 right now and do not use any software that needs 4 cores.
I play games a lot - that's it. So, in performance I understand that dual is better in this case, right? I saw how someone there OC'ed E8500 above 4GHz - that is amazing I say! Does Crysis need 4 cores?
Corect me if I'm wrong, but I think E8500 at 4GHz will be a lot better than any quad.. right? I dont think ay game will use 4 cores in next 1-2 years...
 
phinix said:
Corect me if I'm wrong, but I think E8500 at 4GHz will be a lot better than any quad.. right?
Click to expand...
I bet it'll be half as good as a Q9450 at 4GHz.

Also, if you plan to fold, quad = double ppd! I'm getting 1760p/20hrs with my quad at stock speed.
 
ferr said:
I bet it'll be half as good as a Q9450 at 4GHz.

Also, if you plan to fold, quad = double ppd! I'm getting 1760p/20hrs with my quad at stock speed.
Click to expand...

So, do you mean I will get more fps in Crysis playing on Q9450 than E8500 both on stock?
Is Q9450 oc'ed to 4Ghz will be better than E8500 at 4GHz?
 
phinix said:
So, do you mean I will get more fps in Crysis playing on Q9450 than E8500?
Click to expand...
Could be true.
What kind of performance difference will we see in Crysis between Single/Dual/Quad/ core processors?

You will see a large performance increase on multi-core processors, especially regarding the worst case frame rates during intense action sequences allowing the player to experience a more stable frame rate through out the whole game. A quad core system should provide the best gaming platform for Crysis.

What technologies, effects, enhancements etc. will we see in Crysis with the use of the multiple core processors?

The most significant enhancement is the increased frame rate but it doesn&#8217;t stop there. Multi-core systems benefit from being able to generate much more complex visual particle effects using the additional cores to offload the work from the main game code.

Will Crysis be more dependent on the GPU or the CPU?

That will depend on the settings you are running the game at. Crysis is designed to make the most of both the CPU and GPU but with enough scalability to ensure a good game play experience on older hardware as well.

Will Crysis support some kind of thread branching so it can theoretically support an unlimited amount of cores?

The engine doesn&#8217;t currently support the kind of thread batching which would scale to an unlimited amount of cores. For a small number of cores it&#8217;s proved more suitable to use a parallelization technique where individual tasks, such as physics, sound, particle calculations etc. are performed in parallel.

How is gaming processing distributed among the cores? ex: AI, sound, effects, physics

This varies based on the type of hardware you are running on. In theory the physics, sound, many of the particle systems and the game logic can all run on separate cores. In additional much of the time spent in the graphics driver can be offloaded to another core as Crysis has a very highly optimised Direct3D graphics engine.

Will the x64 version have a significant performance improvement over the x86 one?

With all others things being equal regarding hardware and driver performance then the 64bit version of Crysis will be the best performing version. The Sandbox level editor processes a large amount of data and is best run on a 64bit system.

Do you have any recommendations on other complimentary hardware to ensure maximum performance and avoid potential bottlenecks?

N/A

What is being done to accommodate those on older slow processors?

While Crysis has been optimised to allow for best possible gaming experience on high end multi core systems the game still offers an excellent experience on older hardware. Several features can be scaled back to ensure Crysis can be run well on older systems without affecting the game play experience.

How early into the games development have you been working with Crytek?

We have been working with Crytek for over 2 years to keep them updated with the latest progress in hardware development.

What benefits will gamers see as a result of your direct involvement with Crytek?

See above: frame rate stability, effects etc&#8230;
Click to expand...

I don't see why people think it's such a crazy idea that software can utilize four cores. It's just a little multi-threading.
 
I love my Core 2 Duo E4400. This is my first Dual Core system and i love it. Not getting a Quad until some more games come out that support it. Until then i can happy with Dual. I never tried AMD's X2's but im pretty sure even the lower end C2D's can out perform them.
 
ferr said:
I don't see why people think it's such a crazy idea that software can utilize four cores. It's just a little multi-threading.
Click to expand...

You really don't get do you???

Windows XP, Vista, 32bit, or 64bit doesn't really support more than 2 cores.

And the only reason it supports 2 cores is that Intel had a multi-year BrainFart called Hyperthreading. Which does not exist on C2D's or Quads.

If you want to really use more than 2 cores you'll have to convert to some *nix distro and start to think about Beowulf clustering. Then you'll have trouble finding apps that will utilize all of that CPU horsepower.

F@H is a special case. It's written from the ground up to utilize ALL of the available computing power. Which very few applications are.

If you can get it configured correctly you could have 4 cores from a Quad and 2 or more GPU
cores from an SLi/CrossfireX setup running at the same time.


But for E-Peen - QUAD all the WAY BABY!!!! :D:D:D

SkullTrail will be my next RIG!!
 
rodsfree said:
You really don't get do you???

Windows XP, Vista, 32bit, or 64bit doesn't really support more than 2 cores.
Click to expand...

I use Vista64 and had no issue utilizing all four cores on my quad in a multi-threaded program I wrote a few days ago. It was as simple as creating four threads and letting the OS handle the rest, no affinity masking or anything weird. All you need are non-sequential code blocks.
 
ferr said:
I use Vista64 and had no issue utilizing all four cores on my quad in a multi-threaded program I wrote a few days ago. It was as simple as creating four threads and letting the OS handle the rest, no affinity masking or anything weird. All you need are non-sequential code blocks.
Click to expand...

Now, how does your program compare to Word, Excel, Visio, Unigraphics, SolidEdge, Solid Works, Esprit, Catia, MathLab or any other multi GigaByte sized source code program out there?

The odds are that in re-compiling any of these programs to utilize more than 2 cores and 64 bit operations that you would run into issues.

And that is what the computer software industry is trying to come to grips with - for the first time in the history of computers the hardware is more advanced than the software. Software used to drive the advancement of hardware. Now, the hardware is more capable than mainstream software can utilize.

Simple as that.
 
rodsfree said:
Now, how does your program compare to Word, Excel, Visio, Unigraphics, SolidEdge, Solid Works, Esprit, Catia, MathLab or any other multi GigaByte sized source code program out there?

The odds are that in re-compiling any of these programs to utilize more than 2 cores and 64 bit operations that you would run into issues.

And that is what the computer software industry is trying to come to grips with - for the first time in the history of computers the hardware is more advanced than the software. Software used to drive the advancement of hardware. Now, the hardware is more capable than mainstream software can utilize.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't compare at all to those, I was just refuting the statement about Vista64 not supporting more than 2 cores. Parallel programming can be difficult with all the deadlocks and whatnot, but it's certainly not incompatible with Vista64.
 
Thanks everyone for the input.

So I'm getting some recommendations that a well OC'd dual core can carry me over to Nehalem. That doesn't sound so bad, but I'm wondering what a good Quad can do too.

I understand that there are not many (rare) software that actually utilize the 4 cores. But what can a good Quad do in comparison to a well OC'd dual core?


Also, if I do go the well OC'd dual core route, and grab a P35 board, what's out there that is pretty solid and doesn't have too many hang-ups with memory compatibility and what not?

I'm most likely going to be going the single graphics card solutions route. I've never SLi'd before and don't think it's really in my budget right now.

So, what's a good board to mate with E8500?

What's a good board to mate with a Q6600? :) I still want to weigh my options here...


One more thing, I thank everyone for their insight and opinions. I'd like to ask that you guys not argue with each other regarding the usage of cores in today's software. I value everyone's opinions in here and I know everyone is pretty knowledgeable.

Thanks again everyone!
 
it really depends, no one should say that Quad is better than Duo or that Q9450 is better than E8500
I’ve been a huge fan of the Q9450 specially that it’s more time proof than the E8500, since in my situation I’m planning for a chip that I can use for about 4 years (or until the 32nm Intel processors arrives), and cuz I always always run multiple applications at the same time (now I have Outlook 2007+Photoshop CS2+Internet Explorer 7+MS Excel 2007 and this is the minimum for me)

but everything is phuckin related :( , let me quote from myself…

I was planning for the Q9450, now you notice that I started thinking of the E8400

firas said:
actually I was planning to go for the Q9450, but…well….I’ll admit it, the low multiplier (especially against the E8500) is damn disturbing

I don’t want to OC just for the OC if you know what I mean, so I was trying to convince myself that a 12MB L2 cache quad chip @ 3.2 is enough, and it is enough, I mean how many additional FPS @ Crysis (or whatever) it’ll give me if it was @ 4.2 (or whatever)
But… damn why X8?!?!?! Why not X9 or 9.5?!?! I hate Intel

so my new idea now is…. Pick the $183 E8400 (3000@stock with X9 multi) over the $316 Q9450 (2600@stock with X8 multi) and play with it till the Nehalem arrives (so I’ll keep it for like 8 months)

and maybe the E8400 at something like 4.2Ghz will please me more than the Quad Q9450 at lower speed specially that these 2 additional cores will be inactive most of the time

but…additional cores will benefit me in the future and that’s why the plan is all about waiting the Nehalem

the thing that I’m afraid will crush my plan is the LGA1366 socket thing in the Nehalem, I’m afraid this means that I’ll have to upgrade my mobo and get one that supports the Nehalem, and that’s what I won’t do cuz I’m planning to pick the highest end X48 mobo I can find together with the E8400 (or whatever)

E8400 + high end X48 then Nehalem + High end mobo to support it
or
Q9450 + high end X48 and keep it till the 32nm arrives
Or
E8500 just to OC it

Well….. my 660 P4 is doing fine for me now (not really) so I guess the Q9450 will satisfy me for a long time and help me (financially) concentrate on the Graphic cards madness

anyway I’m still planning :D

futureintelprocessorsfold4.jpg


http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=486
Click to expand...

now I'm thinking of the E8500

firas said:
Is that 1 120 rad on the top? So you mean 2X120 rads right? maybe it can fit a dual rad on top don’t you think? Though I don’t have an idea where should a 750W PSU go there!

well……since this topic is starting to be informative I’ll add another thing
The water cooling system (specially the radiator part) is well connected to the case size/type

now comes another issue … the CPU OC potentials…
Currently I’m aiming for the Intel Q9450 though I’m aware of its weak OC potentials (specially against the E8500) caused by its relatively low multiplier (x8 comparing to the x9.5 in the E8500)

CPU speed = FSB X Multi
Q9450 speed = FSB X 8 (4000 CPU speed / 8 multi = 500mhz FSB)
E8500 speed = FSB X 9.5 (4000 CPU speed / 9.5 multi = 421mhz FSB)

I’m not really a hard overclocker and I don’t really care about OC’ing the Q9450 cuz after all I think its stock speed is enough…well more than enough…even enough till the next 32nm gen arrives

so a Q9450 @3200 (8multi x 400mhz) is just fine for me, hopefully some high-end X48 mobo will even help me go beyond 450mhz FSB easily

the question here, will the x8 multi in the Q9450 bottleneck my water cooling capabilities?
I mean a 3 loops system will require minimum 240mm (2x120mm) radiator, and if I picked the TJ-07 I’ll go for 3x120mm rad (maybe 4) and I’ll keep a the idea of installing another dual rad in my mind

but will the Q9450 take advantage of all that extra “temperature dropdowners”?

I’m not really into this stuff so can someone provide some explanation here please? Would 1 dual rad be enough to have the Q9450 reach 3200? if some high-end X48 mobo made 500mhz+ easy to do with the Q9450..would this dual rad have the power to help making this possible?
I’m I dreaming here and a dual rad on 3 loops water cooling system is just a simple cooling solution even when installed with a limited potentials CPU?
Click to expand...

and this is another one

firas said:
super informative

CPU speed = FSB X Multi
RAM speed = FSB X RAM divider

Q9450 speed = FSB X 8 ………. Q9450 @ 4000Mhz means FSB = 500 (which is maybe the max that Yorkfields would reach)
based on what you said….. using 1066 RAM means 533FSB which is like a dream with the Yorkfields (except the Extreme family)
so 1066 RAM would be enough for Yorkfield (OC)

E8500 speed = FSB X 9.5 ………. E8500 @ 5000 means FSB = 526 (which is easy for the Wolfades)
based on what you said … 667 RAM (DDR3@1333) is enough for Wolfades (OC) / I don’t know if Wolfades can easily go beyond 667 but I don’t think so

so unless you have a CPU running at something like 625Mhz FSB, DDR3 is pointless
so DDR3 is pointless with Yorkfield
so unless you are planning to go above 5000 with some chip like the E8500, DDR3 is pointless (533 RAM X 9.5 E8500 Multi = 5000)

my question here, if we forget the relationship between the RAM and the CPU and the FSB and overclocking and all that stuff, should a DDR3@1600 act faster than a DDR2@800? I mean if we stabilized all the other things and changed the DIM’s…would it make a difference?

E8500 @ 4553 (on air)
Click to expand...

so in my case I wanted something that can satisfy my for about 4 years minimum, then I fall in love with the Nehalem and wanted to get a cheap E8400 just for a short period until the Nehalem arrives
then after I fall in love with the Silverstone TJ07 and the water cooling systems built in it I started thinking of getting a processor that deserves this case and water cooling
now I’m thinking of going to the QX family but … well … dammit I keep forgetting that all these stupid plans is pointless since I’m really satisfied now with my 3800Mhz P4

so to know which is better Quad or Duo, ask yourself
1- How long are you planning to keep it?
2- Do you change your chip every 6 months? 5 years?
3- Do you have some water cooling plans? Advanced water cooling plans? Insane water cooling plans?
4- Do you use Photoshop a lot? Or any Quad support application?
5- Do you really care about that 400Mhz (or whatever) that Duo gives over the Quad?
6- Do you want to OC? Heavy OC? Extreme OC? Insane OC?
7- Do you love TJ07? Do you love Paris Hilton?
8- What would chuck Norris choose?
9- Are you a new generation fan?… I mean do you like to say to people: I’m using DDR3 not 2 moahaha..and that means that you should consider Duo

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1255489
 
Hahaha, awesome post Firas!

Let's start with your questions:

1. I hope to keep my next build for at least 2 years.
2. I don't like to change my chip frequently. Historically, it's been 3-4 years between changes.
3. If water cooling means I can get a solid OC (nothing too crazy) then I'll give it a shot. I'm just not too comfortable with "liquid" in my system. I'm not very confident with hoses, so I'm afraid I might screw something up. If there's an idiot proof, quality water cooling solution, then I'm interested.
4. I haven't been using photoshop A LOT. But there's a good chance I may have to. I'm beginning to work/learn photo-editing. I'm an amateur photographer and beginning to fiddle around with photoshop.
5. I don't think I really care about the 400mhz between Duo and Quad.
6. I'd like to OC.
7. I'm not sure I know what TJ07 is. NOT a fan of P.Hilton.
8. Chuck Norris can kiss my a%%.
9. The system is for myself. Not for others. As long as I can play the games I want and not have to deal with hangups with CPU intensive software, I'm happy.


So where does that all leave me? :)

I was dangerously close to pulling the trigger on the Q6600. But now I'm feeling like I should wait for the next set of chips coming out. I think I'm heavily leaning towards the 45nm chips.

So...most likely E8500 or Q9450.

The only thing that concerns me is, WHICH board to purchase if I go with either of those chips.
 
Rodsfree!!! hahah, I haven't seen a post from you since my old Opty thread :p Good to see your post again! :) I hope this is an indicator of good things to come. I was very pleased with how my Opty turned out and has treated me thus far. Hopefully, your participation in this next build will lead to good things as well :)
 
So where does that all leave me?

I was dangerously close to pulling the trigger on the Q6600. But now I'm feeling like I should wait for the next set of chips coming out. I think I'm heavily leaning towards the 45nm chips.

So...most likely E8500 or Q9450.

The only thing that concerns me is, WHICH board to purchase if I go with either of those chips.
Click to expand...

that&#8217;s my exact setuation now, you can notice that from my quoted post from the TJ07 case topic here
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1031871476#post1031871476
I&#8217;m aiming for the Q9450 but I&#8217;m afraid it&#8217;s low multiplier and low FSB limits will bottleneck my water cooling plan since I&#8217;m planning for an advanced water cooling system
I afraid to pay $300 (actually and in my particular case shipping this case will cost me additional $200 so this case will cost me around $500) and $300+ for some water cooling system then have people saying to me that I could&#8217;ve used smaller more simple water cooling system that can fit on a smaller less expensive case and have the same OC results that I would have with the $500 case & $300+ WC
but&#8230;well&#8230;.. I think eventually I&#8217;ll pick the Q9450 even if it will be overcooled, I&#8217;ll just leave that heavy cooling for the next chip

anyway since you are holding it until around 2010 and don&#8217;t have any heavy overcooling plans and don&#8217;t care about the extra Mhz that Duo would offer&#8230;welcome to the Q9450 club, I think it&#8217;ll be more than enough for playing Crysis 3 and Call of Duty 6 :D though things like Nehalem, Skulltrail, 3 or 4 GeForce cards working at the same time stuff really concerns me about the future of gaming, as you know..these companies will force us to update our rigs before the time that we planned for :(

EDIT:
Oh about the board, if you are planning to go SLI that&#8217;s another thing
If you are not planning to install 2 Geforce cards in the same mobo you should stay away from SLI
That&#8217;s what members here always said to me, seems that SLI mobo have relatively week OC potentials and relatively more problems and tend to fry themselves when they have the chance
and don&#8217;t forget that tests proved that some card like the 8800Ultra can beat 2 XSLI 8800GT cards

so Intel based mobo&#8217;s could be a better choice here, and I like to think of these chipsets like that: P35>X38>X48
P35 is old (no offence dude&#8217;s)
X38&#8230;.well&#8230;. I&#8217;ll just quote from here
Since the currently available Core 2 processors all run flawlessly with the P35 chipset, which is actually on sale as a real product in the market, we can&#8217;t recommend buying an X38-based motherboard. As soon as the QX9770 goes on sale, you&#8217;ll be able to find an appropriate X48 board for the same price X38 boards sell for now. It&#8217;s definitely not worth purchasing an expensive X38 board now that may not be compatible with newer processors later due to upgraded specifications , e.g. FSB 1600.
Click to expand...
This is from me:
If you are planning to dump your current mobo for X38 just to go one step up its better to wait for X48
If you are building a rig now and waiting X48 would corrupt the process don&#8217;t wait it and get X38
If you are waiting the next 45nm processors then waiting the X48 should not be a problem since both will be released at the same period (hopefully with the GeForce 9xxx)
Click to expand...

so why don&#8217;t you hump in with me and wait for the Q9450, X48, 9800GTX (or whatever its name was), and lower DDR3@1333 prices, and cheap S-IPS 22&#8221; screen :)
 
Firas, it's looking more and more likely, I'll be hiking that trail with you (for the wait of the Q9450).

I'm also curious how the GeForce 9800s will fair. I saw a sneak peek of the 9800GX2 online (posted online somewhere - I forget). But I'm apt to hold off on that card (9800GX2) since I fell into the same trap of purchasing the 7950GX2 and moving up to the 8800GTX soon after. Didn't like the week long absence of a vid card. :) (due to eVga step-up process).
 
I'll say it again:

Quad, period. The old argument of "oh, not everyone needs 4 cores" is pointless and ignorant. The OS can use all 4 cores and does so in day to day operation meaning you have a smoother running PC with less slowdowns and hangups which happen even on 4 GHz overclocked Core 2 Duos - but miraculously those hangups don't happen on overclocked quads. Wonder why... Hrmmm...

Grab the Q6600 and then think about an upgrade at a later time if you suddenly get the overwhelming feeling that "this thing should be faster." I seriously doubt you'll ever have the feeling for the next 12-24 months unless you're a speed junkie, but that's just me.
 
Bbz,

You like the Q6600 over the upcoming Q9450?

I mean, if I can wait, shouldn't I just wait for the Q9450?

Or is the Q6600 just that awesome with a 65nm chip?


I just don't want to be tweaking a Q6600 and then realizing a few weeks later, "DAMN, I could have bought the Q9450!!!"

I know you know what that feels like :)
 
No, I don't actually because I don't buy ahead of the curve. I buy what I can use in the moment it's available. You already stated you looked like you were going to - or at least you're willing to - wait until the next generation quads hit the market; if that's still the case, then wait, no harm no foul.

But if you want something right freakin' now then I say get the quad over a C2D and twice on Sunday - and not because it's twice as many cores either. :)

Upgrading is a bit pointless to me since not only can I not afford to do it on regular or even semi-regular intervals, but when I build a machine I'm typically going to kill it inside of 2 years - and by killing it I mean put more than 2 years worth of your typical Joe Average, consumer that happens to own a computer, style usage on it. I'm tough on hardware, tougher than most people could even imagine. But when I build a machine, it's as stable as anything humanly possible and would make NASA jealous for stability reasons. :D
 
The only Quad that will hit 4GHz easy will still be QX9650, Q9450 is no way near, 9550 might do that with a golden one.
I rather have a quad with real power than a dual with just speeds and no real power, just speeds that needed to compete with quads with power.

Nehalem looks today just stupid choise to wait for, First a new board, and they will not be chaper than a good highend board today, who in their right minds shell out 850$+ for GOOD 2x2GB DDR3 1600 that can beet good DDR2 when Good Gskill DDR2 1000 2x2GB is just 115$ at newegg and are very good choise? I dont thing DDR3 will fall mutch pricewice until people starting to buy the darn thing, and that will not be until nehalem arrives late 2008 or pushed to 2009 since their is no reson to put it ot in time due to lack on AMD-power today.
Thats just 1100$ for mems and board. Probaly 8GB:s will be more a normal thing then so 1900-2000$ for board and mems?? no thank you. Nehalem needs to be way better than Penryn to even be worth the money and stupid highprice mems with slow specs and CL8 or even CL9 needs to go down to at least CL7 or CL6 at high speeds above 2000MHz before i even consider expensive and good DDR3 and Nehalem over cheap and very good DDR2 and Penryn.
Only is you are superpi horny, then you might get of on the duals and superhigh FSB:s that them need to be as good as quads at lower speeds.
Gamewice 1-4 good GFX will do the trick way better than a small increese in CPU-speed not can bring you.
 
BoredTiger said:
Also, if I do go the well OC'd dual core route, and grab a P35 board, what's out there that is pretty solid and doesn't have too many hang-ups with memory compatibility and what not?

I'm most likely going to be going the single graphics card solutions route. I've never SLi'd before and don't think it's really in my budget right now.

So, what's a good board to mate with E8500?

What's a good board to mate with a Q6600? :) I still want to weigh my options here..
Click to expand...

No SLi, Duo/Quad, OC'able: BLOOD IRON. The value of this board in conjunction with its specs and reviews makes me want it. Anyone have personal experience with it?
 
Interesting recommendation.

I do have good experiences with DFI product, specifically motherboard.

Thank you for the recommendation. I'll keep this board in mind.


I am curious whether I should I get a 780i for the FSB or wait for the 790i for the higher FSB.

As it stands, it looks like I'll wait for a Q9450 or Q9550.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
I'll say it again:

Quad, period. The old argument of "oh, not everyone needs 4 cores" is pointless and ignorant. The OS can use all 4 cores and does so in day to day operation meaning you have a smoother running PC with less slowdowns and hangups which happen even on 4 GHz overclocked Core 2 Duos - but miraculously those hangups don't happen on overclocked quads. Wonder why... Hrmmm...

Grab the Q6600 and then think about an upgrade at a later time if you suddenly get the overwhelming feeling that "this thing should be faster." I seriously doubt you'll ever have the feeling for the next 12-24 months unless you're a speed junkie, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

And you're WRONG again. This does not apply to everyone. I upgrade my box about every 8-10 months. There is NOTHING that a 3.6Ghz quad will let me do better than a 4.4Ghz E8500 in the next 10 months. I don't use multi-threaded apps - no folding, rendering, nothing like that. I don't know what the heck you're talking about hiccups about - my OC'd E6600 doesn't hiccup on anything. Just rock solid smooth performance on Vx64. And the E8500 will be giving me 1000Mhz more of that smoothness.

For those that don't OC that are trying to keep a box for the next two years...get the Q9450+ for sure. Certainly in a year or so, games will start to be multithreaded for quads, not just duals. Now at work, I use a quad all day long because I have up to 30+ windows/programs running at one time. I DON'T do that on my balls-out gaming rig.
 
Brahmzy said:
And you're WRONG again. This does not apply to everyone. I upgrade my box about every 8-10 months. There is NOTHING that a 3.6Ghz quad will let me do better than a 4.4Ghz E8500 in the next 10 months. I don't use multi-threaded apps - no folding, rendering, nothing like that. I don't know what the heck you're talking about hiccups about - my OC'd E6600 doesn't hiccup on anything. Just rock solid smooth performance on Vx64. And the E8500 will be giving me 1000Mhz more of that smoothness.

For those that don't OC that are trying to keep a box for the next two years...get the Q9450+ for sure. Certainly in a year or so, games will start to be multithreaded for quads, not just duals. Now at work, I use a quad all day long because I have up to 30+ windows/programs running at one time. I DON'T do that on my balls-out gaming rig.
Click to expand...

You don't game?
(hint: games ARE multithreaded today)
 
bbz_Ghost said:
I'll say it again:

Quad, period. The old argument of "oh, not everyone needs 4 cores" is pointless and ignorant. The OS can use all 4 cores and does so in day to day operation meaning you have a smoother running PC with less slowdowns and hangups which happen even on 4 GHz overclocked Core 2 Duos - but miraculously those hangups don't happen on overclocked quads. Wonder why... Hrmmm...
Click to expand...

I've gotta call BS on that. Day to day ops do not tax even two cores - when my normal processor utilization is 10% (if that) it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether that is split over 2 cores at 5% a piece or 4 cores at 2.5% a piece - in no way is a 5% utilized core bottlenecking your system. Windows may split processes over more cores, but unless that core is running flat-out (hell, I'll even be generous and say 50% utilized) then having another core isn't going to help at all. Why put up with the extra heat and power draw just so I can have 4 cores running at 2.5% instead of 2 cores at 5% (and running faster at that). Makes no sense unless you are running the kind of software that needs those cores, which most of us are not. And having a bunch of apps open doesn't matter either - unless they are all crunching data they are just taking up memory and some idle power cycles. I've got 37 processes running right now and I'm sitting at 1-2% processor usage.
 
BoredTiger said:
Interesting recommendation.

I do have good experiences with DFI product, specifically motherboard.

Thank you for the recommendation. I'll keep this board in mind.


I am curious whether I should I get a 780i for the FSB or wait for the 790i for the higher FSB.

As it stands, it looks like I'll wait for a Q9450 or Q9550.
Click to expand...
790i is DDR3 only, 850$+ for good 2x2GB PC1600 that can do better than good DDR2 4x1GB PC9200 is just to mutch when Gskills PC1000 2x2GB is only around 120$ and will last a while and DDR2 is not imature as DDR3 still is atm. Price will not bet better before people buy them and that will not hapens until Nehalem i think, even then they will stay expensive a while before them get as mainstream and good as DDR2 is today.
Difference is not big enought to justify the premiumprice especially over higspeed and good PC8000+ DDR2.
780i will get official support for FSB1600 when time is due.
 
I have to take the side of Forceman on this one. Not everyone mutlitasks to the point of needing quad core, and only the newest games have multithreaded support.

But, all current Operating systems have SMP support over both sockets and cores themselves, so there is no reason to not get them, due to support. Also, if your a heavy multitasking (and I am not talking about a few dozen browser windows), slower quads make for a better experience than faster duals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top