Questions on multi cored intel processors.

[NoctisReitop]

I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme. Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is an ENORMOUS waste of money.
After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core. That lead to the question of what the difference between would be between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz core duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the clock speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and a price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it open to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.

-Noctis

[RA1D]

you say you want to invest in a system that will last as many years as possible but you consider quad cores an "ENORMOUS" waste of money? there may not be too many games/programs that utilize all four cores today but that will certainly change as time goes on.

i don't get it, how do you consider a $970 quad core @ 2.66 Ghz a waste of money but at the same time you are thinking about buying a $970 dual core @ 2.93 Ghz?

[Computer-Ed]

The question is do you need speed now or in the future? Right now there is only one game I know of that actually makes use of more than 2 cores and that is Supreme Commander. In Supcom a quad core at 2.6 will actually perform better than a dual core at 3.2.

Also later this month Intel is oding a price dump so look for the prices of quads to take a serious drop. If I was personally building new right now I would go quad core. However for a budget the dual core does great, however save the money and get an E6600.

[gvblake22]

This is somewhat of a touchy subject. Many will insist that the more cores will allow you to multitask that much better and run multi-threaded applications that much faster. But others stick to the fact that among similarly priced dual core and quad core processors, the faster speed of the dual core will almost always provide a better performance improvement than the extra two cores do in the quad core since most applications are not multi-threaded yet.

Personally, I think that the faster dual core processors are the way to go right now. There really isn't much in the way of multi-threaded apps that we use on a regular basis that can really get completed faster by having two extra processing cores. But I'm not sure what the future holds for multi-threading. Next year could reveal a wealth of new games that can take advantage of the processing power provided by quad-cores, but that is very uncertain. All I can tell you right now is that the situation favors faster dual cores instead of slower quad cores.

[Dread]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

This is somewhat of a touchy subject. Many will insist that the more cores will allow you to multitask that much better and run multi-threaded applications that much faster. But others stick to the fact that among similarly priced dual core and quad core processors, the faster speed of the dual core will almost always provide a better performance improvement than the extra two cores do in the quad core since most applications are not multi-threaded yet.

Personally, I think that the faster dual core processors are the way to go right now. There really isn't much in the way of multi-threaded apps that we use on a regular basis that can really get completed faster by having two extra processing cores. But I'm not sure what the future holds for multi-threading. Next year could reveal a wealth of new games that can take advantage of the processing power provided by quad-cores, but that is very uncertain. All I can tell you right now is that the situation favors faster dual cores instead of slower quad cores.

The same logic could be applied to having two cores. You don't need that extra core (yet) since most games (99.9%) are not multi-threaded and the
vast majority of consumer level applications are not either.

If your budget allows, I'd say go for the fastest quad-core you can get
and then oc it if you want an extra couple (or more) hundred MHz. The Q6600 is slated to be around $266-300 sometime around the 22nd of this month. Extremely competitive prices on a great quad-core chip.

[Dr. V]

That cheap cheap price on the Q6600 is the most intriguing of all the price drops. It makes all the decisions that much harder.

The Q6600s O/C pretty damn well, too. I've seen some go easily beyond 3.0-3.2GHz - that's a nice O/C.

Now...in theory, and in all technicalities, it's very safe to say that more cores = better performance. Why? Anything you do right now on your system, if you think you won't do anything more, you'll notice much faster speeds because 4 cores processing the same things as one or two will do a better job. There are more..."information pathways" if you will...for you to be able to do a lot more with much better performance.

Now aside from the insane multitaskability, it IS true that games won't take advantage of even most dual core CPUs now. However, I'm pretty sure that when new DX10 games come out, multi cores will be supported. And that isn't very far away.

So my answer to this question:

If you were to build yourself a brand new computer at the end of this month with a choice between dual core and quad core regardless of budget...which would you choose? How about the other parts?

would be:

I'd most definitely choose a quad-core CPU, as the insane price drop is extremely attractive and brings enhanced performanced. I would 100% NOT go DDR3 yet - it isn't a good enough price or refined enough yet. Also, the high performance low priced DDR2 ram is still fully supported and won't be going out of style any time soon. 8800xxx is definitely the card to go with - it all depends on the size of monitor you've got. I have a 20.1" widescreen, meaning 1680x1050 - a GeForce 8800GTS 320MB is more than adequate. Anything with a higher resolution (meaning 23"+) needs the 640MB version. Since I'll be adding a 24" WS LCD soon, I'll probably go with the 640MB version or the 8800GTX. The Ultra is a HUGE waste of money. The insanely overclocked PNY 8800GTX is an awesome card. I'd grab a kit (or two) of 2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM - 800MHz. A WD Raptor 74GB or 150GB for my main Windows/programs/games HDD, and a Seagate Cuda 500GB HDD for everything else. I really like the P5K line of motherboards, and I may need to do some more info digging to see if I'd rather have a P35 chipset or the 680i solution from nVidia. Either way, it will be either an ASUS board or a Gigabyte board. Personally, I'd choose a nice sized case. My Enermax Uber Chakra is awesome. Antec P1xx or Sonata III is awesome. Most Thermaltakes are really good. A very large selection available for cases. Get the fastest DVD+/-RW you can get with LightScribe - two of them.

That's about it for my recommendations.

[One4yu2c]

To answer your question, the difference between those two processors is that the X6700 has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be raised (non Extreme chips can only be lowered, but not raised past stock). As an FYI, the CPU multiplier helps determine the clockspeed in conjunction with the frontside bus (CPU multiplier x FSB = clockspeed). On both the X6700 and E6700, the stock FSB is 266 and the stock CPU multiplier is x10 (266 x 10 = 2660MHz, or 2.66GHz). Traditional overclocking methods would have you increasing the FSB, but by paying a premium for the X6700, you can increase the multiplier as well. For example, 266 x 11 = 2926MHz (2.92GHz).

As for dual vs quad, it's true that there's not a ton of multithreaded programs out there right now, and even fewer optimized for four cores. But it's also true that at the end of the month (sites are quoting July 22nd), the Q6600 will drop to $266, making it very tough to pass up. At that price, I don't think anyone could classify it as an "ENORMOUS waste of money." Looking longterm, with multithreaded chips becoming commonplace, it shouldn't be long for developers to embrace additional cores. And in the meantime, if you have any interest in overclocking whatsoever, you can negate the clockspeed difference of a faster dual-core chip.

It's up to the individual user to decide what they need and what it's worth (we'll also see some even better dual-core pricing at the end of July). There's certainly nothing wrong in going with a dual-core, but I would recommend thinking long and hard about the Q6600.

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by Dread

The same logic could be applied to having two cores. You don't need that extra core (yet) since most games (99.9%) are not multi-threaded and the
vast majority of consumer level applications are not either.

That is very true. The simple fact that dual core processors have been around for about 2 years now and we are still saying the same thing as back then, "There are no (or not enough) multi-threaded applications to make dual core worth the extra money". Now that dual core processors are easily available at every pricepoint, the lack of multithreaded applications is still apparent. So it's anyone's guess as to how long it will be until games and other applications are developed to take advantage of all this extra processing power that is essentially not being utilized by the majority of PC users.

[Dread]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

That is very true. The simple fact that dual core processors have been around for about 2 years now and we are still saying the same thing as back then, "There are no (or not enough) multi-threaded applications to make dual core worth the extra money". Now that dual core processors are easily available at every pricepoint, the lack of multithreaded applications is still apparent. So it's anyone's guess as to how long it will be until games and other applications are developed to take advantage of all this extra processing power that is essentially not being utilized by the majority of PC users.

You got me on that point, and a doozy it is. But from personal experience, going from a single-core to almost all dual-core systems, I've noticed an overall improvement in system performance without an increase in clock speeds. Even if you only have 2-3 applications open at once, I think having the extra cores makes a difference in non-multithreaded apps.
I love the fact I can be listening to music, ripping/writing a DVD/CD and surfing these forums and not have to worry about freezes or lockups should I be doing the above late at night when my a/v app is scheduled to run.

My vote still goes to the Q6600 - too many pluses, and once the price drop hits, zero minuses.

[NoctisReitop]

Originally Posted by RAID

you say you want to invest in a system that will last as many years as possible but you consider quad cores an "ENORMOUS" waste of money? there may not be too many games/programs that utilize all four cores today but that will certainly change as time goes on.

i don't get it, how do you consider a $970 quad core @ 2.66 Ghz a waste of money but at the same time you are thinking about buying a $970 dual core @ 2.93 Ghz?

It's not that "I" consider all of them a horrendous waste of money, I've just read a lot of places that a lot of people deem the new 2.66 quad core extreme to be so. I like the idea of the multi-cored processors. When I lowered my eyes from the qx6700, I set my eyes on the $300 2.66 dual core, not the 2.93 dual extreme. I did have questions as to why there was such a price difference.

Originally Posted by One4yu2c

To answer your question, the difference between those two processors is that the X6700 has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be raised (non Extreme chips can only be lowered, but not raised past stock). As an FYI, the CPU multiplier helps determine the clockspeed in conjunction with the frontside bus (CPU multiplier x FSB = clockspeed). On both the X6700 and E6700, the stock FSB is 266 and the stock CPU multiplier is x10 (266 x 10 = 2660MHz, or 2.66GHz). Traditional overclocking methods would have you increasing the FSB, but by paying a premium for the X6700, you can increase the multiplier as well. For example, 266 x 11 = 2926MHz (2.92GHz).

...But it's also true that at the end of the month (sites are quoting July 22nd), the Q6600 will drop to $266, making it very tough to pass up...

As far as overclocking goes, I'm a ****. I've never done it, and don't have all the knowledge to do it. I have ideas as far as what to do, but not enough to complete the process. I'm interested, I've just never done it to one of my systems. I would have toyed with it if my desktop was still alive (1.5 GHz p3 etc). I'd practically be afraid to try and overclock a brand new processor when I got it.

If the extremes have such a greater capactity for overclocking, isn't that the way to go?
How would the limits of overclocking be on the q6600 as opposed to the qx6700?