Curse

FlamingMetroid · Jun 06, 2008, 08:23 PM // 20:23

So I'm about to get my computer, and while looking over everything I had and what else was available, I noticed a quad core processor for the same price as the tri core I was planning on getting.

so,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103252
vs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251

which one would be better?

Why_Me · Jun 06, 2008, 08:29 PM // 20:29

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

LockerLoad · Jun 06, 2008, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Get the higher clocked chip with less cores. Games don't scale well with increased core numbers. Unless that is you happen to have 4 top notch vid cards in crossfire...

Alastair · Jun 06, 2008, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Going with the Phenom right now is a mistake, IMO. Get a fast Intel Core 2 Duo. I know this throws a big wrench in the mechanics of your machine but the price/performance of an Intel build is just so much better.

Similarly priced C2D: E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHZ 6MB l2 Cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037

As mentioned by an above poster, the triple and quad cores don't make that much difference for games.

-Alastair

Lord Sojar · Jun 06, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by LockerLoad

Get the higher clocked chip with less cores. Games don't scale well with increased core numbers. Unless that is you happen to have 4 top notch vid cards in crossfire...

You mean like the new ATi 4870s that happen to ummm, well... ummm, yeh... hurt my image?

TaCktiX · Jun 06, 2008, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Lies. There is a handful of games being released right now that DO take advantage of multiple cores. The two that come to mind are Crysis and Supreme Commander. Granted, Guild Wars does not, but if you're debating how many cores, you're likely going to run higher-powered stuff alongside GW anyway.

As for processor, get the Quad. Intel still has the performance edge and getting something with a worst price/performance margin isn't a good idea.

eggrolls · Jun 06, 2008, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Yes to Intel Q6600 or E8400. No to anything AMD unless you find a really good price. I'd pick a faster dual core over a slower quad core if prices are the same unless you're overclocking or have stuff that need 2 more cores.

JayH · Jun 07, 2008, 12:23 AM // 00:23

In regards to the Intel CPU, and whether to go Q6600 or E8400 (which is very debatable in the hardware community at this moment) I find the choice to be clear - I would go for the Q6600 in nearly every situation, unless power consumption was a major factor in the decision. E8400 is going to be somewhat faster in modern games, but there is no game at this point that a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU cannot run well. In CPU limited games, an E8400 may be 110 FPS vs Q6600 @ 95 FPS... there is no tangible difference. But you will see a big difference in apps/games that support 4 cores.

But AMD is the only "true" quad core on the market at this moment. Phenom contains all 4 cores on one die, with each of the cores having 512KB of Level 2 cache and all the cores sharing 2MB of Level 3 cache. Intel's current quads are made up of two dual-core CPUs essentially glued together, with each of the two dual cores having a shared L2 cache.

There is an advantage to having a native quad core, in terms of scaling from 1->4 cores, but the problem is AMD's K10 architecture is slower than Intel's Core 2 so the better scaling isn't apparent.

But as said before, if this CPU is just for Guild Wars, it does not matter which you buy.

Admael · Jun 07, 2008, 01:55 AM // 01:55

I think the E8400 has lower power consumption, and generates less heat than the Q6600.

Not to mention it is faster and overclocks better.

Lord Sojar · Jun 07, 2008, 01:57 AM // 01:57

Umm, to all of you slicing down ATi... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now isn't the time to invest in a new Intel system either. The Nehalem architecture is due to launch at the end of this year, and it will destroy even Intel's current offerings. Oh, and as far as AMD platforms go, they have Crossfire on their side, as well as amazing chipsets (much better than current Intel offerings in technology packages)

So, yes, you might lose performance on the CPU side, but you will gain a lot of performance on the mainboard chipset side, and the new AMD ATi HD4870 cards are.... well, pure insanity.

If you can afford to build a new Intel quad core/nVidia setup, go for it. I warn you though, the GTX 280 is not going to be cheap. It already has low yields (I would know, I helped build the damn thing)... the core is expensive to make. Expect to pay 650 dollars for a single GTX 280; you have been warned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

I think the E8400 has lower power consumption, and generates less heat than the Q6600.

Not to mention it is faster and overclocks better.

Yes, that is correct. The two main reasons is that the E8400 is a dual core, not a quad core, and the fact that the E8400 uses the new Hafnium 45nm fabs. The E8400 also utilizes the 1333MHz bus. All around, a better choice. Just wait until you see Nehalem though (god, our labs are having a hayday with it)

moriz · Jun 07, 2008, 08:22 AM // 08:22

what kind of news do you have on the HD4870? most of the stuff i've been getting seems to be pure speculation.

Tamuril elansar · Jun 07, 2008, 08:55 AM // 08:55

i have a feeling the 4000 serie of ATI won't be as good as people think.

-rightuos- · Jun 07, 2008, 09:47 AM // 09:47

get the quad, why miss out on the extra core?
The tri core is just a quad core with a busted core anyways.

Intel's Nehalem as much as its praised has its thorns. Intel is shooting itself in the foot with it's "Holier than thou" attitude.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/int...t_war_revealed

OP's question was link 1 or 2 I say 2

Snograt · Jun 07, 2008, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by -rightuos-

The tri core is just a quad core with a busted core anyways.

Yeah - you just HAVE to admire the economics behind that idea. I bet the guy who thought of it got promoted through the roof!

Why_Me · Jun 07, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Umm, to all of you slicing down ATi... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now isn't the time to invest in a new Intel system either. The Nehalem architecture is due to launch at the end of this year, and it will destroy even Intel's current offerings. Oh, and as far as AMD platforms go, they have Crossfire on their side, as well as amazing chipsets (much better than current Intel offerings in technology packages)

So, yes, you might lose performance on the CPU side, but you will gain a lot of performance on the mainboard chipset side, and the new AMD ATi HD4870 cards are.... well, pure insanity.

If you can afford to build a new Intel quad core/nVidia setup, go for it. I warn you though, the GTX 280 is not going to be cheap. It already has low yields (I would know, I helped build the damn thing)... the core is expensive to make. Expect to pay 650 dollars for a single GTX 280; you have been warned.

Yes, that is correct. The two main reasons is that the E8400 is a dual core, not a quad core, and the fact that the E8400 uses the new Hafnium 45nm fabs. The E8400 also utilizes the 1333MHz bus. All around, a better choice. Just wait until you see Nehalem though (god, our labs are having a hayday with it)

Intel chipsets can do crossfire.
They can also use a 4870......
This isn't a matter of fanboyism of intel vs AMD/ATI, it just makes more sense to go with an intel cpu atm.

Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores.

Brianna · Jun 07, 2008, 04:52 PM // 16:52

I'd just say go with the Quad Core, no point in getting a tri-core, even if it is clocked a little bit higher.

Just my opinion though, I'd personally take the quad any day over the tri.

LockerLoad · Jun 07, 2008, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaCktiX

Lies. There is a handful of games being released right now that DO take advantage of multiple cores. The two that come to mind are Crysis and Supreme Commander.

No one claimed that multiple cores weren't advantageous, you're paraphrasing out of context. If you can demonstrate some advantage to more than two cores without a multi-Video card array I'll eat my words.

EDIT: As of now [email protected] Mhz is better for gaming than 4 equivalent [email protected] Mhz.

LockerLoad · Jun 07, 2008, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

You mean like the new ATi 4870s that happen to ummm, well... ummm, yeh... hurt my image?

Two of those 4870s would kick some serious buttox ^^

Lord Sojar · Jun 08, 2008, 10:13 AM // 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Why_Me

Intel chipsets can do crossfire.
They can also use a 4870......
This isn't a matter of fanboyism of intel vs AMD/ATI, it just makes more sense to go with an intel cpu atm.

Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores.

No, not really. Most of you forum goers don't utilize a quad core at all. Dual core = fitting for most of the Guru population. Dual core is easy to make compilers for, quad+ are much more complex. There are no games that utilize more than a quad core, not even the mighty Crysis (at least not to any really significant extent)

45nm chips can handle higher voltages then you might think. Oh, and voltages only damage a chip when they become extremely high, like to the point of insanity. It is the heat generated from the voltage increases that causes 98% of the population who overclock, the damage. Adequate cooling = no problems.

Oh, and the Intel chipsets that support Crossfire FAIL in comparison to the AMD based chipsets designed natively for Crossfire. AMD currently has the best chipset offerings on the market for the single and dual GPU solution. Triple SLi 780/790 scales better than triple crossfire or quad crossfire, but alas, that is another story.

LockerLoad · Jun 09, 2008, 08:29 AM // 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Why_Me

Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores.

I think what Admael meant with the comment about Dual cores over clocking better than quads is that assuming the cores are identical less heat will be generated by half as many cores. Additionally there's a higher probability of getting a borked core on a quad vs a dual(hence the Phenom triples).

Your explanation about the voltage damage is a little misleading also. I'll assume your speaking of electrons tunneling a short between two gates. The possibility of this happening exists whenever there is current flowing through the chip. The probability is increased at higher voltage and temperature which seem to go in hand with clockspeed, core count and lithography process size.

Raja can doubtless explain it in intricate detail, I am but a layman.