Differences between quad core and faster dual core?

[John Doe]

I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
question would apply to single versus dual.

What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual core
CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of things
does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
processing allow? An explanation or references would be appreciated.
I might do a little research in the meantime.

This is just a guess.
Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.

 

[John Doe]

After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait and
hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on the
"extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to take
advantage of more cores.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

????

I will attempt to clear up your misunderstanding.

I think the Q6600 is _very_ well priced.

What part of "3GH+" don't you understand?

I just installed a G0 stepping Q6600 on an Abit IP35Pro and it
went straight to 3GHz with no issues.... I didn't even have to
increase the core voltage.

But of course I'm talking about stock speeds. If you want to get all
excited about overclocking, there are better groups IMO.

I've been running BOINC on it for a week which is loading all four
cores to 100%

That's nice.

So, four cores at 3GHz for a little over $220?

But in fact, the Q6600 is 2.4 GHz (and $220 US at Newegg, or $650 on
eBay).

You just can't go wrong!

I agree. But lots of other overly excited users say exactly the
same about the E6850.

A dual core E6850 for $30 less would be left in it's dust as an
overclocked Q6600 at 3GHz is running the same 9x multiplier and
clock speed but has twice the cores.

There are a thousand other silly overclockers who disagree with you.

To me, the extra money for the Q6600 is $30 very well spent!

You aren't "the majority of users".

 

[John Doe]

class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:

....

Which is just an E6600 that has been overclocked by Intel and rebadged....

That's just nonsense.

The rest of your argument is tedious and immature IMO. Post your
opinions to one of the overclocking groups, refer to it here, and I
will take a look at what you come up with.

 

[John Doe]

The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....

You are just a troll.

 

[Ed Cregger]

You are just a troll.

--------------


And you are being obnoxious.

Ed Cregger

 

[John Doe]

"John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message

So you have an opinion, your mother would be proud.

Ludicrous statements require citations. Repeating the same nonsense
over and over is just a troll IMO.

At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
must be overclock by 50%. That means you will need an aftermarket
cooler, it's not just the price difference between the two chips.
Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
overclocking. I'll wait until the >3GH quad core CPUs or octal core
CPUs are reasonably priced, and that probably won't be very long as
AMD gets its act together.

 

[Shadow36]

So you have an opinion, your mother would be proud.

Ludicrous statements require citations. Repeating the same nonsense
over and over is just a troll IMO.

.
Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
overclocking.

Cite your sources....
I'm 39 years old and I overclock. There is nothing wrong with getting some
extra performance out of your money.

 

[Ed Medlin]

Cite your sources....
I'm 39 years old and I overclock. There is nothing wrong with getting some
extra performance out of your money.

Add 20yrs to that........... I have a watercooled Q6600 running easily at
3.3ghz and I am sure it will do more. Many more folks overclock now than
just a few years ago because it has become so easy to do. This is a
HOMEBUILT group and most people here have a fair working knowledge of a PC
and overclocking can give a nice (free) increase in performance especially
with Intel's offerings. General discussion of overclocking is well within
topic here and more in-depth overclocking discussions can be found a
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.



Ed

 

[Fishface]

At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600
in practically every current application and benchmark.

It all depends upon which software *you* run. I had a dual core
E6400 previously, and now have a Q6600. The E6400 was
overclocked to 3.2 GHz at stock voltage and was 100% stable.
The Q6600 is overclocked to 3 GHz with a voltage increase of 0.1 volts
and is 100% stable. I would demand no less. Both required aftermarket
cooling. For the types of applications and games I run, I appreciate the
occasional 50% better performance of the Q6600.

Intel designs its cooling solutions for a percentage of maximum CPU
usage. That means that for extended full power usage, the stock
cooling system may be inadequate for some processors.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html
Stock cooling is about at its limit with the 3 GHz E6850 for extended full
power usage. For the higher speed 65 nM quad core CPUs, I am certain
the limit would be exceeded, resulting in CPU throttling to control heat. I
find fault with stock cooling for both the push-pin mounting system and
the noisy high speed fan. I've put enough systems together and stress
tested them to have this opinion. I like to replace the push-pin mounting
system with these, which is secure and doesn't have a tendency to flex
the motherboard:
www.heatsinkfactory.com/thermalright-lga775-bolt-thru-kit-p-16470.html

For superior speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the
Q6600 must be overclock by 50%. That means you will need an
aftermarket cooler, it's not just the price difference between the two chips.

100% stable is just that. Significant risk of errors is putting together
a stock system and running it at stock speed and not knowing where
exactly that limit of stability is. You could be sitting right on the edge
and not even know it. Your memory could be at it's limit. Your
motherboard could be undervolting or your voltage could fluctuate wildly
as power demands change. As for the Q6600 at 3 GHz, yes, aftermarket
cooling is required for extended full power usage. Mine just happens
to also be quieter than the stock cooler.

Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
overclocking.

This really has nothing about being grown-up. It's a choice we have
each made based upon different perceptions of the same reality.
While I have made a significant investment of time to insure stability, I
would do the with a stock system.

I'll wait until the >3GH quad core CPUs or octal core CPUs are
reasonably priced, and that probably won't be very long as AMD gets
its act together.

I think you are putting too much significance on three gigahertz, perhaps
comparing clock speed to what you have now. My wife's XP system has an
E4500 at stock 2.2 GHz speed with 2 GB DDR2 and integrated graphics.
In "normal use," which I define as not 3D gaming and not video editing, I
can't tell the difference in speed. Even her most demanding Flash based
Webkinz games play smoothly.

 

[John Doe]

"Ed Medlin" <ed edmedlin.com> wrote:

....

Add 20yrs to that...........

Age means squat. The big test is whether I can keep up with new
technology kids are skillfully using.

I have a watercooled Q6600 running easily at 3.3ghz

Exactly. You didn't want the pissing contest to end, but you were
unable to approach the subject like a grown-up.

and I am sure it will do more. Many more folks overclock now than
just a few years ago because it has become so easy to do. This is
a HOMEBUILT group and most people here have a fair working
knowledge of a PC

Having knowledge of a PC and overclocking are two different things.

and overclocking can give a nice (free) increase in performance

Discussing that with someone who completely ignores the fact he paid
for an aftermarket cooling device (right after he mentioned it), is
useless.

alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.

Go for it. Enjoy yourself.

Ed




Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com.POSTED!7fa07b2c!not-for-mail
From: "Ed Medlin" <ed edmedlin.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <IJISj.2004$J16.1469 newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> <RL-dnWpMd7_I74bVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d comcast.com> <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <IrMSj.8220$iK6.6256 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYZg2rYICYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <nPMSj.8227$iK6.1041 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <oSMSj.95763$Er2.79730 bignews6.bellsouth.net> <fESSj.749$17.14 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> <h1%Sj.179738$nr1.73073 newsfe13.phx>
Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: <x50Tj.8310$iK6.2556 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.244.238.49
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com 1209830877 ST000 70.244.238.49 (Sat, 03 May 2008 12:07:57 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:07:57 EDT
Organization: at&t http://my.att.net/
X-UserInfo1: SCSYASREQBWART\XKBJ\_RLAUSXB DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELCNSKQFCY TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC VJM
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:07:35 -0500
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505842
X-Received-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:08:03 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

It all depends upon which software *you* run.

Something got lost in the translation. My argument is that the vast
majority of users don't need better than a E6850. Search results on
the Internet comparing the E6850 to the Q6600 make that perfectly
clear.

Supply and demand is the reason a Q6600 is only $30 more than a
E6850 at Newegg.

The Q6600 is overclocked to 3 GHz with a voltage increase of 0.1
volts and is 100% stable. I would demand no less.

Demanding and noticing errors are two different things. It really
depends on your applications and how important they are. If I were a
scientist running critical applications, I would follow Intel
guidelines. What you do is of course up to you since it's probably
not going to impact anybody else except maybe someone you play
online.

Both required aftermarket cooling.

And you would add that to the cost of the CPU. I enjoy using the
included free heatsink and fan.

For the types of applications and games I run, I appreciate the
occasional 50% better performance of the Q6600.

According to everything I've seen on the Internet, a E6850 runs
high-end games well.

But, if you're so interested in performance, buy a QX9775.

All straw men aside. Again, my argument is that the vast majority of
users don't need more than a E6850 even if it weren't faster than a
Q6600.

100% stable is just that. Significant risk of errors is putting
together a stock system and running it at stock speed and not
knowing where exactly that limit of stability is.

Right. Another ludicrous argument from another silly overclocker.

Wasted my time. Uhg. You won. Nice feint.

You could be sitting right on the edge and not even know it.

Yeah, I think you're on the edge, but nobody cares and it doesn't
matter.

Have fun.

 

[Fishface]

Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz
as the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see
the Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850? And before you answer,
remember, both are Conroe cores and both have 9x multipliers! This
is not difficult math!

Well, how about 25% then! Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here.
His brain is just wired wrong or something. I've got four cores at 97%
encoding video right now. Even if I de-clocked it by 25% it's still 50%
faster-- if it weren't for all those damned hidden, undetectable errors,
that is!

 

[John Doe]

Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz as
the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see the
Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850?

Only in a vacuum.

The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their stock coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If you're interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler point is reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.

And before you answer, remember, both are Conroe cores and both
have 9x multipliers! This is not difficult math!

Are you spitting on your monitor or drooling while typing that stuff?

 

[John Doe]

Well, how about 25% then! Anyway, we're beating a dead horse
here. His brain is just wired wrong or something. I've got four
cores at 97% encoding video right now. Even if I de-clocked it by
25% it's still 50% faster-- if it weren't for all those damned
hidden, undetectable errors, that is!

Your writing resembles someone who spits and drools when he talks.
So does your rhetoric.

 

[John Doe]

I found quite a bit about the subject in this group and on the
Internet, specifically comparing the dual core E6850 with the quad
core Q6600.

As previously mentioned in this group, here are two reviews, both
favor of the dual core E6850.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html
(in-your-face advertising)
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8

Here's one dealing with overclocking, favoring the quad core Q6600,
but noting the greater FSB speed of the E6850 for memory intensive
tasks.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_6.html#sect1
(in-your-face advertising)

However impressive, Intel seems to be having trouble making the
E8000 series (that's one possibility, based on the fact they have
been frequently out of stock).

 

[Fishface]

My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
games.

There's one called "Home After Dark." Try that one on his computer, and on
yours. Then tell me it plays OK. It even lags on the P4P800-SE with Pentium-M
at 2.4 GHz with 6800 video and 2 GB RAM

If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about adults.

What?! My wife does it and my six year old does it. I play "Home After
Dark" sometimes to help him build-up his Kinzcash. I am still a teenager,
you know-- I'm umpteen.

 

[Fishface]

There's one called "Home After Dark."

Uh, actually, it's called "Home Before Dark..."

 

[Shadow36]

IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things can
easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.

Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz PC's...but not
so much these days. Of the two processors you mentioned here, go with
the less expensive one and spend that extra $$ on more RAM.

Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high (running it
too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the time and research what
you are doing. Intel core 2 duos are extremely overclockable. I've got a
E6420 2.13 Ghz running at 3.0 Ghz stable and running cool. Thats a marked
improvment in performance.

 

[Fishface]

Tried it. Works fine on the eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII
with 800 FSB. I believe there's 512Mb RAM and an Asus V7700 series
GeForce2GTS. Don't remember exactly which disks are in the system, but
they are 7200 rpm and 20, 40, and 80 GB arranged as DASD. It's running
either Win2K SP4 or WinXP SP2 at the moment. (I use the classic
interface on all of my machines, so they look alike.)

Ain't that a pisser -- you have a machine that's three times faster,
with four times more RAM, and it's slower than an eight year old box.

No, you just don't know how it's supposed to run. Didn't run good on
Tualatin Celerons at 1.466 GHz either. You can watch in task manager
how it maxes out the CPU. It starts fairly OK but just keeps getting
slower. You really need those tiles to rotate instantly when clicked
to get only one rat and toy in the Party room at a time for maximum
score before you hit the virtually unplayable levels.

And my 10-year old daughter has far too many webkinz. At the moment,
she's swatting Wacky Zingos over a thousand feet on Webkinz World.
(You have to buy the Wacky Zingo and register it to get to that level
of the game.)

She's learning how to animate a mermaid in Poser 7 which doesn't run
on her machine. (you want the kid to learn something, get them
something that interests them. She gets a new machine soon so she can
do animation without using mine.)

Oh. I'm afraid my son's killing bots in P.O.E at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Existence

See if she likes this (requires Shockwave, encourages creative thinking):
www.lego.com/eng/create/activities/junkbot/

Speaking of still being a teenager (umpteen), remember that children
shouldn't have children.

Oh, too late!