which is the better cpu?

[Black Baptist]

Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe XE 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB or Core 2 Quad Q6700(G0)
Kentsfield 2.66GHz 1066MHz 8MB

 

[Paul]

Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe XE 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB or Core 2 Quad Q6700(G0)
Kentsfield 2.66GHz 1066MHz 8MB

This benchmark compares multi-threaded performance. If you were using
TmpGenc for movie work, this benchmark gives some idea how well
the processor works when all cores work on a project at the same time.
Not all programs on a computer are multi-threaded, so this doesn't
predict the winner in all cases.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (Conroe 2c) 1.65
2.93 GHz, DDR3-1066, 4 MB L2

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (Kentsfield 4c) 3.02 <--- the winner
2.66 GHz, DDR3-1333, 8 MB L2

This benchmark on the other hand, is single threaded. Typical single
threaded things on your computer might be email, web browsing,
older versions of Microsoft Office, some program you wrote
in your spare time, etc. A surprising number of computer
applications will behave similar to this. The previous
benchmark is more of an exception, than the rule. So
a lot of mundane stuff on the computer, works like this
benchmark.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...ng-iTunes-9.0.3.15-wav-to-aac-Audio,2422.html

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (Conroe 2c) 99 seconds <--- the winner
2.93 GHz, DDR3-1066, 4 MB L2

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (Kentsfield 4c) 109 seconds
2.66 GHz, DDR3-1333, 8 MB L2

In single threaded, it's the clock rate that is the winner.
The ratio of 2.93 to 2.66 is 1.1x . The ratio of 109 to 99 is 1.1x also.

If all you do, is movie editing and rendering, then the first
result is what counts. Or perhaps some games might benefit.

The second result is for other, non-multimedia programs.
If you don't work with multimedia apps at all, then the
second result is more applicable. You'd want
the x6800 just for its clock rate.

Paul

 

[Black Baptist]

Heh, cool we have the same 1st name...what about running an app like
Seti@home or folding@home?

 

[Paul]

Heh, cool we have the same 1st name...what about running an app like
Seti@home or folding@home?

If those applications use all cores, then a quad core processor
would be better (i.e. the first result in the benchmarks).

*******

The best bang for buck, might be a six core AMD processor.
(The six cores, runs more like it has four cores, but
that isn't important. The benchmark is what is important.)
Have a look at the "value" column here, to help select
the best processor for "SETI's per dollar".

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

(Click the "CPU value" column header, until a number of about value 42
or so is showing. Then, scroll down through the Passmark column
on the left, looking for a high value of benchmark. $235 buys a
benchmark of 6075, using six cores.)

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6075 25 25.79 $235.60*

If you then re-sort the list, by clicking the Passmark
column so the high ones are at the top of the list, it's
pretty hard to beat the 6075 number. A Core i7 950 for
$295 is the only one that comes close.

It all depends on how serious you are about your SETI or
Folding, as to whether you shop that way for a processor
or not.

Paul

 

[Brian Cryer]

Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe XE 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB or Core 2 Quad
Q6700(G0)
Kentsfield 2.66GHz 1066MHz 8MB

Paul has posted benchmark details.

The bottom line is probably what are you going to do with it and what's the
cost difference?

If all you are going to do is word processing and some spreadsheets then I'd
suggest that the double core processor is the one to go for on the basis
that (i.) its probably cheaper, (ii.) each individual core is slightly
faster than the cores on the quad core and (iii.) your application won't be
making much use of the cpu anyway.

If on the other hand you are into modern games (i.e. ones which might use
all the cores) or modern cpu intensive applications (cad for example, which
again might use all the cores) then the quad core would win hands down.

Benchmarks help, but which might be the better cpu for me might not be the
better cpu for you because our requirements might be different.

Personally assuming that price isn't much of a factor then I'd go Quad - on
the grounds that it gives you more cpu power should you need it (although
only for applications which are multi-threaded).