Call it a dead horse, but I need to flog it one more time for clarity, because trying to figure out which of these two particular CPUs is better... Core 2 Duo E6850, £170 Core 2 Quad Q6600, £170 ...is driving me nuts. Core 2 Duo: only dual core, uses the Conroe core, but 1333MHz. 65nm architecture. Core 2 Quad: quad core, Kentsfield, but only 1066MHz. 65nm architecture. I don't overclock. Which will give better performance on Bioshock and Oblivion? The latter is infamous for not taking advantage of multi-core processing, but then, I've not heard of a game that it does make a big difference on yet.
I suppose you could say that Core 2 Duo is better for now, but in the long run the Quad Core would be better. As more application are created to use multiple core's they will become more faster and more efficient. Just to say i have a Q6600, and i don't now how the E6850 preforms but my Quad Core is superb.
been thinking about this myself for months and still keep changing my mind daily but with penryn on the way it makes the decision even harder, i suppose it depends how urgent the need to upgrade is, at the moment my pc is still capable at gaming allowing me to wait and try to be a bit patient
Get the Q6600, its obvious. The advantages of quad-cores are already being shown in UT3 (for example).
If you want to look at games that are out right now then get the dual. if you want to look down the road towards games and programs that use the quad, get the quad. Basically, do you want your money to last a little while, or a long time? get the quad.
Difficult call in my eyes. Most software I use now (not that many games) do not use the power of quad, hence I went for a dual and overclocked, spending the savings on other hardware. Anyway, 2008/2009 I will replace the whole system with the next generation of the core architecture. If you have the funds, then go for a Quad, it will get used more and more over the next few years.
Q6600 all the way. and when you say you don't overclock, do you mean that you won't tweak the voltage settings? if so, for q6600, you simply switch the FSB clock from 266 to 333 and you've have 2x the processing power a E6850 will ever have! it is as easy as that. and a G0 can be clocked to that speed with little difference in temperature.
I think for your games the dual core is the way to go. For me it's quad, as I mainly use photoshop, video editing, design software and dvd slide show creation . . . a lot of multi-tasking and automated processing actions. If you were into overclocking, I would have also suggested the quad for you.
The latest news has me even more indecisive than ever, but I'm definitely not falling back on a dual core now, despite the better performance on existing titles. Quad core offers more shelf life for future games. I'm gonna take the article's advice and wait till Xmas, possibly even the january sales, and see how prices and finances look then. Incidentally, if anyone says "[one or the other] offers better performance", they're lying, because comparative benchmarks of these 2 processors vary massively. On some games the quad is naff compared to the dual core; on others, vice versa.
I'll agree with u totally as game programmers are only slowly picking up how to program multiple cores and split the codes amongst the respective cores for faster and more efficient processing.
I hate to go against the grain and make your choice even more difficult but I actually think you're better off with the Dual rather than the Quad. I just got the Quad and while it is awesome, no games will take advantage of it for at least 2-3 years (seriously - programming a game to be multi-threaded is not an easy task and game makers still have to make their games compatible with single core processors anyway). By that time we'll have 32nm processors and native Quad cores from intel that actually use a proper memory interface. Unless you really want to DVD encoding or graphics processing and game at the same time then I think the Dual core will be more than enough power for you. But then again, nothing enlarges you e-peen than saying you have a Quad core processor. That's why I and probably many of those above got one
/me breaks down and cries Now I'm just totally confused. Since I'll have a job in a couple of years, I'll go for the dual core then. Shelflife isn't as far ahead, but it's more competent for now, and I can always upgrade again. Btw, is there any particular correlation as to which RAM format/speed is best for a certain family of CPUs? Just checking before I finalise my list. Also, on the topic of aftermarket coolers, how worthwhile is one for, say, an E6850?
I agree with dex. I got a Q6600 and sure its nice that a few apps that do use all 4 cores, but most games only use 2 at the most so I would rather have a dual that I can overclock faster to make better use of the higher clock speed. As for your ram, your motherboard should have a "qualified vendor list" or something like that. Basically it says which ram will work best with the motherboard. example for my p5k deluxe: http://ca.asus.com/110/download/products/1646/1646_10.pdf However I bought Mushkin 1066 ram which is not on that list, but all I had to do was set the timings myself. If you want ram to match your cpu, just get ram that will run fast enough. For example ddr2 667 should be fine for stock speeds but go with the 800 if you want to overclock the cpu. I got the 1066 simply because i wanted really fast ram. As for a cooler, if you are going to run stock, you dont need to buy one. but you want to do any real overclocking, buy one. Most are also quieter than the stock coolers.
If you're not overclocking, there shouldn't be a whole lot of need for an aftermarket cooler, unless you're looking to cut back on noise. Not having used a stock cooler in the last several years (or having played with hardware at all for the last year and a half, by and large, and it was quite some time before that where I'd used stock cooling) I can't comment on the noise level, but Intel are providing a cooler that's guaranteed to be at least sufficient for the task.
There's also the issue of a mobo, then. I was gonna grab anything that filled the RAM/CPU criteria, but if it goes beyond compatibility, I really need advice: Lookies. I don't know which chipset or board is most appropriate. There are some that look 'compatible' for as little as £50, but others are £130 upwards for reasons I'm not aware of. Why the disparity? I'd like to spend less money if poss., but is there a reason the cheaper ones are cheap?
