[jackflash1991]

I do not get it. I'm reading a 50:50 Quad core is better, Dual core is better.
Here's 2:
http://blogs.pcworld...ves/005860.html
http://ve3d.ign.com/...-Quad-Core-CPUs

[Advertisements]

First off, if someone has a bias (noun) toward something, then they are biased (adjective).

Anyways, I don't think Tomshardware is biased. The reason James thinks they are is because their tests show Intel's CPUs and NVIDIA's graphics cards blowing AMD's offerings out of the water.

Another thing to know is that THG did sell to an unnamed person back in May, since then the site has become increasingly bias towards Intel and other companies.

Well, that isn't bias, those are facts. I think that you can find that most sites come to the same conclusions.

Also, it is not possible to "enable" quad-core threading simply. It would require the entire game engine to be rewritten.

As for the choice between the E6750 and the Q6600, I chose the E6750 and am very happy with it. I would wait for the penryns, however, because I am an overclocker and I am excited about their overclocking potential. Even if you aren't an overclocker, there are plenty of reasons to wait. Don't forget their larger L2 cache. 6MB for dual-cores, 12MB for quad-cores. Also, the penryns will start at a higher clock speed for about the same price, so while you won't get a huge difference like the one between Pentium Ds and Conroes (but certainly more than "2%"... in fact, anandtech says it will be a minimum of 5-10%, with 20% being most likely) between a 3ghz penryn and a 3ghz conroe, the 3ghz penryn will be cheaper.

Edited by stettybet0, 18 November 2007 - 07:00 PM.

[stettybet0]

First off, if someone has a bias (noun) toward something, then they are biased (adjective).

Anyways, I don't think Tomshardware is biased. The reason James thinks they are is because their tests show Intel's CPUs and NVIDIA's graphics cards blowing AMD's offerings out of the water.

Another thing to know is that THG did sell to an unnamed person back in May, since then the site has become increasingly bias towards Intel and other companies.

Well, that isn't bias, those are facts. I think that you can find that most sites come to the same conclusions.

Also, it is not possible to "enable" quad-core threading simply. It would require the entire game engine to be rewritten.

As for the choice between the E6750 and the Q6600, I chose the E6750 and am very happy with it. I would wait for the penryns, however, because I am an overclocker and I am excited about their overclocking potential. Even if you aren't an overclocker, there are plenty of reasons to wait. Don't forget their larger L2 cache. 6MB for dual-cores, 12MB for quad-cores. Also, the penryns will start at a higher clock speed for about the same price, so while you won't get a huge difference like the one between Pentium Ds and Conroes (but certainly more than "2%"... in fact, anandtech says it will be a minimum of 5-10%, with 20% being most likely) between a 3ghz penryn and a 3ghz conroe, the 3ghz penryn will be cheaper.

Edited by stettybet0, 18 November 2007 - 07:00 PM.

[jackflash1991]

But how much will the Penryn be by mid/end January 2008 because if it is like $500 the Penryn is out of the question?

PS: I am reading more reviews about the Quad core vs Dual core in Crysis and it looks like there are more people saying that the Quad core is not utilized.
Most of the Quad core favorers are somehow linked to Tom's hardware, Crytek, or just people bableing on forums.
Something smells fishy.

Edited by jackflash1991, 18 November 2007 - 07:09 PM.

[stettybet0]

They are cheaper per hertz, because like I said, they start at a higher clock. (ie. The lowest penryn has a higher clock than the lowest conroe.)

[jackflash1991]

Where did you get that?
Intresting.

IDK. I don't think I will be able to wait. It does not seem like it is going to be that big of an increase in performance.
I think I am going to knock out the Penryn as an option.

So it's Q6600 vs. E6750 depending if I can find a clear answer if it supported or not.

PS: In the chart only the chips that begin with a "Q" are quads right?

[stettybet0]

In the chart, the T and X (extreme) chips are for laptops, the E chips are dual-core, and the Q and QX (extreme) chips are quad-core.

I would wait for the Penryns, due to the (expected) 20% performance increase, and the cheaper prices, but if you really can't wait, I'd get the E6750. The pros of it (compared to the Q6600) are: increased clock, decreased price, decreased power consumption, decreased temperature, and increased overclocking headroom.

Edited by stettybet0, 18 November 2007 - 08:18 PM.

[jackflash1991]

Are you sure it is 20% because you say 20% and James says 2-4%? Big difference.

Is the performance increase % from E6750/Q6600 or some other processor?

Edited by jackflash1991, 18 November 2007 - 07:37 PM.

[stettybet0]

We would expect to see clock for clock Penryn vs. Conroe improvements to be in the 5 - 10% range at minimum depending on the application. Factor in higher clock speeds and you can expect our CPU performance charts to shift up by about 20% by the end of this year.

This quote is from this review, which I referenced earlier.

Edited by stettybet0, 18 November 2007 - 07:38 PM.

[james_8970]

The reason James thinks they are is because their tests show Intel's CPUs and NVIDIA's graphics cards blowing AMD's offerings out of the water.

Firstly I have a Intel processor and plan on buying Penryn, I have a Intel chipset. The reason why I bought a HD2900XT is because I got a 50$ instant rebate and 150$ in games that I was planning on buying, they include the black box, Company of heros, Rainbow Six:Vegas and Civcity rome. Because of these offers the card gave similar performance to the GTS for a less price (in my case). I am by no means a fan boy and have suggested nVidia cards in the past. Give me a good price and you got my dollars. Intel is blowing AMD out of the water in terms of processors, not so much so in the GPU area. ATI had large market share, performance wise there is a hardware flaw for AA due to the ROP not being able to handle the AA so it places the workload on the shaders, this is why we see a huge drop in performance. I don't use AA as I don't believe it's needed at high resolutions (at lower resolutions, it's defiantly needed) and I will gladly take better picture quality over AA. I have my doubts that this issue will be solved by means of software. While I wouldn't say ATI is being blown out of the water, but without a doubt nVidia is beating ATI's/AMD's offerings.

Another thing to know is that THG did sell to an unnamed person back in May, since then the site has become increasingly bias towards Intel and other companies.

Well, that isn't bias, those are facts. I think that you can find that most sites come to the same conclusions.

Correct they are facts, when this occurred the site became infested with ads and you could tell the were being "sold out" based on a number of flaws that have been mentioned in the forums. Don't believe, search google, I'm sure you could find something, if that fails, check tomshardwares forums, but be warned, most of the knowledgeable (jumpingjack, mpflichfamily, Da_taco, Dasickninja to name a few) people were banned there because they second guessed the writers opinions. It is for this reason that I left.

Also, it is not possible to "enable" quad-core threading simply. It would require the entire game engine to be rewritten.

Correct, it would involve a huge patch, which I find incredibly unlikely as this game is more GPU intensive then CPU, that I have found so far, but I need to overclock further to get a final impression. I said that other have said this, not that I believe this.

As for the choice between the E6750 and the Q6600, I chose the E6750 and am very happy with it. I would wait for the penryns, however, because I am an overclocker and I am excited about their overclocking potential. Even if you aren't an overclocker, there are plenty of reasons to wait. Don't forget their larger L2 cache. 6MB for dual-cores, 12MB for quad-cores. Also, the penryns will start at a higher clock speed for about the same price, so while you won't get a huge difference like the one between Pentium Ds and Conroes (but certainly more than "2%"... in fact, anandtech says it will be a minimum of 5-10%, with 20% being most likely) between a 3ghz penryn and a 3ghz conroe, the 3ghz penryn will be cheaper.

Did you happen to look at the clock speed, the yorkfield and wolfdale (Penryn) chips are clocked at 3.33GHz, the C2Q is clocked at 2.93GHz. Again, the ONLY HUGE advantage Penryn's have when compared to Conroe is SSE4 coding and some games (only because of the cache). While I admittedly did underestimate those figures, take a look at the following review. Here you can see the benefit of the cache for games.
http://www.tomshardw...ing/page19.html
Keep in mind these are engineering samples, so take this with a grain of salt till we begin seeing reviews on the retail chips.
Till a processor is no longer a prototype you can say what you want, but I won't believe it.

Next, the graph you posted, those are the purchasing prices for manufactures when they buy in bulk. In this case, it's batches greater or equal to 1000 chips. Expect a large mark up in price, these are the retailers/e-tailers margins. As an example, the only chip currently on the market is selling a wooping 345$ more then that graph.
Linkage!
http://www.newegg.co...;name=Yorkfield


jack do you plan on overclocking?

James

Edit: as for the charts, Q=quad, T=mobile, x=extreme (unlocked multiplier) and E=dual core.

Edited by james_8970, 18 November 2007 - 08:38 PM.

[jackflash1991]

Well if I get the Quad core Yes. But if I go with the E6750 I will probably end up just using my old board, the BIOS stinks, and when you helped me with overclocking a while back you said that my RAM was holding me back.

So E6750 might be capped with overclocking unless I decide on getting some new DDR2 gaming RAM and the Quad I probably will because if I get a new board it would probably be DDR3 and will not hold me back.

Edit:

x=extreme (unlocked multiplier)

What does unlocked multiplier mean? Are you talking about when overclocking?

Edited by jackflash1991, 18 November 2007 - 08:25 PM.

[james_8970]

Do you know anything about the FSB:DRAM ratio? If your motherboard has a lot of options you'll be able to overclock your processor without pushing your RAM very hard. Though your motherboard may be limited if it doesn't have a ratio like 1:1.
James

[jackflash1991]

Do you know anything about the FSB:DRAM ratio? If your motherboard has a lot of options you'll be able to overclock your processor without pushing your RAM very hard. Though your motherboard may be limited if it doesn't have a ratio like 1:1.
James

How can I find out? I have a MSI 945P NEO3. http://global.msi.co...amp;cat2_no=170

[james_8970]

You'll have to go into your BIOS yourself and determine it whether or not it's there. I could explain it if you'd like.

To explain your edit,
All CPU's have a multiplier that can be adjusted, but only downwards, lets take my processor (E6600) as an example. At stock it runs at 2.4GHz, to achieve this on a front side bus (FSB) you need to multiply the FSB by the processors multiplier. So since the Intels FSB is quad pumped we divide 1066 by 4 to get 266.
Next we multiply by nine to achieve the 2.4GHz or 2400MHz stock speed.
Similarly a E6700 has a multiplier of 10.
266x10 give you 2.66GHz or 2660MHz.
However, Intel wanted to make money so they forced chips to their stock multiplier, but created the extreme versions. These extreme versions have a larger variety of multipliers, each family is different, but I think Conroe extremes have a maximum multiplier of 12, don't quote me on this as I don't have a extreme chip.
Now in terms of overclock, people with extreme measures like liquid nitrogen reach the FSB limit, this is where the motherboard will not allow to raise the FSB any more because it'll become instable, even if you increase the North Bridges voltages. So instead of increasing the FSB then now have an alternative option of increasing the multiplier to achieve higher frequencies.

I'm not sure if this is clear, if it isn't I could try to further clarify another day.

To answer another question that didn't get an answer,

do not get it. I'm reading a 50:50 Quad core is better, Dual core is better.

If you ignore different microarchitectures, frequency are the only thing that matters if a game isn't multithreaded, which is the case in the most of todays games. Though this will change in the future, but I don't see quad core optimized games in the foreseeable future, I think we are another year away.

James

Edited by james_8970, 18 November 2007 - 08:43 PM.

[jackflash1991]

So I just need to see if I can change the multiplier in my BIOS? I think I can. let me see

[SOORENA]

Edit:

x=extreme (unlocked multiplier)

What does unlocked multiplier mean? Are you talking about when overclocking?

Yes he is referring to Overclocking. For the past when I worked with overclocking this is the way I figured out how to calculated the FSB and Multiplier:

Pick a desired speed for example 3.6GHz in my case, multiply by a 1000 = 3600 divide by 9 (which is my multiplier) and then multiply by 4 which will give you your FSB that you need to set. Now you can play with these numbers and see what happens.

This is my way of figuring out, lol, I'm probably way off.

Soorena

EDIT: Sorry James I replied at the same time, by the way is your multiplier unlocked also? Because mine is and it's very weird.

Edited by SOORENA, 18 November 2007 - 08:47 PM.