C2Q, C2D and AMD CPUs comparisons using a 4870 X2

[EastCoasthandle]

Legion Hardware has completed a review testing CPU scaling between dual cores and quad cores when using a 4870 X2. Overall, quad cores are better with the 9650 @ 3.60 offering the best performance overall. I have not seen this kind of scaling before and appears that quad cores are more appropriate for this card then dual cores (in some cases). Therefore, if you are wondering what will compliment your 4870 X2 it appears that a 9650 OC at 3.60GHz or better is the best way to go.



Source

 

[blueskynis]

That article is just in contrast with this one: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320531,00.asp

Can someone please explain this?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I am not sure I understand here. The test beds between the 2 articles are completely different.
ASUS P5E3 Premium (Intel X48) DDR3
ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe (790FX)
4870 X2

VS

Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H (790 G)
ASUS Blitz Formula (P35) DDR2
3870 X2

 

[flclisgreat]

that 100% gain in CoH seems a little fishy to me

 

[blueskynis]

that 100% gain in CoH seems a little fishy to me

Possible you are on to something... BIG difference between C2D and C2Q and very small difference between Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom X4.

 

[Bundy]

I found that article to be a very interesting and surprising read. Thanks for the link.

The day I bought my Q2Q, I wondered whether I was doing the right thing. As soon as I fired it up, my question was answered. These processors deliver an observable surge in performance, not only in games but in Vista as well.

Even though many games are single thread, the OS is still got to do its thing in the background. As I understand, Vista actively works to ensure no single process can take all system resources and it shares CPU allocation around, according to priority etc. Perhaps the availability of more cores makes it easier for Vista to support the games CPU requirements? i.e. was it the games performing better or Vista performing better? In the end, it doesn't matter I guess.

 

[lemonadesoda]

The conclusion is: If you have a Q6600 there is very little to be gained by upgrading to the latest DDR2 and C2Q 9xxx series. Synthetics improve. Real world gaming doesnt change much. Far better to spend the cast on a better GPUx2 than a better CPU/mem.

 

[flclisgreat]

even if the tests are legit, they didnt do a q6600@ 3.6 to test on par with the q9650

 

[3870x2]

quads are considerably more expensive, example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115130
$560 for Q9650, and has only 4 more FPS than an E8400 at $170
so you are paying $400 more for only 4 fps? id rather get another 4870 or 4870x2 and raise the bar more than 4fps.
good point though, a better comparison would be E8600 at $275
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115054
which undoubtedly would be faster than the Q9650, and still $300 cheaper.
dont worry, quads still have their place

 

[AMDCam]

quads are considerably more expensive, example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115130
$560 for Q9650, and has only 4 more FPS than an E8400 at $170
so you are paying $400 more for only 4 fps? id rather get another 4870 or 4870x2 and raise the bar more than 4fps.
good point though, a better comparison would be E8600 at $275
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115054
which undoubtedly would be faster than the Q9650, and still $300 cheaper.
dont worry, quads still have their place

First off, when in the past 3 years has the CPU even been considered a performance part when compared to graphics cards? They're not the heart of the system anymore, if I had a socket A motherboard with PCIe I could run nearly as well as any Q6600 with an XP3200+ if I had the same graphics card. a couple of fps boost is all you can expect from a CPU nowadays. Of course a second GPU is a better upgrade.

Second, saying Dual is better- or worth more- than Quad is like saying the Nintendo Wii will never die. Sooner or later software is gonna catch up with these pieces of hardware and Gamecube-era graphics and single-threaded applications are gonna be considered disgusting. It's fine right now, dual cores are obviously cheaper and have higher clocks for a lower price which makes them a better deal NOW, but not in the future.

And finally, I think the comparison (q9650 vs e8400) was done because they're the same speed- not price- so it strictly shows that extra scaling power.

 

[3870x2]

...of course 4 cores are going to be faster than 2 cores, that isnt an argument. With double the L2 catch, the e8400 vs the Q9650 just shows that quad cores arent very scalable per price range, when you dont match an E8400. Speed shouldnt matter should it? its like saying pentium 4 at 2.66ghz vs core2duo E8200@2.66GHZ. More cores, higher cache, better processor, higher price. I as a gamer arent much interested in quad cores right now, in the future i will be.

 

[flclisgreat]

First off, when in the past 3 years has the CPU even been considered a performance part when compared to graphics cards? They're not the heart of the system anymore, if I had a socket A motherboard with PCIe I could run nearly as well as any Q6600 with an XP3200+ if I had the same graphics card. a couple of fps boost is all you can expect from a CPU nowadays. Of course a second GPU is a better upgrade.

did you even look at the original post's link? the link clearly shows otherwise to the "cpu doesn't matter" argument

 

[EastCoasthandle]

This only relates to the 4870 X2 not games in general. 1st and foremost the game has to be able to take advantage of the quad core before it's worth it. Although we are seeing this in some games it's not at the point (IMO) where the performance gained is worth the premium. However, if you have a 4870 X2 it's worth it to get a 9650 over a E8400, IMO. Although in most games it's only a few FPS you are not bottle necking your X2.

There must be a balance of what you play and the amount of performance you are getting now with your current video card. For example, I like COH and I am seeing high frame rates at 1920 4xAA all maxed. If I notice no abnormal slow downs or hiccups the addition of a Quad doesn't help my gaming immersion at all. So, there is still some room for duals until the day comes that all games take full advantage of a quad core and there is a substantial difference when using it.

Having said that, this thread is really about the usefulness of a quad core vs AMD vs C2D using a X2. Lets keep it on topic.

 

[merkk]

EastCoasthandle
Thank you for the link it was great reading i was hoping that Phenom cpu fair a litte better
but all in all they did do that bad .They did show that there AMD best gaming cpu. If people
would take the time to read it . It show that 4 core cpu will be the way to go and Q6600 for the most part was all that was need . Just over clock to 3ghz and it can do a dam good job . And don't they go for right around 200 dollars ?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

EastCoasthandle
Thank you for the link it was great reading i was hoping that Phenom cpu fair a litte better
but all in all they did do that bad .They did show that there AMD best gaming cpu. If people
would take the time to read it . It show that 4 core cpu will be the way to go and Q6600 for the most part was all that was need . Just over clock to 3ghz and it can do a dam good job . And don't they go for right around 200 dollars ?

I would never buy a Q6600 now:
-lower cache
-lower multi
-lower frequency
-older tech
-high voltage in order to get a good overclock
-overclocks I've seen are around 3.2GHz which is not something I would want. 3.60GHz or better IMO.

If you already have a Q6600 (IE: had it when it came out or shortly there after) you should keep your Q6600. Specially if you have a good G0. However, I would never buy a Q6600 recently. Some of it is do to preference some of it is do to the results I've seen with it.

I recall this debate back in the E6700 or E6600 days. How many are still using a E6600? Sure back then they were a good bang for buck CPU but nearly everyone I knew who had one upgraded (buy again) when the E8400 and newer quads came out.

In a nutshell, get the best CPU that offers the:
-good performance per $
-that doesn't require a massive overclock to prevent/reduce bottle necking of your 4870 X2
-higher multi
-higher FSB
-higher frequency
-doesn't require a lot of voltage to OC to 3.60GHz or higher
-doesn't require a massive overclock to get 3.60GHz or better
and your set IMO.

 

[merkk]

Nice to know but i use a AMD cpu 9850BE i have clock at 3ghz. But if you look at some of the people that post here and there system specs it seem to be alot of people still using Q6600 but than again i could be wrong

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Nice to know but i use a AMD cpu 9850BE i have clock at 3ghz. But if you look at some of the people that post here and there system specs it seem to be alot of people still using Q6600 but than again i could be wrong

Yes, there could be and that's fine in my book. However, with what's currently available now I would never buy a Q6600. That's just my preference.

 

[Wile E]

Yes, there could be and that's fine in my book. However, with what's currently available now I would never buy a Q6600. That's just my preference.

If price is a factor, it's still a good cpu choice. The other Intel quads in it's range have extremely low multis, making clocking them more difficult, and they actually have less cache than the 6600's 2x4MB L2

The closest in price to the venerable Q6600 is the Q8200 a 7 multi, and only 4MB L2 cache total. The Q8200 is $40 more than the Q6600.

The next in line is the Q9300 with a 7.5 multi and 6MB L2. It's $70 more expensive.

I'd rather have the Q6600 if those were my options.

 

[Wile E]

did you even look at the original post's link? the link clearly shows otherwise to the "cpu doesn't matter" argument

That's one review with only a handful of games. There are posts in this forum that show the cpu is much less important than the video card for most games. RTS's tend to be an exception.

 

[largon]

This article confirms the slowest Athlon X2 is just as good for gaming with HD4870X2 as is the fastest Intel quadcore.

 

[AMDCam]

did you even look at the original post's link? the link clearly shows otherwise to the "cpu doesn't matter" argument

Well go out there and buy a Core 2 Extreme for $1000, put the rest of the money towards a 'nice' HD2600 or something and see how much that processor helps your game. Then grab a GTX280 for half the price and buy the cheapest Celeron single-core processor you can find, and see how well you do in the same game. CPU's aren't that important man.

This article confirms the slowest Athlon X2 is just as good for gaming with HD4870X2 as is the fastest Intel quadcore.

There's some proof right there.^^^^

 

[Lionheart]

the only problem with cpus is that they botleneck, but not much of a big deal though i guess.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

My E6750 is doing 3.6 at 1.375vcore,considering stock is 2.66/1.35v i think thats pretty good.I have considered a E8xxx but dont deem it absolutley necessary at the moment.

 

[largon]

the only problem with cpus is that they botleneck, but not much of a big deal though i guess.

Definitely not a big deal because as soon as the CPU becomes a bottleneck the game already runs at a fluid frame rate. Thus CPU bottleneck is effectively meaningless as the extra fps above fluidity has no effect on the gaming experience - then again, some persons insist to claim otherwise.

Granted, the GPU/CPU bottleneck threshold is often somewhat fuzzy...

 

[Deleted member 57642]

From what I can see in those testes, Company of Heroes is optimized for Multi-core (83 FPS on 2 cores versus 183 FPS on 4 cores - at same speed ). The other results or irrelevant in a comparison between 2 and 4 cores.