- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 8,253 (1.23/day)
System Name | money pit.. |
---|---|
Processor | Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset |
Motherboard | Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming |
Cooling | Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling.. |
Memory | 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200 |
Video Card(s) | Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI |
Storage | 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2.. |
Display(s) | 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440.. |
Case | Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special.. |
Audio Device(s) | onboard sounds with stereo amp.. |
Power Supply | EVGA 850 watt.. |
Mouse | Logitech G700s |
Keyboard | Logitech K270 |
Software | Win 10 pro.. |
Benchmark Scores | Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000.. |
"any fool knows four is better than two or two is better than one".. but to the average user is it.. ???
i have a dual core E8400 intel cpu.. its comes clocked at 3 gig out of the box and costs £150 quid rough UK prices....
the quad core equivalent would be the QX9650.. literally two E8400s sat side by side it comes clocked at 3 gig and costs £640 UK prices..
can we compare a £140 cpu with a £640 cpu.. we could if money was no object and apart from power usage and heat generation the quad cpu is the better cpu.. no real dispute there..
but the dual or quad argument isnt as simple and the world we live in to most people isnt a money no object one.. so what do we compare..
lets compare price for price..
my E8400 dual compares with what..?? in truth there isnt an exact comparison with 45nm chips.. the nearest would be the Q9300 but it still costs significantly more.. perhaps the Q6600 clocked at 2.4 gig is a better quad to compare with..
lets compare quad at 2.4 gig with dual at 3 gig.. which is the best buy for the average user..
in reality it isnt just quad versus dual.. its slower quad versus faster dual.. so is four cores at 2.4 gig better than two cores at 3 gig.. ???
4 x 2.4 = 9.6 at first glance or to the average none tech user its a no contest.. four cores at 2.4 gig must be better than two cores at 3 gig 2 x 3 = 6..
so why do i think it isnt.. software utilization of those multi cores is the problem.. some is coded to use four cores most isnt.. a lot still only uses one core.. some half uses more than one core but dosnt perform any better than one core..
my take is we are being scammed into thinking more cores is better.. period.. when in fact it isnt.. when two cores first appeared nothing was coded for multicore.. now more software can use two cores we are being scammed into four cores.. the hardware is still in front of the software..
if users have software that truly is coded to use four cores.. four cores at 2.4 is probably better than two cores at 3 gig.. but being as most software isnt even coded to take full advantage of two core i would claim that two cores at a higher speed is the better option for the average user..
exactly what the average user is can be argued and no doubt will be.. overclocking is a different subject.. the thing i question is the almost universal belief that a quad cpu is the one to buy if the average user can afford it..
is the Q6600 a better option than the similar money E8400 for example.. or should quad be simply ignored until more software makes use of it.. ???
trog
i have a dual core E8400 intel cpu.. its comes clocked at 3 gig out of the box and costs £150 quid rough UK prices....
the quad core equivalent would be the QX9650.. literally two E8400s sat side by side it comes clocked at 3 gig and costs £640 UK prices..
can we compare a £140 cpu with a £640 cpu.. we could if money was no object and apart from power usage and heat generation the quad cpu is the better cpu.. no real dispute there..
but the dual or quad argument isnt as simple and the world we live in to most people isnt a money no object one.. so what do we compare..
lets compare price for price..
my E8400 dual compares with what..?? in truth there isnt an exact comparison with 45nm chips.. the nearest would be the Q9300 but it still costs significantly more.. perhaps the Q6600 clocked at 2.4 gig is a better quad to compare with..
lets compare quad at 2.4 gig with dual at 3 gig.. which is the best buy for the average user..
in reality it isnt just quad versus dual.. its slower quad versus faster dual.. so is four cores at 2.4 gig better than two cores at 3 gig.. ???
4 x 2.4 = 9.6 at first glance or to the average none tech user its a no contest.. four cores at 2.4 gig must be better than two cores at 3 gig 2 x 3 = 6..
so why do i think it isnt.. software utilization of those multi cores is the problem.. some is coded to use four cores most isnt.. a lot still only uses one core.. some half uses more than one core but dosnt perform any better than one core..
my take is we are being scammed into thinking more cores is better.. period.. when in fact it isnt.. when two cores first appeared nothing was coded for multicore.. now more software can use two cores we are being scammed into four cores.. the hardware is still in front of the software..
if users have software that truly is coded to use four cores.. four cores at 2.4 is probably better than two cores at 3 gig.. but being as most software isnt even coded to take full advantage of two core i would claim that two cores at a higher speed is the better option for the average user..
exactly what the average user is can be argued and no doubt will be.. overclocking is a different subject.. the thing i question is the almost universal belief that a quad cpu is the one to buy if the average user can afford it..
is the Q6600 a better option than the similar money E8400 for example.. or should quad be simply ignored until more software makes use of it.. ???
trog