First Intel Wolfdale Benchmarks

[Tatty_Two]

That's not funny. If you read what I said you could have answered that question urself.

Yes, if you overclock the Quad-Core you will get better performance in the 1 or 2 games out that actually use more than 1 thread.

But first of all, you won't be able to overclock it above 3.4Ghz, unless you want to wait for a month till you can find the G0 version and then u may be able to get to 3.6Ghz.
Secondly, even if it was overclocked to 3.6Ghz, at this time, this would ONLY give you a performance imporovement over the 4.0Ghz E6750 in Lost Planet, which is at best, a crappy console port that you wouldn't be able to play well anyway. And EVERYTHING else would play a hell of a lot better on the E6750.

And thats beside the fact that buying the Q6600 now makes NO sense when you can get Yorkfield and overclock it to 4.2Ghhz and have twice the threads as the Q6600 AND 12 MB of cache. Not to mention u can do all this on the same motherboard as the E6750, so upgrading couldnt be easier, be it a 680i board or a P35 board.
It's true though, that waiting for X38 may be a better idea for some people. But it will only be launched after the summer is over so..

Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid. In no particular order, The G0 stepping is quite readily available, perhaps not to everyone yet but if you care to check the Q6600 thread in these forums you will already see about 12 TPU members with G0 stepping Quads. In the same thread, and the 3D Mark 2006 thread you will see that some of those are capable of 3.9Gig on air! You refer to the "one or two" games that are multithreaded, I wont bore you and everyone else here with a list of multi-threaded games available today but to give you a hint, this post would be Very long if I listed them all (I think 29 at last count) and if you want to add those games that have since been patched for multithreading then add another 16, feel free to PM me if you would like the list.

Next, MANY current boards support Quad, 1333FSB etc etc, mine for instance and it's considered a budget board so whether it a Quad, a 6750 or whatever does not require an upgrade, perhaps just a BIOS flash. Lastly If you want to see some performance differences you only need to look again at the 3D Mark 2006 thread, look at the league tables, the No 3 NVidia score was acheived with a Q6600 @ 3.3Gig the No1 ATi score was acheived with a 6600 @ 4.1Gig......go to the screenshots in the thread that posted the scores....you will see that the CPU score for a Q6600 @3.3Gig is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the CPU score for the dual core @ 4.1Gig......cause even what is now a fairly old bench is multithreaded, so it will use 2 cores if you have them, or it will use 4 cores if you have them.

I happen to agree with a fair amount of your logic in your post but my point is that some of your arguments in support of that logic is flawed IMO.

 

[Wile E]

That's not funny. If you read what I said you could have answered that question urself.

Yes, if you overclock the Quad-Core you will get better performance in the 1 or 2 games out that actually use more than 1 thread.

But first of all, you won't be able to overclock it above 3.4Ghz, unless you want to wait for a month till you can find the G0 version and then u may be able to get to 3.6Ghz.
Secondly, even if it was overclocked to 3.6Ghz, at this time, this would ONLY give you a performance imporovement over the 4.0Ghz E6750 in Lost Planet, which is at best, a crappy console port that you wouldn't be able to play well anyway. And EVERYTHING else would play a hell of a lot better on the E6750.

And thats beside the fact that buying the Q6600 now makes NO sense when you can get Yorkfield and overclock it to 4.2Ghhz and have twice the threads as the Q6600 AND 12 MB of cache. Not to mention u can do all this on the same motherboard as the E6750, so upgrading couldnt be easier, be it a 680i board or a P35 board.
It's true though, that waiting for X38 may be a better idea for some people. But it will only be launched after the summer is over so..

OK, next question. What if you also do some A/V editing/mixing/encoding or some 3D rendering? You do know that games aren't the only thing a computer is used for, right?

 

[Tuk]

Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid.

No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though.

In no particular order, The G0 stepping is quite readily available, perhaps not to everyone yet but if you care to check the Q6600 thread in these forums you will already see about 12 TPU members with G0 stepping Quads.

Then they are very lucky. I live in the UK and have not been able to find a single store selling them. Trust me, if I did, I would already have one.

In the same thread, and the 3D Mark 2006 thread you will see that some of those are capable of 3.9Gig on air!

A Quad-Core CPU overclocked to 3.9Ghz on air? I'm going to try to keep a straight face

I wont bore you and everyone else here with a list of multi-threaded games available today but I think 29 at last count.

In other words, you don't know any of but since no one is going to check, you can bullshit us and think you can get away with it.
Currently, there are 2 games which are multi-threaded - Supreme Commander and Lost Planet. Lost Planet being the only one that actually uses the whole 4 threads.
But hey, if you like crappy console ports..

Next, MANY current boards support Quad, 1333FSB etc etc, mine for instance and it's considered a budget board so whether it a Quad, a 6750 or whatever does not require an upgrade, perhaps just a BIOS flash.

Yeh, I agree here, there is no reason to buy an expensive motherboard for Quad-Cores. Probably a case of not reading what I said too well. On a positive note we can agree on this one.

Lastly If you want to see some performance differences you only need to look again at the 3D Mark 2006 thread, look at the league tables, the No 3 NVidia score was acheived with a Q6600 @ 3.3Gig the No1 ATi score was acheived with a 6600 @ 4.1Gig......go to the screenshots in the thread that posted the scores....you will see that the CPU score for a Q6600 @3.3Gig is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the CPU score for the dual core @ 4.1Gig......cause even what is now a fairly old bench is multithreaded, so it will use 2 cores if you have them, or it will use 4 cores if you have them.

Like I always say - "there is nothing more important than a synthetic benchmark that has nothing to do with real-world performance".

I happen to agree with a fair amount of your logic in your post but my point is that some of your arguments in support of that logic is flawed IMO.

Well, with all due respect, I know a little more than you do about this issue.
But I'm not in any way trying to make you look or feel bad. I just wish to make things right.

If you have anything to add to what I said, or have any furthur questions, please ask.

 

[Tuk]

OK, next question. What if you also do some A/V editing/mixing/encoding or some 3D rendering? You do know that games aren't the only thing a computer is used for, right?

This is an interesting question, and I seem to answer it on every forum I visit.

Unlike Video Games, there is no "playable" setting to rendering. If your project or video file is rendered in 15 minutes or 10 minutes, it makes no difference. It could be nice to only have to wait 10 minutes, but it's not a neccesity such as getting 30 FPS in a Video Game.
So, the only thing that actually NEEDS the power is games. And since we have yet to see games that actually NEED 4 cores to work, buying a Dual-Core at this time makes sense.
I mean, the thought that you can run Oblivion on a Single-Core CPU but can't run Supreme Commander or Crysis on a (far more advanced) Dual-Core CPU is simply crazy. It could only be true if my theory is correct and the coding is bad.. but I won't get into that right now.

This is beside the fact that these programs are the only ones that actually are multi-threaded and most people would not buy a CPU JUST for Video Editing because it's not a big part of the average person's schedule, and if it were then that person would probably be better off with a Workstation, where he could have up to 8 threads at this point, and 16 soon enough.

 

[Wile E]

This is an interesting question, and I seem to answer it on every forum I visit.

Unlike Video Games, there is no "playable" setting to rendering. If your project or video file is rendered in 15 minutes or 10 minutes, it makes no difference. It could be nice to only have to wait 10 minutes, but it's not a neccesity such as getting 30 FPS in a Video Game.
So, the only thing that actually NEEDS the power is games. And since we have yet to see games that actually NEED 4 cores to work, buying a Dual-Core at this time makes sense.
I mean, the thought that you can run Oblivion on a Single-Core CPU but can't run Supreme Commander or Crysis on a (far more advanced) Dual-Core CPU is simply crazy. It could only be true if my theory is correct and the coding is bad.. but I won't get into that right now.

This is beside the fact that these programs are the only ones that actually are multi-threaded and most people would not buy a CPU JUST for Video Editing because it's not a big part of the average person's schedule, and if it were then that person would probably be better off with a Workstation, where he could have up to 8 threads at this point, and 16 soon enough.

5min makes a difference to me. Maybe time isn't precious to you, but it is to some. I fully disagree about the rendering apps not NEEDING the cpu power, as you put it. Time saved is time saved, period.

For the games, once you reach a certain FPS, anything more is only for bragging rights anyway. The overclocked quad, when put into the same setup as the dual core, will most likely still produce perfectly playable framerates at the same settings, but it will hold the advantage in multi tasking, and the above mentioned apps, so your point is moot.

As far as the Workstation comment, that doesn't necessarily make sense for a hobbyist.

 

[Tatty_Two]

No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though.

Lol it just seems to me that you have made your mind up with little research, please dont be concerened....I dont feel bad, you clearly have not looked at any of the evidence I have provided for you so i spose I am going to have to do the work for you as you clearly have not reserached your arguments and you seem so convinced you are right you dont actually want too, thats a little worrying for me because it suggests you dont want to develop your knowledge so again.....I will start from the top.........

"Then they are very lucky. I live in the UK and have not been able to find a single store selling them. Trust me, if I did, I would already have one"

I too live in the UK, they are not abundant here I agree, Scan had 10 G0 stepping in that arrived on Tuesday 17th July, they all sold same day! I know because I e mailed them to ask if any of their Q6600 in stock were G0, they are expecting some more in next week, I think it's a case of having to contact each etailer as most of them dont show the stepping anyways but unless you do....how do you know if they are or not? There are a couple available as new on e bay also if you look, well there were last night!

Now if you doubt my comments about their availability at scan....take a look here:

http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=114442

Now 32 G0 stepping owners in this thread, cannot see where they are all from but my guess is that few are from the UK but your origional post did not actually mention country specific availability, I meerly said that some were available....here is the Q6600 thread:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=36045

"A Quad-Core CPU overclocked to 3.9Ghz on air? I'm going to try to keep a straight face "

Post 1503 here:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25995&page=61

Enuff said? As I said, if you bothered to look then you would see I assume your face is no longer straight?

"In other words, you don't know any of but since no one is going to check, you can bullshit us and think you can get away with it.
Currently, there are 2 games which are multi-threaded - Supreme Commander and Lost Planet. Lost Planet being the only one that actually uses the whole 4 threads.
But hey, if you like crappy console ports.."

Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research, not sure where you get "crappy console ports from" I did not mention them.....you did not mention them are are they not games now, you remember how long ago Quake 4 came out? yes you guessed it, it's multithreadded, I am at work now so will just provide you with a selection and when I get home I will provide you with the full list (even though you have not asked for it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/94969-13-dual-core-supported-games

21 Games, many not console ports!

16 games, some of which are not on first linky, so the number goes up:

http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/board/showthread.php?t=32483

And for those of us that dont just game, an example of 47 multi-threadded apps that optimise 2 or more cores:

http://www.denniskarlsson.com/smp/

As I said, my definitive list is on my home PC.....but I think you get the idea?

"Like I always say - "there is nothing more important than a synthetic benchmark that has nothing to do with real-world performance".

My point was that it is an example of a multithredded app that is optimised for more than one core where it shows that there are obvious benefits for quadcores.....true multithredded apps would show quad core improvements in a similar manner, remember that we are not talking about the graphics scores here but the CPU score.

"Well, with all due respect, I know a little more than you do about this issue.
But I'm not in any way trying to make you look or feel bad. I just wish to make things right."

Clearly you dont....although I appreciate you may think you do. No point in going there, pointless debate.

"If you have anything to add to what I said, or have any furthur questions, please ask"

I have added as you can see........I wont ask thanks.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Damn, for those that knew him......I am turning into Alec Starr!!!

 

[Tuk]

Lol it just seems to me that you have made your mind up with little research
you clearly have not looked at any of the evidence
I have provided for you so i spose I am as you clearly have not reserached your arguments
it suggests you dont want to develop your knowledge so again

Quite judgmental for a person who lies about giving "evidence", aren't you?

Scan had 10 G0 stepping in that arrived on Tuesday 17th July, they all sold same day!
I think it's a case of having to contact each etailer as most of them dont show the stepping anyways.
Now if you doubt my comments about their availability at scan....take a look here.
my guess is that few are from the UK but your origional post did not actually mention country specific availability, I meerly said that some were available.

Yes, it's true that SOME are available. But since it's hard enough to find one (and don't think I havn't been trying), and since it's best to just wait for Yorkfield, I don't really care.

Post 1503 here:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25995&page=61
Enuff said? As I said, if you bothered to look then you would see I assume your face is no longer straight?

So now you are blaming me for not bothering to look at every web page on the planet?
If you make such radical claims, support them. It's most uncurtious.

And as for this alleged 3.9Ghz on AIR.. well, the temps completely give this one away.
My friend has a QX6850 with the same G0 stepping and he can barely get it to 3.6Ghz. When he does, the temps are above 60C.
And somehow u want me to believe that this guy got his Q6600 to 3.9Ghz(!) at only 45C??
And even IF that were actually true, by some miracle of Horus, then that would still be a single case which means even less than your synthetic benchmarks.

Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research.

Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to take my time and personally message you to ask if what you said really was bullshit?
Once again, if you make radical claims, it is up to YOU to support them. You can't say that stuff and then blame ME for calling you on it! :shadedshu

you remember Quake 4? yes you guessed it, it's multithreadded.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/94969-13-dual-core-supported-games
21 Games, many not console ports!
16 games, some of which are not on first linky, so the number goes up:
http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/board/showthread.php?t=32483

Alright, this was quite an interesting link.
First of all, those are NOT multi-threaded games. They are only Dual-threaded.
Having said that, the support for the second thread is nothing more than a patch. You are not going to see a big difference between Dual and Single-Core CPUs with any of those games.
And besides, Dual-threaded sides with buying the E6750 and not the Q6600.

As for the games that support MORE than 2 threads..
Almost all of those games aren't out yet, so all we know is that they SUPPORT more than 2 threads, not if they actually BENEFIT from them. As I've already said, it's nothing short of crazy to think that Oblivion can run fine on a single thread but BioShock can't on 2 much more powerful threads.
And lastly, the games that DO benefit from 4 threads, then think how much they will like 8 when Yorkfield comes out.

And for those of us that dont just game, an example of 47 multi-threadded apps that optimise 2 or more cores.

I'm not denying that there are multi-threaded apps. But even if I actually wanted to use them (which I don't, and no gamer would), I would still not care if my project was done in 10 minutes instead of 15.

Clearly you dont know more than me.

Yes... clearly.

 

[Tuk]

5min makes a difference to me. Maybe time isn't precious to you, but it is to some. I fully disagree about the rendering apps not NEEDING the cpu power, as you put it. Time saved is time saved, period.

Well, if 5 minutes matters that much to you, then you should really spend the 5,000$ needed for a high-end workstation. Turn that 10 into 5 minutes.
But the more important question is, what did u do when u could only render a project in 30 minutes? Now u can do it in 15 and u are still moaning? That sounds kind of spoiled to me, especially since I have a Single-Core Pentium 4 for the time being.

For the games, once you reach a certain FPS, anything more is only for bragging rights anyway. The overclocked quad, when put into the same setup as the dual core, will most likely still produce perfectly playable framerates at the same settings, but it will hold the advantage in multi tasking, and the above mentioned apps, so your point is moot.

Yes, that's true.
But it's not games that you need the more powerful first core, it's everything else. Emulators mostly.

As far as the Workstation comment, that doesn't necessarily make sense for a hobbyist.

And buying a Quad-Core only to shave off 5 minutes of off a project does?

 

[Tatty_Two]

We could clearly go around in circles here for ever, no I am not expecting you to check every post, thread, link on the internet, I, in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list, you chose to assume that I was....in your words "bullshitting" without me taking the time to list them all from a computer at home when as I said I am at work and without even bothering to ask me, so you would rather call someone a bullshitter than simply ask them to provide the evidence? hence my point that you assumed that it was bullshit without checking....so your assumption was based on nothing TBH. If you cast your eyes back to your origional post you made specific reference to multithredding, not "optimised for more than 2 cores", true multithredding matters not how many cores (providing there is more than one) as it will use 2 if you have 2, it will use 4 if you have 4, hence my point about the multithredded 3D Mark 2006!

Then you have the nerve to call me judgemental! You stated in your previous post...clearly........and I quote:

Originally Posted by Tatty_One
Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid.

"No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though".

I did mention multithredded patches previously, Quake 4 was a "patch" but there was significant improvements to be gained with a dual core processor, I experienced those improvements in FPS alone personally. You will also see that a lot more than 2 of those games are not "patched" which kind of already shows you were wrong in your origional count of 2?

You said that you would try and keep a straight face when I meerly said that people had acheived 3.9Gig on air, and not just manged by the way to boot to windows but to run a benchmark also, now what are you saying....."ignore that you were wrong and concentrate on the temps"....wtf.....you were wrong.

lastly, you mention the word "uncourtious"....check your last 3 threads, then check mine, you let me know whose language mentioned "bullshit" and "lies" and then reach your own conclusions about common courtesy. Whenever I disagree with someones thoughts, you will notice I use the statement "IMO" because thats what it is, you clearly state that you know more than anyone else and that what you say is fact, my point is that is not always the case, whether you like that or not.......IMO

I like healthy debate, I also beleive it or not like to put my hands up when I am shown to be wrong or misinformed, your posts make it at least appear that you do not.

So lets agree to disagree on this one?

 

[Tuk]

in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list

My fault, I did not see it.

you would rather call someone a bullshitter than simply ask them to provide the evidence?

No, I did not know you had evidence. And even if you did, you need to show it and not be offended when I call bullshit.
Was the bullshit deserving? Yes, but even if it wasn't being offended isn't going to furthur this conversation.

true multithredding matters not how many cores (providing there is more than one) as it will use 2 if you have 2, it will use 4 if you have 4, hence my point about the multithredded 3D Mark 2006!

It's true that "multi" means "more than one". But since your stand was pro-Quad, Dual-threaded games don't help you very much, now do they?
And your point about the meaningless synthetic benchmark 3D Mark 06, means Nothing!

Then you have the nerve to call me judgemental! You stated in your previous post...clearly........and I quote:
"No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though".

Yes, you are judgmental. You said that *I* had not done MY research, when it was you that presented the radicalized claim. It was not me that needed to support my claims with evidence, but YOU.

I did mention multithredded patches previously, Quake 4 was a "patch" but there was significant improvements to be gained with a dual core processor, I experienced those improvements in FPS alone personally. You will also see that a lot more than 2 of those games are not "patched" which kind of already shows you were wrong in your origional count of 2?

My original count was about games that support MORE than 2 threads.
And games like Quake 4 would not need anything more than a Single-Core CPU to run at 60 FPS. With these old Single-thread optimized games, it is only the GPU power that matter.
Which is why I am so sceptical about the performance of Quad-Cores in games.

You said that you would try and keep a straight face when I meerly said that people had acheived 3.9Gig on air, and not just manged by the way to boot to windows but to run a benchmark also, now what are you saying....."ignore that you were wrong and concentrate on the temps"....wtf.....you were wrong.

Excuse me??
I completely blew your evidence into the water, and now you are accusing me of looking at the evidence instead of believing what you said on FAITH?
Are u mad?

lastly, you mention the word "uncourtious"....check your last 3 threads, then check mine, you let me know whose language mentioned "bullshit" and "lies" and then reach your own conclusions about common courtesy. Whenever I disagree with someones thoughts, you will notice I use the statement "IMO" because thats what it is, you clearly state that you know more than anyone else and that what you say is fact, my point is that is not always the case, whether you like that or not.......IMO

You appear to be confused about being uncurtious towards the person you are disccusing with, and towards the furthurment of the disccusion.
When I called you "uncurtious", I meant that you had acted in an unlawful way towards the furthurment of this honest disccusion by telling ME that *I* should be the one to provide evidence for YOUR radical claims.
What YOU call "uncurtious" is simply that your feelings got hurt when I called you out and demanded proof for your claims. Make no mistake, I WILL call bullshit whenever I see an unsolicited radicalized claim.

I like healthy debate, I also beleive it or not like to put my hands up when I am shown to be wrong or misinformed, your posts make it at least appear that you do not.

You have been wrong all along. Most of this debate has been about YOU and your feelings, and me having to defend my curtiousy to you.
You have not been right on a single point, but if you were, I would gladly admit it. I only claim to know more than you so as to not have to get into meaningless fights like you seem to have dragged me into now.

So lets agree to disagree on this one?

And now you want out of the disccusion?
Very well, I suppose I have risen victorious and thus the E6750 is the better buy.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Circles again so this is the final time I will rise to the bait, the only thing that really confuses me in what you have said was the fact that I dais 3.9Gig has been acheived on air....you contested that, I provided you with a link thats shows 3.9Gig has been acheived on air ....and you think you are right?

I must be mistaken, it's obvious then by your logic that you said it could be acheived and I said the opposite otherwise I would be right of course.

I do find it kind of hollow that you say it's upto me to provided evidence if I contest what you are saying but you do not seem to think that you need to when challenging anyone elses! If you recall, you were the one that firstly disagreed with my opinion but at no point have you provided any evidence to support your views, therefore your points are just un-subtantiated views.

Lastly, if you are so sure that buying the 6750 was the better option, why have you used as an argument that you would have got the Q6600 with the G0 stepping if you could have got your hands on one? That kind of supports the Quad do you not think. I have absolutely no doubts that in most games that are either single threadded or support only dual threadding that the dual cores would be a better option and statistics show this, but gain for some games and many apps it's the other way round, take a look at this, it kind of confirms what you have said and confirms what I have said but in a Q6600 that is no more expensive than the E6850 (I have been considering between the 2) there is little price benefit:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/page11.html

You will recall from my first post to you that I said that I concur with some of your logic but that "IMO some of the arguments in support of that logic were flawed" so no.......I am not an out and out Quad supporter by any means, I just try and give a fairly balanced opinion, whichever way you or any other thread reader cares to translate our debate the facts are, when you cut away the periphery, in your FIRST post which didnt actually contradict me:

1. You said that Q6600 were not available (although you didnt specifically mention a country/Region etc at that time) - they are, and even in the UK have been.....evidence supplied.
2. You intimated that a Q6600 with G0 stepping couldnt acheive 3.9Gig on air, it has in these forums (you did not articulate that with any temp or voltage restrictions)........evidence provided.
3. You stated there are only 2 multithredded games, there are more, how many more OK is under debate, you did not mention patched, dual, quad just multi and thats what I remarked on. There are actually more than 2 Quad core optimised games, although I may be embarrassed to say there are only 3, with a 4th just about to arrive (not DX10).
4. On the "bullshit", thats just the point, i offered to provide evidence, you didnt ask for it, you just assumed it didnt exist...you assumed bullshit wrongly, thats not a critism, that insulting......maybe thats acceptable to you, it isnt to me, I do not insult/flame.

Lastly, please do not confuse my boredom with arguing/debating with you as an act of defeat, you have at least already suggested in previous posts that you misunderstood on a couple of origional points, lets just leave it at that Phew....I need to go lie down in a dark room now, good job it's a quiet day at work!

 

[newtekie1]

Tatty, just give up. Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Tatty, just give up. Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.

Your right.....rest assured I am now perminantly shut up

 

[driver66]

Right on tatty he's of on a rant



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list


My fault, I did not see it.




A LIE?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research.



Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to take my time and personally message you to ask if what you said really was bullshit?
Once again, if you make radical claims, it is up to YOU to support them. You can't say that stuff and then blame ME for calling you on it!

 

[Tuk]

Tatty, just give up. Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.

It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.

And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me.
Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

 

[Tuk]

Right on tatty he's of on a rant



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list


My fault, I did not see it.




A LIE?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research.



Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to take my time and personally message you to ask if what you said really was bullshit?
Once again, if you make radical claims, it is up to YOU to support them. You can't say that stuff and then blame ME for calling you on it!

Not at all. And after all the time I took to adress this issue, you have the audacity to call me a lier?
You have no sense of dignity, sir.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

when all else fails ....

 

[Grings]

It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.

And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me.
Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

Well yeah, you turn up and INSTANTLY start ranting about somebodies posts, and calling him a bullshitter, not exactly the most endearing entrance is it?

 

[Grings]

Not at all. And after all the time I took to adress this issue, you have the audacity to call me a lier?
You have no sense of dignity, sir.

lol, and your grand entrance to these forums WAS dignified?

 

[newtekie1]

lol, and your grand entrance to these forums WAS dignified?

He wasn't even here a week and he is already on my ignore list. Yep, real dignified.

 

[kwchang007]

It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.

And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me.
Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

Ok, the games that Tatty listed, while they may be dual threaded a quad core still will be better. Why? Because you have more than the game running it's two threads through the processor. You have the two threads then all the threads that are going on in the background in Windows. I know that when mcaffee (yeah, idk how to spell) decides to update it runs one of my cores up to ~100%. Now if you're running a dual core game and say you're limited by your cpu and one core jumps to ~100% then you're going to lose ~50% of your fps. With a quad core you'd lose nothing. What happens if you want to say.....run a cs server and play at the same time? Wouldn't you like the benifit of knowing neither is going to slow down due to anything in the background? These are just two examples btw.

And yes you want to edit a video, you can't say time isn't precious. How much time do we spend planning things out so we'll be here for one hour, then the next here, and the next here etc. If you don't think saving 5 minutes is important, then that's quite contrary to most people's views. With 5 minutes, I could cook my lunch, or I could practice an instrument, or I could come on TPU and post, or I could play some games, or I could spend 5 minutes going to work and earning more money. If you end up doing alot of editing, then you're going to notice those 5 minutes building up.

You're trying to say quad core isn't worth it? That's the same view when dual cores came out, but even when we got a HT P4 I could feel the difference between our comp and my friends' comps that weren't HT. Making the jump from HT to dual core was a bigger difference. What about things like Folding, more cores=more work that can be done in x amount of time.

As far as overclocking the G0 quad core, did you realize the thread Tatty posted was after he ran the benchmark? Not when the cpu was loaded down. Also, how about ambient temperatures? G0 quad cores can get quite fast compare to previous B3 (that was the old stepping right?) quad cores.

There's my support for quad cores. BTW we're not going to get anywhere by just raising clock speeds on dual cores, multi core proves to be the more efficient way of gaining performance.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

if 2 was good 4 going be better .. simple ...

 

[Tuk]

Circles again so this is the final time I will rise to the bait, the only thing that really confuses me in what you have said was the fact that I dais 3.9Gig has been acheived on air....you contested that, I provided you with a link thats shows 3.9Gig has been acheived on air ....and you think you are right?

You provided a radical claim.
For this claim, at first you presented no proof. Only later did you present a piece of evidence.
In order to refute this piece of evidence, I appealed to common logic which states that it is impossible to have a Quad-Core at 3.0Ghz or above with anything lower than 50C on AIR.
So no, that single piece of evidence means NOTHING. Anyone with half a brain can see that it's fake in either the fact that screenshot was photoshoped, or the cooler was fabricated.

I do find it kind of hollow that you say it's upto me to provided evidence if I contest what you are saying but you do not seem to think that you need to when challenging anyone elses! If you recall, you were the one that firstly disagreed with my opinion but at no point have you provided any evidence to support your views, therefore your points are just un-subtantiated views.

I don't have to provide evidence that it's impossible to reach 3.9Ghz on a Quad-Core, YOU have to provide proof that it IS possible. Since you are the one making the claim, the burdon of proof is on YOU.
My views stem from logic, understanding of computer hardware, and experience. I'm not the one claiming that it's impossible to reach 3.9Ghz on a Quad-Core, but that it has not been done as of yet.

Lastly, if you are so sure that buying the 6750 was the better option, why have you used as an argument that you would have got the Q6600 with the G0 stepping if you could have got your hands on one? That kind of supports the Quad do you not think.

Yeh well, if you look at futureproofing, the Q6600 is a good idea. But for someone who intends on buying Yorkfield, it's just a waste of money.

I have absolutely no doubts that in most games that are either single threadded or support only dual threadding that the dual cores would be a better option and statistics show this.

Another radical and unsubstantiated claim, I see.
How exactly would a game that only support a single core perform better with a Quad-Core @ 3.6Ghz, than a Dual-Core @ 4.0Ghz?

You will recall from my first post to you that I said that I concur with some of your logic but that "IMO some of the arguments in support of that logic were flawed" so no.......I am not an out and out Quad supporter by any means, I just try and give a fairly balanced opinion, whichever way you or any other thread reader cares to translate our debate the facts are, when you cut away the periphery, in your FIRST post which didnt actually contradict me:

1. You said that Q6600 were not available (although you didnt specifically mention a country/Region etc at that time) - they are, and even in the UK have been.....evidence supplied.

Well, I'm sure that the yanks would have a much easier chance at getting a G0 stepping Q6600, but as my experience goes, I have not been able to find one in many parts of the world, helping many friends. The only place where I actually found a store selling the G0 stepping exclusively was Canada and the website "DirectCanada.com". Needless to say we jumped on that deal.
As for the availability in the UK, I myself have not found one and I think that is testiment to how hard they are to find. Shops refuse to save them, sites continue to obscure G0 from B3, and everyone jumps at the bit to buy one as soon as they see it in the open.

2. You intimated that a Q6600 with G0 stepping couldnt acheive 3.9Gig on air, it has in these forums (you did not articulate that with any temp or voltage restrictions)........evidence provided.

BULLSHIT.
A single photo on a Quad-Core @ 3.9Ghz with temps at 45C and a flimsy claim of AIR cooling is only evidence to the lie that you appear to believe.
There is no intelligent and knowledged person on any forum that would take that as credible evidence in any way. And I am not any different.
Evidence does not equal proof.

3. You stated there are only 2 multithredded games, there are more, how many more OK is under debate, you did not mention patched, dual, quad just multi and thats what I remarked on. There are actually more than 2 Quad core optimised games, although I may be embarrassed to say there are only 3, with a 4th just about to arrive (not DX10).

What I meant by "multi" is more than 2. Not that it really matters because all those games which support 2 threads, do not actually benefit very much from the second thread.
Not to mention that none of them actually NEED 2 threads, as u can get 100 FPS in F.E.A.R. with a single core and the right graphics power.
As I've already stated, it is the graphics power that it the bottleneck here, not the CPU.

The fact that there are more than 2 Quad-Core optimized games only rules in my favor, because there are only two that actually BENEFIT from more than 2 threads, furthuring my theory.

4. On the "bullshit", thats just the point, i offered to provide evidence, you didnt ask for it, you just assumed it didnt exist...you assumed bullshit wrongly, thats not a critism, that insulting......maybe thats acceptable to you, it isnt to me, I do not insult/flame.

I always assume that it does not exist. That is the base assumption that any serious person must claim.
Otherwise a credible belief in a deity could be considered credible.
Unless you provide proof (not just evidence), you will only recieve contempt for a radical theory. Not that it means that you are wrong though, make no mistake you could be 100% right, but you must show the proof!.

Lastly, please do not confuse my boredom with arguing/debating with you as an act of defeat, you have at least already suggested in previous posts that you misunderstood on a couple of origional points, lets just leave it at that Phew....I need to go lie down in a dark room now, good job it's a quiet day at work!

I am not one to confuse boredom with defeat, but regardless of your ability to stay on subject, you have been wrong on these issues and I have not. But you're right, those who read the discussion will take from it what they will... "IMO"

 

[Tuk]

Well yeah, you turn up and INSTANTLY start ranting about somebodies posts, and calling him a bullshitter, not exactly the most endearing entrance is it?

I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken, sir. It was not me, but him who was ranting. I was merely defending myself.