C2Q, C2D and AMD CPUs comparisons using a 4870 X2

[EastCoasthandle]

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.

My preference was made when price isn't a factor. What I am saying is that there are better CPUs out there then just a Q6600.
-Q9450
-Q9550
-Q9560
etc
Even the:
-E8600
-E8500
-E8400
etc are all good buys. According to your system specs, you use of a QX9650 at 4GHz with low voltage which shows an example of what I posted earlier . My posts are geared towards preventing or reduction of any bottlenecks for a 4870 X2's performance. Here is a single video card review comparing E8400 and Q9650, here as a rudimentary comparison when using a Quad Core in a X2.

 

[blueskynis]

But how come there is a big difference between 2 cores and 4 cores on Intel, but only a small difference between 2 cores and 4 cores on AMD? There should be the same performance jump and scaling from 2 to 4 cores for AMD platform also.

I suspect they have hit the CnQ bug on Phenom platfrom which does effects performance of quad CPUs severely.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

But how come there is a big difference between 2 cores and 4 cores on Intel, but only a small difference between 2 cores and 4 cores on AMD? There should be the same performance jump and scaling from 2 to 4 cores for AMD platform also.

I suspect they have hit the CnQ bug on Phenom platfrom which does effects performance of quad CPUs severely.

We can sit here and guess about it. But IMO, a question like that needs to be addressed with the author of the review. As he can shed some light on:
-his observations as he/they tested
-any notes that were not part of the article
-etc

 

[Wile E]

My preference was made when price isn't a factor. What I am saying is that there are better CPUs out there then just a Q6600.
-Q9450
-Q9550
-Q9560
etc
Even the:
-E8600
-E8500
-E8400
etc are all good buys. According to your system specs, you use of a QX9650 at 4GHz with low voltage which shows an example of what I posted earlier . My posts are geared towards preventing or reduction of any bottlenecks for a 4870 X2's performance. Here is a single video card review comparing E8400 and Q9650, here as a rudimentary comparison when using a Quad Core in a X2.

I'm not disagreeing that there are better quads. I'm just saying that there are situations that it still makes sense to buy a Q6600. In your post, you said you'd never buy a Q6600, but I was just pointing out that they are hard to beat for their price. If I had $200 to spend on a cpu, it would be a Q6600, no question about it.

For me personally, I'll never consider another dual core, so I don't bring those into the equation. I actually have a use for the extra cores. Gaming performance is only one of my concerns.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I'm not disagreeing that there are better quads. I'm just saying that there are situations that it still makes sense to buy a Q6600. In your post, you said you'd never buy a Q6600, but I was just pointing out that they are hard to beat for their price. If I had $200 to spend on a cpu, it would be a Q6600, no question about it.

For me personally, I'll never consider another dual core, so I don't bring those into the equation. I actually have a use for the extra cores. Gaming performance is only one of my concerns.

My post wasn't intended for what you stated. As I've said before I wouldn't buy a Q6600 for a X2 based on the results I've seen and personal preference. IMO, just because that CPU is cheap doesn't make it a better value.

 

[Morgoth]

dont forget nehalem

 

[flclisgreat]

do you guys forget that those fps are the AVERAGE? average is the middle the highs and lows, so "even the lowest AMD X2 would be fine" would be true, if you want your fps dropping below "respectable" levels. lowest amd was 95 fps for one test, and the c2q q6600@ 2.4ghz was 257. thats pretty much a fuckin guarantee that you WILL NEVER, EVER drop below 60 fps. to me thats worth it getting a q6600. and the other link is irrelevant to this thread, its a 8800gtx not a 4870 x2

 

[EastCoasthandle]

do you guys forget that those fps are the AVERAGE? average is the middle the highs and lows, so "even the lowest AMD X2 would be fine" would be true, if you want your fps dropping below "respectable" levels. lowest amd was 95 fps for one test, and the c2q q6600@ 2.4ghz was 257. thats pretty much a XXXX guarantee that you WILL NEVER, EVER drop below 60 fps. to me thats worth it getting a q6600. and the other link is irrelevant to this thread, its a 8800gtx not a 4870 x2

1. You are simply guessing at lower frame rates. We really don't know what that is. Also, averages are enough to gauge what to expect (even though it's not an exact).

2. Cursing doesn't make or prove a point here.

3. The link I provided is relevant as it provides a rudimentary comparison between a quad core and a single GPU vs a quad core and a dual GPU solution.

4. As the poster above mentioned nehalem is approaching. I would advise anyone to wait for price drops on current quads before telling someone to get a Q6600.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

q6600 trumps anyhting in its price range

 

[flclisgreat]

1. You are simply guessing at lower frame rates. We really don't know what that is. Also, averages are enough to gauge what to expect (even though it's not an exact).

2. Cursing doesn't make or prove a point here.

3. The link I provided is relevant as it provides a rudimentary comparison between a quad core and a single GPU vs a quad core and a dual GPU solution.

4. As the poster above mentioned nehalem is approaching. I would advise anyone to wait for price drops on current quads before telling someone to get a Q6600.

1. yes, guessing. it doesn't matter, the lows where lower than 95. how low? who knows, but they where lower. and for a very small price, you can be guaranteed you will never drop below 100 fps. IMO its worth it, i mean you did just pay $500+ for the gpu, whats another $150 for a q6600.

2. what, are you twelve? OMFG HE SWORE- MOMYYYYYYYYY

3. no, it completely irrelevant to this thread. it is not a 4870 x2, or even sli. its a single card with less power than the x2. a x2 has a better chance to get bottle necked with a dual core card(lol, dual core gpu)/dual gpu's than it does with a single gpu.

4. like i already said, after paying near $600 for the gpu your worried about spending ~$150 on a quad to ensure your performance?

q6600 trumps anything in its price range

and that.

 

[mrw1986]

1. yes, guessing. it doesn't matter, the lows where lower than 95. how low? who knows, but they where lower. and for a very small price, you can be guaranteed you will never drop below 100 fps. IMO its worth it, i mean you did just pay $500+ for the gpu, whats another $150 for a q6600.

2. what, are you twelve? OMFG HE SWORE- MOMYYYYYYYYY

3. no, it completely irrelevant to this thread. it is not a 4870 x2, or even sli. its a single card with less power than the x2. a x2 has a better chance to get bottle necked with a dual core card(lol, dual core gpu)/dual gpu's than it does with a single gpu.

4. like i already said, after paying near $600 for the gpu your worried about spending ~$150 on a quad to ensure your performance?




and that.

Seriously, no need for profanity. Children view this board.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

1. yes, guessing. it doesn't matter, the lows where lower than 95. how low? who knows, but they where lower. and for a very small price, you can be guaranteed you will never drop below 100 fps. IMO its worth it, i mean you did just pay $500+ for the gpu, whats another $150 for a q6600.

2. what, are you twelve? OMFG HE SWORE- MOMYYYYYYYYY

3. no, it completely irrelevant to this thread. it is not a 4870 x2, or even sli. its a single card with less power than the x2. a x2 has a better chance to get bottle necked with a dual core card(lol, dual core gpu)/dual gpu's than it does with a single gpu.

4. like i already said, after paying near $600 for the gpu your worried about spending ~$150 on a quad to ensure your performance?




and that.

This post is irrelevant to what I've said and doesn't present a point of view as to a reason why you are responding to my post.

q6600 trumps anyhting in its price range

Not if the game/program isn't multi-threaded or fully utilizes all 4 cores effectively and efficiently.







But this whole issue is getting off topic. This thread is about cpu performance on the 4870 X2 not about why you like at Q6600.

 

[flclisgreat]

This post is irrelevant to what I've said and doesn't present a point of view as to a reason why you are responding to my post.

Not if the game/program isn't multi-threaded or fully utilizes all 4 cores effectively and efficiently.

But this whole issue is getting off topic. This is about cpu performance on the 4870 X2 not about why you like at Q6600.

no. the link you provided proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the q6600 is the right buy. e8400 is about equal to q6600 in price. but, from these benchmarks, the e8400 is at most ~10 more fps than the q6600, and thats @ 1.2ghz higher clock than the q6600. clock them equal and the q6600 would perform better than the e8400 in all of those benchmarks

and agreed, so why did YOU post links to non relevant info about a 8800gtx?

and your first line makes no sense.
my posts doesnt present a point of view of a reason of why i respond? what?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

no. the link you provided proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the q6600 is the right buy. e8400 is about equal to q6600 in price. but, from these benchmarks, the e8400 is at most ~10 more fps than the q6600, and thats @ 1.2ghz higher clock than the q6600. clock them equal and the q6600 would perform better than the e8400 in all of those benchmarks

The Q6600 in the review using a 4870 X2 only beat a E8400 in COH and, the E8400 beat the Q6600 in all other games. There was nothing wrong with what I posted. If you clearly see that at E8400 is roughly 10 FPS more then a Q6600 in the games tested, there is no reason to get into an argument with me about it.

and agreed, so why did YOU post links to non relevant info about a 8800gtx?

I've already answered that question in the post you responded to.

and your first line makes no sense.
my posts doesnt present a point of view of a reason of why i respond? what?

Correct, it does not clearly express a point of view that relates to your response to my post that's on topic to this thread.

 

[btarunr]

Rule number 1 in putting your point across in an elegant way: Be polite, and clear to the person(s) you're interacting/arguing with.

 

[flclisgreat]

The Q6600 in the review using a 4870 X2 only beat a E8400 in COH and, the E8400 beat the Q6600 in all other games. There was nothing wrong with what I posted. If you clearly see that at E8400 is roughly 10 FPS more then a Q6600 in the games tested, there is no reason to get into an argument with me about it.

are you dense? can't read? selective reading? what is it? the q6600 is @ 2.4ghz, the e8400 is @ 3.6 that's 1.2ghz more than the q6600.


why are you so intent on making the q6600 out as a piece of trash?

Rule number 1 in putting your point across in an elegant way: Be polite, and clear to the person(s) you're interacting/arguing with.

that's only in the real world it seams. on the internet its different. your generally anonymous, so people do as they please.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

take bta's suggestion flcl

 

[btarunr]

that's only in the real world it seams. on the internet its different. your generally anonymous, so people do as they please.

Unfortunately this interweb has some guidelines you've to follow. You can't just be rude with anyone.

 

[flclisgreat]

[offtopic]you know what they need. a instant transmission type device, than can take you from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere else in a matter of seconds. [/offtopic]

can we get off topic tags?

and bta, what did i say? point it out for me. underline in bold quote please. and if its the "swear" word, then implement a swear filter for all the "kids" (oh yeah, i'm sure there's tons of "kids" on here)

 

[EastCoasthandle]

are you dense? can't read? selective reading? what is it? the q6600 is @ 2.4ghz, the e8400 is @ 3.6 that's 1.2ghz more than the q6600.

1. You have no idea of what the results are for an OC Q6600 using a 4870 X2
2. A E8400 @ 3.60 clearly shows what it can offer a 4870 X2 for current games
3. You are a tad fixated on a Q6600 and failed to see the results of a Q9650 which clearly beats the Q6600

why are you so intent on making the q6600 out as a piece of trash?

1. You are only discussing about a Q6600 which is not the focal point of the article or this thread.
2. Q9650 clearly beats a Q6600 when using a 4870 X2. Therefore, there is no need to concentrate on a Q6600 in this example

 

[merkk]

Hi guys
Just to clear up one item that was posted earler . The Phenom at 3.0 ghz. average 37 fps faster over the 5 test compair to the AMD x2 cpu at 3.46 ghz. I think a 37 fps differenaces is alot .This test show if you want to get the most out of 4870x2 and run a AMD cpu you need a phenom cpu. 9950BE sell for under 200 $ dollars now to.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Hi guys
Just to clear up one item that was posted earler . The Phenom at 3.0 ghz. average 37 fps faster over the 5 test compair to the AMD x2 cpu at 3.46 ghz. I think a 37 fps differenaces is alot .This test show if you want to get the most out of 4870x2 and run a AMD cpu you need a phenom cpu. 9950BE sell for under 200 $ dollars now to.

If you have a AMD setup, that would make sense to me.

 

[btarunr]

[offtopic]you know what they need. a instant transmission type device, than can take you from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere else in a matter of seconds. [/offtopic]

can we get off topic tags?

and bta, what did i say? point it out for me. underline in bold quote please. and if its the "swear" word, then implement a swear filter for all the "kids" (oh yeah, i'm sure there's tons of "kids" on here)

Don't do this:

are you dense? can't read?

Hmm interesting, last I knew, matured individuals conversed politely. So yes, there does seem to be a kid here.

 

[flclisgreat]

1. You have no idea of what the results are for an OC Q6600 using a 4870 X2
2. A E8400 @ 3.60 clearly shows what it can offer a 4870 X2 for current games
3. You are a tad fixated on a Q6600 and failed to see the results of a Q9650 which clearly beats the Q6600


1. You are only discussing about a Q6600 which is not the focul point of the article or this thread.
2. Q9650 clearly beats a Q6600 when using a 4870 X2. Therefore, there is no need to concentrate on a Q6600 in this example

ok. fair enough i will not compare the imagined oc of the q6600 to an e8400. ill compare the tested clocks of the q6600 with the q9650. since the tester did not deam it necasary to test the same clock speed of the q6600 compared to q9650, we will have to do with teh q6600 @ 2.4ghz vs the q9650@2.33ghz and 2.66ghz.

Q6600@ 2.4 is ~1-5 more fps than the q9650@ 2.33ghz.
q6600@ 2.4 is is ~5-10 fps less than the q9650@2.66ghz.

to me that says the q9650 does indeed perform better than the q6600(in this test for gaming). but its only a 1-5%(guestimate there) increase per clock. is ~5% performance increase worth the what 100-150% price point increase? no i say, so i am trying to figure out why your dissing the q6600 so much. i didn't fail to see the q9650 results, i failed to see the reason to buy a q9650

Hi guys
Just to clear up one item that was posted earler . The Phenom at 3.0 ghz. average 37 fps faster over the 5 test compair to the AMD x2 cpu at 3.46 ghz. I think a 37 fps differenaces is alot .This test show if you want to get the most out of 4870x2 and run a AMD cpu you need a phenom cpu. 9950BE sell for under 200 $ dollars now to.

yeah seams so. only the c2d/c2q difference is much higher, so i don't trust these benchmarks anyway

Don't do this:


Hmm interesting, last I knew, matured individuals conversed politely. So yes, there does seem to be a kid here.

he has failed to answer me multiple times, and clearly overlooks information in favor of a q6600. so i asked him honest questions, and he failed to answer again.

me and you have very different views as to what rude is

and besides. that was after your initial post

 

[EastCoasthandle]

ok. fair enough i will not compare the imagined oc of the q6600 to an e8400. ill compare the tested clocks of the q6600 with the q9650. since the tester did not deam it necasary to test the same clock speed of the q6600 compared to q9650, we will have to do with teh q6600 @ 2.4ghz vs the q9650@2.33ghz and 2.66ghz.

Q6600@ 2.4 is ~1-5 more fps than the q9650@ 2.33ghz.
q6600@ 2.4 is is ~5-10 fps less than the q9650@2.66ghz.

to me that says the q9650 does indeed perform better than the q6600(in this test for gaming). but its only a 1-5%(guestimate there) increase per clock. is ~5% performance increase worth the what 100-150% price point increase? no i say, so i am trying to figure out why your dissing the q6600 so much. i didn't fail to see the q9650 results, i failed to see the reason to buy a q9650




yeah seams so. only the c2d/c2q difference is much higher, so i don't trust these benchmarks anyway

You also failed to see that my posts were not geared towards convincing you, someone who wasn't party to my earlier post(s), to buy a Q9650. This is something you've made up. Neither is it in relation to the contents of this thread. Now you don't trust any of these benchmarks but want to argue with me about a Q6600. One minute you see that a Q9650 is better then a Q6600 then you say you don't trust the results. That alone debunks your entire argument.