Q6600 or E6600?

[Wile E]

As for the C2D putting up a fight, the point of 'true' multi-threaded apps is irrelevant, as none exist. They would need a 'true' 4x core to be utilized. And since none exist yet, and will not for a while...

This is where your argument is flawed. There most certainly are true multi-threaded apps out there. Especially audio/video encoders. There are also some multi-threaded games. Sup Com jumps to mind immediately. I honestly don't know where you get that no multi-threaded apps exist.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Something I meant to add to this weeks ago, was that benchmarks wise the E and Q are relatively the same, it's almost a moot point.

The more important factors are the compatibility, overclocking flexibility, heat etc.

I find the the E to be much more efficient and manageable, stressable and has a lower diminishing return than the Qs.
Your only option around this is to use the g0 stepping revision for the Qs, if you can obtain one.


The only thing really going for the Qs is the 'future proof' arguement, however it's flawed.

First thing to consider is that no application(most likely) is going to REQUIRE more than two cores for quite a long time. We're still waiting for a market influx of applications that even make use of more than two cores. C2D have plenty of life left in it.

Second, and something that most people do not consider is that the current Qs are two pairs of cores. Instead of 4, it's more like 2 + 2; they communicate through the system RAM and FSB, because they're located on two physically separate dies. This is a whole lot more convoluted than passing information around, within the CPU, like "true" quad core should.

I imagine by the time 'true' quad core based chips arrive, there will be a better number of applications that can make use of them at that time, and any previous Q versions will be dirt cheap.


So with that said, I would vote for the E technology because it can be tinkered with more, and by the time it's at it's 'rope's end,' so to speak, the better Qs will be on the market.

EDIT: Addition. I imagine a good plan would be to wait for those 'true' quad cores, and even if you did buy them when they were partially 'new,' you would at least be truly future proofing. To compliment that idea, prices of the newer GPUs, like 8900s and such would have come down, and you'd be able to properly upgrade. Rather than Q now, 8900 later, another Quad chip later and get stuck in a leap frog process.

I wont repeat what Wile E has said, with regard to multithredding....just look at 3D Mark 2006 which is actually a genuine "multithredded app".....( so it will use 2 cores if you have 2, 4 cores if you have 4 and if your lucky enuff to have 1000 cores, it will use them too!) the Quads blow dual cores away in scores even when the dual core is overclocked 500Mhz faster.

 

[Richieb0y]

Q6600 haha

 

[newconroer]

How can you write software for something that doesn't exist?

It's multi-threading for faux quad cores. Which may be different from how things are coded for true quad cores. We don't know, but either way it obviously works in the Qs favor.


The point was that the true Qs will come, you needn't the faux Q, because people, who don't know about the difference of the two, would most likely get the Q now, then not realize they could have waited.


Let's not restart the arguement of which is necessarily 'better,' rather accept that there will be better Qs to come.

 

[Tatty_Two]

You are right there.....but there will be better everythings to come, including 45nm dual cores......is noone to buy anything at all in the knowledge that there will be better to come?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

unless someone is permanantly running 3d mark 06 or video encoding tho'.there isnt a lot of apps/games that actually use all 4 cores yet.

give us a list of apps/games that definatley use all 4 cores.i bet there is'nt that many.

 

[Wile E]

How can you write software for something that doesn't exist?

It's multi-threading for faux quad cores. Which may be different from how things are coded for true quad cores. We don't know, but either way it obviously works in the Qs favor.


The point was that the true Qs will come, you needn't the faux Q, because people, who don't know about the difference of the two, would most likely get the Q now, then not realize they could have waited.


Let's not restart the arguement of which is necessarily 'better,' rather accept that there will be better Qs to come.

No, the coding is exactly the same. The program sees 4 cores, and launches 4 threads. Doesn't matter how the machine has 4 cores, only that it does. The benefit to having a "true" quad core will come in the way of latency improvements. Performance will be better for a true quad core, but the software will not change. So the current "faux" quad still benefits from multi-threaded software. Hell, even my buddy's MacPro with 2 independent dual cores makes use of multi-threaded apps by processing 4 threads.

 

[Wile E]

unless someone is permanantly running 3d mark 06 or video encoding tho'.there isnt a lot of apps/games that actually use all 4 cores yet.

give us a list of apps/games that definatley use all 4 cores.i bet there is'nt that many.

You still don't have to run video encoding or 3dMark06 all the time to see the benefits of a quad. Multi-tasking is worlds ahead on a quad core as well.

And the fact that there isn't that many quad capable programs out isn't the important part, the important part is that more are being developed.