So I'm about to get my computer, and while looking over everything I had and what else was available, I noticed a quad core processor for the same price as the tri core I was planning on getting.
so,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103252
vs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103251
which one would be better?
Tri core v. Quad core
FlamingMetroid
LockerLoad
Get the higher clocked chip with less cores. Games don't scale well with increased core numbers. Unless that is you happen to have 4 top notch vid cards in crossfire...
Alastair
Going with the Phenom right now is a mistake, IMO. Get a fast Intel Core 2 Duo. I know this throws a big wrench in the mechanics of your machine but the price/performance of an Intel build is just so much better.
Similarly priced C2D: E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHZ 6MB l2 Cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037
As mentioned by an above poster, the triple and quad cores don't make that much difference for games.
-Alastair
Similarly priced C2D: E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHZ 6MB l2 Cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037
As mentioned by an above poster, the triple and quad cores don't make that much difference for games.
-Alastair
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LockerLoad
Get the higher clocked chip with less cores. Games don't scale well with increased core numbers. Unless that is you happen to have 4 top notch vid cards in crossfire...
|
TaCktiX
Lies. There is a handful of games being released right now that DO take advantage of multiple cores. The two that come to mind are Crysis and Supreme Commander. Granted, Guild Wars does not, but if you're debating how many cores, you're likely going to run higher-powered stuff alongside GW anyway.
As for processor, get the Quad. Intel still has the performance edge and getting something with a worst price/performance margin isn't a good idea.
As for processor, get the Quad. Intel still has the performance edge and getting something with a worst price/performance margin isn't a good idea.
eggrolls
Yes to Intel Q6600 or E8400. No to anything AMD unless you find a really good price. I'd pick a faster dual core over a slower quad core if prices are the same unless you're overclocking or have stuff that need 2 more cores.
JayH
In regards to the Intel CPU, and whether to go Q6600 or E8400 (which is very debatable in the hardware community at this moment) I find the choice to be clear - I would go for the Q6600 in nearly every situation, unless power consumption was a major factor in the decision. E8400 is going to be somewhat faster in modern games, but there is no game at this point that a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU cannot run well. In CPU limited games, an E8400 may be 110 FPS vs Q6600 @ 95 FPS... there is no tangible difference. But you will see a big difference in apps/games that support 4 cores.
But AMD is the only "true" quad core on the market at this moment. Phenom contains all 4 cores on one die, with each of the cores having 512KB of Level 2 cache and all the cores sharing 2MB of Level 3 cache. Intel's current quads are made up of two dual-core CPUs essentially glued together, with each of the two dual cores having a shared L2 cache.
There is an advantage to having a native quad core, in terms of scaling from 1->4 cores, but the problem is AMD's K10 architecture is slower than Intel's Core 2 so the better scaling isn't apparent.
But as said before, if this CPU is just for Guild Wars, it does not matter which you buy.
But AMD is the only "true" quad core on the market at this moment. Phenom contains all 4 cores on one die, with each of the cores having 512KB of Level 2 cache and all the cores sharing 2MB of Level 3 cache. Intel's current quads are made up of two dual-core CPUs essentially glued together, with each of the two dual cores having a shared L2 cache.
There is an advantage to having a native quad core, in terms of scaling from 1->4 cores, but the problem is AMD's K10 architecture is slower than Intel's Core 2 so the better scaling isn't apparent.
But as said before, if this CPU is just for Guild Wars, it does not matter which you buy.
Admael
I think the E8400 has lower power consumption, and generates less heat than the Q6600.
Not to mention it is faster and overclocks better.
Not to mention it is faster and overclocks better.
Lord Sojar
Umm, to all of you slicing down ATi... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now isn't the time to invest in a new Intel system either. The Nehalem architecture is due to launch at the end of this year, and it will destroy even Intel's current offerings. Oh, and as far as AMD platforms go, they have Crossfire on their side, as well as amazing chipsets (much better than current Intel offerings in technology packages)
So, yes, you might lose performance on the CPU side, but you will gain a lot of performance on the mainboard chipset side, and the new AMD ATi HD4870 cards are.... well, pure insanity.
If you can afford to build a new Intel quad core/nVidia setup, go for it. I warn you though, the GTX 280 is not going to be cheap. It already has low yields (I would know, I helped build the damn thing)... the core is expensive to make. Expect to pay 650 dollars for a single GTX 280; you have been warned.
Yes, that is correct. The two main reasons is that the E8400 is a dual core, not a quad core, and the fact that the E8400 uses the new Hafnium 45nm fabs. The E8400 also utilizes the 1333MHz bus. All around, a better choice. Just wait until you see Nehalem though (god, our labs are having a hayday with it)
So, yes, you might lose performance on the CPU side, but you will gain a lot of performance on the mainboard chipset side, and the new AMD ATi HD4870 cards are.... well, pure insanity.
If you can afford to build a new Intel quad core/nVidia setup, go for it. I warn you though, the GTX 280 is not going to be cheap. It already has low yields (I would know, I helped build the damn thing)... the core is expensive to make. Expect to pay 650 dollars for a single GTX 280; you have been warned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
I think the E8400 has lower power consumption, and generates less heat than the Q6600.
Not to mention it is faster and overclocks better. |
moriz
what kind of news do you have on the HD4870? most of the stuff i've been getting seems to be pure speculation.
Tamuril elansar
i have a feeling the 4000 serie of ATI won't be as good as people think.
-rightuos-
get the quad, why miss out on the extra core?
The tri core is just a quad core with a busted core anyways.
Intel's Nehalem as much as its praised has its thorns. Intel is shooting itself in the foot with it's "Holier than thou" attitude.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/int...t_war_revealed
OP's question was link 1 or 2 I say 2
The tri core is just a quad core with a busted core anyways.
Intel's Nehalem as much as its praised has its thorns. Intel is shooting itself in the foot with it's "Holier than thou" attitude.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/int...t_war_revealed
OP's question was link 1 or 2 I say 2
Snograt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by -rightuos-
The tri core is just a quad core with a busted core anyways.
|
Why_Me
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief
Umm, to all of you slicing down ATi... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now isn't the time to invest in a new Intel system either. The Nehalem architecture is due to launch at the end of this year, and it will destroy even Intel's current offerings. Oh, and as far as AMD platforms go, they have Crossfire on their side, as well as amazing chipsets (much better than current Intel offerings in technology packages)
So, yes, you might lose performance on the CPU side, but you will gain a lot of performance on the mainboard chipset side, and the new AMD ATi HD4870 cards are.... well, pure insanity. If you can afford to build a new Intel quad core/nVidia setup, go for it. I warn you though, the GTX 280 is not going to be cheap. It already has low yields (I would know, I helped build the damn thing)... the core is expensive to make. Expect to pay 650 dollars for a single GTX 280; you have been warned. Yes, that is correct. The two main reasons is that the E8400 is a dual core, not a quad core, and the fact that the E8400 uses the new Hafnium 45nm fabs. The E8400 also utilizes the 1333MHz bus. All around, a better choice. Just wait until you see Nehalem though (god, our labs are having a hayday with it) |
They can also use a 4870......
This isn't a matter of fanboyism of intel vs AMD/ATI, it just makes more sense to go with an intel cpu atm.
Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores.
Brianna
I'd just say go with the Quad Core, no point in getting a tri-core, even if it is clocked a little bit higher.
Just my opinion though, I'd personally take the quad any day over the tri.
Just my opinion though, I'd personally take the quad any day over the tri.
LockerLoad
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TaCktiX
Lies. There is a handful of games being released right now that DO take advantage of multiple cores. The two that come to mind are Crysis and Supreme Commander.
|
EDIT: As of now [email protected] Mhz is better for gaming than 4 equivalent [email protected] Mhz.
LockerLoad
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief
You mean like the new ATi 4870s that happen to ummm, well... ummm, yeh... hurt my image?
|
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Why_Me
Intel chipsets can do crossfire.
They can also use a 4870...... This isn't a matter of fanboyism of intel vs AMD/ATI, it just makes more sense to go with an intel cpu atm. Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores. |
45nm chips can handle higher voltages then you might think. Oh, and voltages only damage a chip when they become extremely high, like to the point of insanity. It is the heat generated from the voltage increases that causes 98% of the population who overclock, the damage. Adequate cooling = no problems.
Oh, and the Intel chipsets that support Crossfire FAIL in comparison to the AMD based chipsets designed natively for Crossfire. AMD currently has the best chipset offerings on the market for the single and dual GPU solution. Triple SLi 780/790 scales better than triple crossfire or quad crossfire, but alas, that is another story.
LockerLoad
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Why_Me
Also, e8400s do run cooler, but they do not overclock higher (respectively). You can't take an e8400 much higher than 4ghz or 4.2 ghz due to the voltage being required. Putting 1.375 volts through a 45nm chip causes the same amount of damage to the chip as putting 1.5 volts through a 65nm chip. So with good cooling, such as a TRUE or Xigmatek, you can easily take a q6600 to 3.5 or 3.6, an overclock of 50%, while an e8400 at 4.2 is 40%. A difference of only 600mhz or 17% is definitely worth 2 more cores.
|
Your explanation about the voltage damage is a little misleading also. I'll assume your speaking of electrons tunneling a short between two gates. The possibility of this happening exists whenever there is current flowing through the chip. The probability is increased at higher voltage and temperature which seem to go in hand with clockspeed, core count and lithography process size.
Raja can doubtless explain it in intricate detail, I am but a layman.
Quaker
Just to add my 2 cents - there is so little software that makes use of multiple cores - particularly, more than 2 cores - that at this point in time you'd be better off with 3 faster cores than 4 slower cores.
That may change in the future as programs become more able to use multiple cores, but by then, you'll be upgrading again anyway.
That may change in the future as programs become more able to use multiple cores, but by then, you'll be upgrading again anyway.
DarkNecrid
why would they be 4 slower cores
you can set core affinity man
you can set core affinity man
The Way Out
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief
No, not really. Most of you forum goers don't utilize a quad core at all. Dual core = fitting for most of the Guru population. Dual core is easy to make compilers for, quad+ are much more complex. There are no games that utilize more than a quad core, not even the mighty Crysis (at least not to any really significant extent)
45nm chips can handle higher voltages then you might think. Oh, and voltages only damage a chip when they become extremely high, like to the point of insanity. It is the heat generated from the voltage increases that causes 98% of the population who overclock, the damage. Adequate cooling = no problems. Oh, and the Intel chipsets that support Crossfire FAIL in comparison to the AMD based chipsets designed natively for Crossfire. AMD currently has the best chipset offerings on the market for the single and dual GPU solution. Triple SLi 780/790 scales better than triple crossfire or quad crossfire, but alas, that is another story. |
I agree with you and Quaker about the underutilization of multiple cores with average users. I see too many people go out and purchase quads just because it is the latest and greatest (which it really isn't that anymore... anyhow).
If the average owner of a quad core understood processor affinity (or better yet, ran any *nix, I would argue that they were making a good purchase, however, that isn't the case). The average user who owns a muticore processor is running either XP Pro or a flavor of Vista. That same user is running crappy games on it, believing that they are getting sick performance out of it. What ends up happening is that they use two of the four cores and barely scratch the other two. They peak out on RAM and say their systems scream. Sad sad sad....
Quaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkNecrid
why would they be 4 slower cores
you can set core affinity man |
Setting affinity has nothing to do with the speed of the cores.
Read the OP's post if you want to know why 4 cores would be slower.
