MercuryDoun Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Not always. I remember back when dual cores first came out. A higher clocking single core would outperform a lower clocking dual core. Since pretty much nothing was able to use both cores. Same thing today. Hardly any games right now use more then two cores. So if gaming is his main concern then the higher clocked dual core could out perform it. The quad has the advantange of the extra cores to run background processes though so it could go either way depending on how well the quad overclocks. Sorry for assuming he would be playing games? While the answer did depend on what he does with the computer, on this site, its 90% of the time gaming is involved one way or another. And in the case of any even half modern game, a quad-core is gonna be better. Hardly any games use more than 4 cores right now. Most games made in the last 5 years(minus awkward indie titles that can run on a PIII, ) can use 4 cores. Maybe not be fully optimized for 4 cores, will will happily try to use 4, if nothing else, 2 dedicated cores to a game with 2 others free for everything else in the background is always a magical bonus. My reasons for assuming gaming was involved, and that the user isn't a child that needs detailed explanation of the advantages/disadvantages(as in per core speed probably being lower, but if OC'ing turns out well, this could make no difference at all) of a quad-core vs dual-core? 1) 9800GTX+, sure its an older card, but then again, a E8400 is pretty old now too, so no reason not to see that back when this rig was built, it was a high end gaming machine. 2) Clear knowledge of overclocking, as per information in original post. 3) Win7 64-bit, brand new OS on a old computer. Leads me to believe the user is keeping software up to date(Aka new~ish games, steam sales says newish games aren't expensive anymore) while hardware(pricey) on a level of functionality over pure performance. 4th bonus and main reason for not asking additional information. My hand is messed up from a serious puncture wound i got last night and i can only type with one hand! It's taken me almost 20 minutes to write this whole post Sorry for not getting more information, but I don't always feel the need to treat people on this site like ill informed children, unless information or questions in their post leads me to believe they are not at least somewhat experienced. I took this post as a confirmation of sorts, that they wanted to drop that quad-core in because its free, but wanted some other opinions in case they maybe had the wrong idea, and he doesn't, a free quad-core is going to be a major upgrade in almost all situations in this day in age. WarDozer, your perfect amount of sarcasm and irony made me laugh. +1 for being smart and intelligent without being belligerent. I don't know what you are doing that has dual core so exclusively useful for you, but i would make the argument that most people(not your average facebook user that is, most people on this website/forum.) could and would greatly benefit from a quad-core. Edited February 1, 2012 by MercuryDoun Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disparaitre Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) ... Edited September 21, 2014 by Disparaitre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Skyrim is TES V A.K.A. Oblivion, A.K.A. Fallout 3 . . . . . it most certainly does not as is apparent when an 3.1ghz Athlon II x2 is only about 3fps slower than a 3.3ghz Athlon II x4. Skyrim does however respond very well to CPU frequency, but not additional core past 2. Cranking up the settings increases the CPU load and it matters quite a bit how many cores you have when you're in town and running through the landscapes at high speed. Point of fact, even with the basic tests over at TechSpot, the 3960X was significantly faster than the i72500k at the same clock frequency. With slower CPUs the limitations of the chips themselves tend to hamper scaling. If I get around to it tonight I'll do a couple runs through Whiterun with 1, 2, 4, and 8 threads enabled on my CPU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowKing Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Skyrim is TES V A.K.A. Oblivion, A.K.A. Fallout 3 . . . . . it most certainly does not as is apparent when an 3.1ghz Athlon II x2 is only about 3fps slower than a 3.3ghz Athlon II x4. Skyrim does however respond very well to CPU frequency, but not additional core past 2. The Creative Engine (Skyrim) and the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion, FO3) are both multi-core optimized. Both can use 4 cores. Thread distribution is different than multi-threading. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjj226_Angel Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Another point is that the quad core could be using slightly different architecture. It is possible that even with lower clock speeds it could still be faster. I don't know for sure though because they are both socket 775. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Another point is that the quad core could be using slightly different architecture. It is possible that even with lower clock speeds it could still be faster. I don't know for sure though because they are both socket 775. Yorkfields are just two Wofldale die on the same package. The Q9300 has 3 MB of L2 per die versus the 6 MB on the E8400...but that usually doesn't make much difference in gaming. Edited February 1, 2012 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercuryDoun Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Skyrim is TES V A.K.A. Oblivion, A.K.A. Fallout 3 . . . . . it most certainly does not as is apparent when an 3.1ghz Athlon II x2 is only about 3fps slower than a 3.3ghz Athlon II x4. Skyrim does however respond very well to CPU frequency, but not additional core past 2. And Mercury, while I wish it was possible to put more faith in the human race, cmon man. It's the human race, most are coming in a distant last. Never assume just because someone is on a site that they know even the basics about the general mindset behind that site, if they did we'd never have to ask the questions that seem stupid to us like what is the rest of your hardware and what do you do with the system. Advanced users know that you can't assume without additional info unless you want to assume that everything will be better and everything will also be worse. To assume that just because someone is on "OverClockersClub" that they know how to OverClock is ignorant. Thats like assuming that just because someone knows how to plug devices into a powerstrip that they know to make sure the damned switch for the brick is set to on. When I Was a PC tech, I BS you not but at least once a year I had to charge someone $90 for an onsite call to flip the switch on thier powerstrip back to on or in the case of one FAMILY with 2 teenagers living at the house, plug the thing back into the wall socket after thier cat had knocked the cord completely out of the socket and onto the floor. I wish I could be as optomistic as you Mercury, I really do, but I have seen how ignorant the average person actually is having have worked for them for almost 14 years so that faith I now realize was misplaced. Welcome to the human race people, the sad fact of the matter is most of us are losing by a huge margin or haven't even left the starting line yet. Lolololol, i have very little faith in humanity, I've been doing this crap for a long time too. Maybe not as long as you, I don't know. But I've had my fair share of what I can only describe as FML, because even calling some of those people a retard to their face, would be lost on them. But I gave several valid reasons as to why I believed it was not required to delve for more detail information. If they OP had asked, "I has E8300, me get Q9300 for frees! Me use?" I would have asked several questions before replying, but there was enough info in their post and sig for me to give an answer i could stand behind. I even left it open ended to go as far to say, if they felt the Q9300 didn't perform as well as the E8400 for whatever reason, it was only time lost in swapping the CPU's. There is literally no downside to at least trying to use the Q9300. Sorry for the Hi-jacking of this thread OP, but our conversation on humanity is amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disparaitre Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) ... Edited September 21, 2014 by Disparaitre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 If he were guaranteed to sell things, sure, he could do that. Considering he just has the CPU sitting around (and it is nice to have a spare, especially with older stuff), he's not going to LOSE anything doing the swap except for a little time and effort to swap it and OC it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercuryDoun Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Reguardless, until we know what games the OP is playing we have no business making a suggestion. That 9800GTX+ may not be enough to make a difference with any CPU reguardless of the speed is the OP is trying to play games like BF3 or Metro 2033. === The below arguement only applies if the OP is a gamer first === If I was the OP and actually had that quad handy, I'd sell it and the 9800GTX+ and get a better card before I considered wasting a CPU upgrade on a card like that with the rest of his system. . . . . oh wait, I did make that decision when I put upgrading my my HD 4870 1gb ( which is faster than a 512mb 9800GTX+ @ 1080P btw ) to an HD 5870 ahead of getting a quad-core CPU and I dare anyone to tell me I should have gone with the CPU upgrade over the GPU without being full of crap. Actually, now that I think of it. Sell the Q9300 OP and take the $125 and get an HD 6870. It will make a night and day difference as compared to wasting the time upgrading your E8400 to the Q9300. Then when you sell your 9800GTX+ for $35 - $40 you can laugh at how stupid the idea of picking a CPU over GPU upgrade was as you take that $40 to the nearest good steak house and enjoy yourself a nice brew and a bloody steak then go home to your PC on a fully belly and crank up the game detail and resolution like the CPU would never allow you to do. *SLAMS GAVEL* BEAT THAT ADVICE FOR A GAMER COURT ADJOUNRED! CLASS DISMISSED! I RULE! [/thread] No info in post or sig in regards to monitor, what if hes playing on a 15" 1280x1024 CRT monitor, and his problem is CPU bottlenecking at low resolutions, that a better video card would only make worse?!?!? Who's not getting additional information now! You're gamer advice is invalid. OH BURN! JK Selling old hardware is simple enough, but almost never at the price you want. I highly doubt he'd get $125 for that Q9300, prolly get $40 for that 9800GTX+ though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disparaitre Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) ... Edited September 21, 2014 by Disparaitre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercuryDoun Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 1-2-3-4 I declare a flame war. My momma told me to pick the very best arguement and yours is not it Touche -.- Thats why I have my LCD's model in my sig Should probably put 1080P in parenthesis next to it for the lazy people though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now