Rig posibilities

[kingdingeling]

A bold statement considering the this industry has turned years into months.....current technology now....not planning now means losing in the future. Still, I will overclock the Quad above the Duo and still have two more Cores to head in the future with...food for thought. I myself will take my chances. 30 yrs in this industry proves that.

 

It might be slightly bold, but consider the average person. He/She buys a eMachine/HP/Dell/whatever prebuilt, which MIGHT just have a dual-core in there. If the average Joe has a dual core, the developers will make stuff for dual cores, but not more. So until Quad-Cores become mainstream (I doubt thats gonna happen before 2008), you're clearly wasting your money on a Quad for gaming or what.

[Silverfox]

How many GAMES utilise Dual Core? What, about 4?! Some are getting support for older games...but they are still limited.

 

So we are JUST adopting dual cores. How long will it take to adopt quad cores? Well, by my reckoning, at least another year (minimum) when average joe has has machine shipped with the Quad.

 

You seem to be been suckered into the "more cores = better" which right now is untrue. 4 cores generating a great deal of heat over the same surface area as 2 cores is going to be TWICE as warm (or thereabouts). With twice the heat, overclocking becomes an awful lot harder. But, saying that, Mr Omega, I would love to see some genuine OC's if you have any

[TheRealOmegaMan]

. But, saying that, Mr Omega, I would love to see some genuine OC's if you have any

 

Well, with the help of the folks here I hope to

[Verran]

Still, I will overclock the Quad above the Duo and still have two more Cores to head in the future with...food for thought.

And that is a "bold" statement from someone who doesn't know how to overclock. Wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

Here's my thoughts on the "early adoption" of the quads. Let's say you buy a Q6600 right now. That's about $850. In comparison, I buy an E6600 for $320. My E6600 clocks higher than the Q6600 easily, makes less heat, consumes less power, and games better. I win.

 

BUT, now it's 07Q4 and they release a handful of great quad-core SMP enabled games. Now your Q6600 wins. But wait. Now I go out and buy the same Q6600 you have at the Q3 published price of $266. Now we're tied again. And I've spent <$600 while you're in $850. Not to mention that for the lesser price, I now have two Core2 chips.

 

So why pay substantially higher prices to adopt an early technology that does you no good?

[kingdingeling]

:withstupid:

 

I doubt there will be a lot of SMP (I mean more than dual core) games out by 07Q4...

[TheRealOmegaMan]

And that is a "bold" statement from someone who doesn't know how to overclock. Wouldn't you say?

Here's my thoughts on the "early adoption" of the quads. Let's say you buy a Q6600 right now. That's about $850. In comparison, I buy an E6600 for $320. My E6600 clocks higher than the Q6600 easily, makes less heat, consumes less power, and games better. I win.

 

BUT, now it's 07Q4 and they release a handful of great quad-core SMP enabled games. Now your Q6600 wins. But wait. Now I go out and buy the same Q6600 you have at the Q3 published price of $266. Now we're tied again. And I've spent <$600 while you're in $850. Not to mention that for the lesser price, I now have two Core2 chips.

 

So why pay substantially higher prices to adopt an early technology that does you no good?

 

And a bold statement from someone who buys the lesser technology simply to overclock it. Nice. Hence the reason for WARRANTY VOID. Look, I'm not getting into a hissing match her Varran. I have spent 25+ years in this industry. Comming from someone who doesn't work in it or lived it I would consider the bolder of statements. And how high are you going to clock that E6600? The QX6700 will sit stable at 3.4Ghz....do I need to be and Ace Overclocker to read? Also, do a Google search on benchmarks then tell me what you find. To put it into perspective.....You would overload a V8 '58 Thunderbird......I choose the Saleen S7.

[Verran]

OK, that last post seemed a LOT like grabbing at straws to me. Most of what you said was flat out wrong. Let's take a look:

 

And a bold statement from someone who buys the lesser technology simply to overclock it. Nice. Hence the reason for WARRANTY VOID.

OK, first of all. ABSOLUTELY I buy cheaper tech and overclock it. Since when is overclocking bad? Don't you think you're on the wrong forum to make that point? This is OverclockersClub.com. Second, this is a VERY weak point coming from someone who just asked for help on learning to overclock. "Nice." If you're so concerned with voiding warranties, why are you asking us to help you overclock?

 

I have spent 25+ years in this industry. Comming from someone who doesn't work in it or lived it I would consider the bolder of statements.

Wait a minute here. You don't have clue #1 what I do, what I've done, and for how long I've done it. And for the record, you are absolutely wrong. Now I'm only 26, so yes, I don't have your 25+ years of "industry" experience, but I have a bachelor's in computer engineering with a minor in computer science, I have two years as a PC tech, four as server support, two in software design, and I've been building computers for myself and friends for over a decade.

 

If you're going to take shots at my credibility, at least do your homework first.

 

And how high are you going to clock that E6600? The QX6700 will sit stable at 3.4Ghz....do I need to be and Ace Overclocker to read?

Apparently, yes. If you think a 3.4Ghz OC on the quad will prove your point, then maybe some more reading wouldn't hurt. Plenty of E6600's are hitting 3.5 and higher on air. There's more than a few right here at OCC. I have not seen a quad clock that a duo clock can't beat yet.

 

Also, do a Google search on benchmarks then tell me what you find.

Done. [H] shows that the quad offers no gaming benefits over duo. This techspot review shows that the QX6700, X6800, and E6700 are all within a few FPS of each other, futher demonstrating that the extra two cores provide no gaming value. This hardwaresecrets review shows that the QX6700 never once beats the X6800, and that the QX6700, X6800, and E6700 all tend to hang in the same general region for game performance. This review from Nordic Hardware shows that at best, the QX6700 ties the X6800, and yet again shows the three chips all in the same general performance ballpark. And last but certainly not least, our own review here at OCC where the quad is beaten again.

 

Let's take a look at the conclusions for each of these reviews. Maybe that will shed some more light:

[H] - "If you are a gamer and never touch professional or desktop creation applications such at 3D modelers or video editing, there is currently no reason for you to waste the extra power to keep a Core 2 Extreme Quad Core QX6700 running in your system. We don

[kingdingeling]

I don't like V8's. I drive a focus

 

Nice car!

[TheRealOmegaMan]

At 26 years old....no computer science degrees worthy when I was in college...did I give away my age Anyway, I made no assumptions about you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. At 42 I am still interested in leaning. There should no age limit on that. But, I was 20 when I built and configured my first machine so cut me a little slack. No, I do not buy lesser parts...thats where we differ. Still, paying the most for something doesn't always mean better but in electronics..you get what you pay for. Oh, the Saleen is a dream.....Ford F150 is the reality.

 

Now, lets get back to Overclock talk ....

Edited April 16, 2007 by TheRealOmegaMan

[TheRealOmegaMan]

Interesting.....

Quad vs.Duo

Edited April 16, 2007 by TheRealOmegaMan

[kingdingeling]

I think it won't be until the end of '07 to '08 when we really see common programs and apps, as well as games, truly become multi-threaded.

 

Thats what we're saying!

 

While programs now don't really take advantage of quad-core cpu's, unless they are extremely multi-threaded, they will eventually.

 

How long is eventually? More like 3-4 years, he said himself, software is behind hardware by about 2 years.

 

Anyone that wants to make a future-proof computer that will last atleast 5-8 years, should invest in a quad-core, rather than a dual-core set up. I know i will soon.

 

5-8 years, holy crap that is a bold statement! No way can he predict what things will look like in 5, even less 8 years! We will probably have a quardo-octa-penta core or something by then as mainstream!

 

 

btw, that forum doesn't really look like a reputable source IMO

[Verran]

Interesting.....

Quad vs.Duo

Eh. Did you read the review that that guy linked to? I did.

 

It may as well have been in the list I listed above. It's the same data, yet again. The X6800 wins, the E6700 is second, QX6700 third, E6600 fourth. And did you notice how slim the margins were between the E6600 and the QX6700. $320 vs. $1000 and there's basically no difference in performance. I don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out which one's the better deal. And again they only got 3.4 out of it. E6600's are regularly beating that. But it seems to me that you're dead set on spending $1000 on a proc, and if that's the case, then maybe the quad is the right choice. If spending as much as possible on a PC makes you feel good, then go for it. I'd rather get the best bang for my buck. Unless the quad is going to give me three times the performance of an E6600, I don't see the reason to spend three times the price.

 

Besides, you said it yourself. Years in another industry translate to months in PCs. So why adopt early? Why buy a quad now when there's only one game that supports it? That's like buying the first blue-ray player when there's no movies. Sure it's great for bragging rights and it lets your friends know just how much money you really make, but it doesn't actually do you any good. And you know the prices will fall drastically once the support for it rises.

 

I'm quite confident that by the time the need for a quad arises, today's entry prices will look quite depressing.