1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

CPU for gaming rig, duo or quad?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Thomas Andersson, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. Hi!

    Looking at trying to build a new machine basically only for gaming (FPS and
    MMOs), is there any advantage in this scenario to go quad over duo? At first
    my plans was for a E44/4500, but it seems I can get a fairly cheap E6600
    from eBay which makes me think that might be a better choise (double cache
    and all). But how about Q6600? For a desktop machine doing very light word,
    excel, some homepage editing and mostly games, would this processor justify
    its higher price?

    TIA
    Thomas
     
    Thomas Andersson, Dec 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thomas Andersson

    Paul Guest

    Thomas Andersson wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > Looking at trying to build a new machine basically only for gaming (FPS and
    > MMOs), is there any advantage in this scenario to go quad over duo? At first
    > my plans was for a E44/4500, but it seems I can get a fairly cheap E6600
    > from eBay which makes me think that might be a better choise (double cache
    > and all). But how about Q6600? For a desktop machine doing very light word,
    > excel, some homepage editing and mostly games, would this processor justify
    > its higher price?
    >
    > TIA
    > Thomas


    In my mind, the justification for the Q6600 2.4Ghz quad (G0 stepping),
    is that it overclocks to 3GHz without too much trouble. It is the
    same price as a E6850 3GHz dual, but gives you quad cores. There
    are at least two steppings for Q6600, and G0 draws 10 watts less
    than the other one, and has a slightly better overclock.

    Right now, the main value is bragging rights, as even games that
    spawn multiple threads, are not capable of loading all cores
    equally.

    There are some multimedia applications that exhibit "perfect
    scaling", because all the threads have equal functions and
    equal workloads. Cinebench, for example, is a good one for
    that. So it is possible for multimedia programs to load things
    equally.

    In the case of games though, you wouldn't expect the threads
    to have equal functions (AI, rendering, physics), so there is
    no reason for all threads to load their core to 100%. Only one core
    will be 100%, and the other three are some lesser percentage
    loading, when in a game.

    If you only wanted to run the Q6600 at stock 2.4GHz, then
    I'd have a lot more trouble making the decision between
    it, and an E6850 dual core at 3GHz. The Q6600 can still beat
    it, but perhaps only in something like Cinebench. Running the
    Q6600 at 3GHz, makes the decision easier.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thomas Andersson

    Carl Guest

    And it will run at 3.0Ghz with just a fan, no need for fancy water cooling
    bollocks.
     
    Carl, Dec 4, 2007
    #3
  4. Thomas Andersson

    Paul Guest

    Carl wrote:
    > And it will run at 3.0Ghz with just a fan, no need for fancy water
    > cooling bollocks.


    Yes, the Q6600 G0 results I've been reading, suggest a virtual
    guarantee of 3GHz. As good as my old Celeron 300 going to 450 :)

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Thomas Andersson

    Per Nielsen Guest

    "Paul" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    news:fj397e$l58$...
    > Yes, the Q6600 G0 results I've been reading, suggest a virtual
    > guarantee of 3GHz. As good as my old Celeron 300 going to 450 :)


    Wasn't it 454?...Those were the times..50% overclock :) AFAIR I got at at
    514, but not that stable...
     
    Per Nielsen, Dec 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Thomas Andersson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Per Nielsen' wrote:
    | > Yes, the Q6600 G0 results I've been reading, suggest a virtual
    | > guarantee of 3GHz. As good as my old Celeron 300 going to 450 :)
    |
    | Wasn't it 454?...Those were the times..50% overclock :) AFAIR I got at at
    | 514, but not that stable...
    _____

    In days of yore, the limitation for a good Celeron 300a was the PCI bus
    speed. The IDE interface could begin to throw errors when the PCI bus speed
    was above 37 or 38 MHz. That works out to about 504 MHz with a FSB of 112
    MHz because there was no ability to lock the PCI bus frequency with the
    chipsets available when Celeron 300a first came out. They had no 133 MHz FSB
    with a 4:1 PCI divider capability. Consequently 504 MHz was about it for
    the Celeron 300a unless you did not use a IDE hard drive. Maybe a SCSI
    drive would have allowed a higher overclock B^)

    If I remember correctly, the Celeron 300a came out at about the same price
    in US dollars as the current price of the E4300. And the US dollar has
    inflated by what, maybe 50% since then?

    According to the invaluable Wikipedia, the Celeron 300a [Mendocino, 250 nm
    feature size, 300 MHz speed, 66 MHz FSB, 128 KByte L2 cache, 4.5x
    multiplier, 2.0 volt core, 19 Watt TDP] came out in August 1998.

    Does anyone have a Celeron 300a computing power comparison that could be
    extended to compare a Celeron 300a to a Core 2 Duo CPU?

    Phil Weldon

    "Per Nielsen" <> wrote in message
    news:47581bca$0$21932$...
    | "Paul" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    | news:fj397e$l58$...
    | > Yes, the Q6600 G0 results I've been reading, suggest a virtual
    | > guarantee of 3GHz. As good as my old Celeron 300 going to 450 :)
    |
    | Wasn't it 454?...Those were the times..50% overclock :) AFAIR I got at at
    | 514, but not that stable...
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Dec 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Thomas Andersson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh interweb Phil Weldon typed:
    > 'Per Nielsen' wrote:
    >>> Yes, the Q6600 G0 results I've been reading, suggest a virtual
    >>> guarantee of 3GHz. As good as my old Celeron 300 going to 450 :)

    >>
    >> Wasn't it 454?...Those were the times..50% overclock :) AFAIR I got
    >> at at 514, but not that stable...

    > _____
    >
    > In days of yore, the limitation for a good Celeron 300a was the PCI
    > bus speed. The IDE interface could begin to throw errors when the
    > PCI bus speed was above 37 or 38 MHz. That works out to about 504
    > MHz with a FSB of 112 MHz because there was no ability to lock the
    > PCI bus frequency with the chipsets available when Celeron 300a first
    > came out. They had no 133 MHz FSB with a 4:1 PCI divider capability.
    > Consequently 504 MHz was about it for the Celeron 300a unless you did
    > not use a IDE hard drive. Maybe a SCSI drive would have allowed a
    > higher overclock B^)
    >
    > If I remember correctly, the Celeron 300a came out at about the same
    > price in US dollars as the current price of the E4300. And the US
    > dollar has inflated by what, maybe 50% since then?
    >
    > According to the invaluable Wikipedia, the Celeron 300a [Mendocino,
    > 250 nm feature size, 300 MHz speed, 66 MHz FSB, 128 KByte L2 cache,
    > 4.5x multiplier, 2.0 volt core, 19 Watt TDP] came out in August 1998.
    >
    > Does anyone have a Celeron 300a computing power comparison that could
    > be extended to compare a Celeron 300a to a Core 2 Duo CPU?


    I've used these guys before:

    <http://www.cpu-world.com/index.html>

    This might help:

    <http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Celeron/Intel-Celeron%20300A-66.html>

    and:

    <http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core%202%20Duo%20E4300%20HH80557PG0332M%20(BX80557E4300).html>

    There aren't benchmarks for the E4300 listed but I'm sure someone here could
    oblige, maybe even upload them to that site?

    It's good that the info is there for the 300a though, I no longer have a
    working sample.
    --
    Cheers,

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 7, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    725
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  2. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    492
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  3. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    475
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
  4. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    427
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
  5. Brian Cryer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,072
Loading...

Share This Page