Questions on multi cored intel processors.

I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme. Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is an ENORMOUS waste of money.
After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core. That lead to the question of what the difference between would be between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz core duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the clock speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and a price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it open to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:44:43 +0000, YOURSELF wrote:

I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm
interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as
possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme. Everything
pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and reading,
it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed out that
nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is an
ENORMOUS waste of money.
After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to
dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz core
duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the clock
speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and a
price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it open
to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable
upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine
with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the
aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or
two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.

The next generation of Core2 processors will be out in January or
February. The 45nm Core2s have larger caches, lower power consumption and
improved instruction per cycle ratios. Given that the new processors are
so close you should wait the extra month before building your new system.

Intel Core2 processors overclock very well and the new 45nm processors
look to be even better at that.

The Extreme processors are aimed at people with more money than sense.
They are never a good deal, one or two clock steps down from the extreme
processors are always much better deals. As I said earlier the Intel
processors overclock easily, I've been running my E6700 at 3GHz 24/7 for
the last 18 months using the stock Intel cooler. With a high performance
cooler like a Zalman or a Thermaltake it could easily run faster. Your
best bet would be to wait until the mainstream 45nm Core2s start to ship
and the second or third fastest one along with a high performance cooler.
The hardware websites are reporting over clock speeds of up to 4GHz witht
he best coolers. You shouldn't count on that but you should be able to
get between 3 and 3.5 on a 2.66MHz 45n Core2.

YOURSELF wrote:
Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and
reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed
out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is
an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Video encoding typically uses the quad core well, so if you do a lot of
ripping movies from DVD to Mpeg4(DivX, xvid, whatever) or downloading movies
and burning them to DVD, quad core is worth it.

Other than that, it might be worth it for "futureproofing"

dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz
core duo.

There's NO reason to buy the x6800 except for the unlocked multiplier; the
E6850 is faster. Unless you know of a place selling off X6800s cheaper than
the ~$275 or so that the E6850 costs...

From what you've said, I'd recommend the E6850. Good price, fast processor.
If you have a motherboard that won't take it, a new mobo(+4gb of memory)+
the E6850 itself will still be cheaper than the Q6700 (2.66ghz).

Alternatively, can you wait a few more months? I'm not sure what the latest
word is about when the cheaper Penryn (45nm Core 2) processors are coming
out - the high end quad already is - but they might be worth waiting for.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
posting domain | Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." (Groucho)

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:37:40 -0800, Nate Edel wrote:

YOURSELF wrote:
Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and
reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed
out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is
an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Video encoding typically uses the quad core well, so if you do a lot of
ripping movies from DVD to Mpeg4(DivX, xvid, whatever) or downloading
movies and burning them to DVD, quad core is worth it.

Other than that, it might be worth it for "futureproofing"

dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz
core duo.

There's NO reason to buy the x6800 except for the unlocked multiplier;
the E6850 is faster. Unless you know of a place selling off X6800s
cheaper than the ~$275 or so that the E6850 costs...

From what you've said, I'd recommend the E6850. Good price, fast
processor. If you have a motherboard that won't take it, a new mobo(+4gb
of memory)+ the E6850 itself will still be cheaper than the Q6700
(2.66ghz).

Alternatively, can you wait a few more months? I'm not sure what the
latest word is about when the cheaper Penryn (45nm Core 2) processors
are coming out - the high end quad already is - but they might be worth
waiting for.

The dual core Penryns should be out next month. Intel has decided to
delay the quad core Penryns a month or two because AMD can't ship their
Quad Core parts which gives Intel the luxury of a gradual ramp up on the
45nm process.

General Schvantzkopf wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:37:40 -0800, Nate Edel wrote:


YOURSELF wrote:

Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and
reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed
out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is
an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Video encoding typically uses the quad core well, so if you do a lot of
ripping movies from DVD to Mpeg4(DivX, xvid, whatever) or downloading
movies and burning them to DVD, quad core is worth it.

Other than that, it might be worth it for "futureproofing"


dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz
core duo.

There's NO reason to buy the x6800 except for the unlocked multiplier;
the E6850 is faster. Unless you know of a place selling off X6800s
cheaper than the ~$275 or so that the E6850 costs...

From what you've said, I'd recommend the E6850. Good price, fast
processor. If you have a motherboard that won't take it, a new mobo(+4gb
of memory)+ the E6850 itself will still be cheaper than the Q6700
(2.66ghz).

Alternatively, can you wait a few more months? I'm not sure what the
latest word is about when the cheaper Penryn (45nm Core 2) processors
are coming out - the high end quad already is - but they might be worth
waiting for.


The dual core Penryns should be out next month. Intel has decided to
delay the quad core Penryns a month or two because AMD can't ship their
Quad Core parts which gives Intel the luxury of a gradual ramp up on the
45nm process.

If Intel is going to set its schedule according to what AMD can or can't
do, progress might just come to a halt.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:32:32 -0600, CJT wrote:

General Schvantzkopf wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:37:40 -0800, Nate Edel wrote:


YOURSELF wrote:

Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and
reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has
pointed out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the
quad core is an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Video encoding typically uses the quad core well, so if you do a lot of
ripping movies from DVD to Mpeg4(DivX, xvid, whatever) or downloading
movies and burning them to DVD, quad core is worth it.

Other than that, it might be worth it for "futureproofing"


dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz
core duo.

There's NO reason to buy the x6800 except for the unlocked multiplier;
the E6850 is faster. Unless you know of a place selling off X6800s
cheaper than the ~$275 or so that the E6850 costs...

From what you've said, I'd recommend the E6850. Good price, fast
processor. If you have a motherboard that won't take it, a new
mobo(+4gb of memory)+ the E6850 itself will still be cheaper than the
Q6700 (2.66ghz).

Alternatively, can you wait a few more months? I'm not sure what the
latest word is about when the cheaper Penryn (45nm Core 2) processors
are coming out - the high end quad already is - but they might be worth
waiting for.


The dual core Penryns should be out next month. Intel has decided to
delay the quad core Penryns a month or two because AMD can't ship their
Quad Core parts which gives Intel the luxury of a gradual ramp up on
the 45nm process.

If Intel is going to set its schedule according to what AMD can or can't
do, progress might just come to a halt.

You've grasped the essence of capitalism, when companies have vigorous
competition they innovate, if they don't have competition they'll provide
the same product forever. AMD is so sick that Intel doesn't have to worry
about them. In fact it's in Intel's interest to give AMD some breathing
room so that the antitrust authorities in the US and Europe won't be able
to call Intel a monopoly.

YOURSELF wrote:
I'm looking to build a new gaming system. My thoughts are that I'm
interested in investing in a system that will last me as many years as
possible. I'm looking to upgrade from a P4 3.0 GHz processor.
Originally, I was interested in a 2.66 GHz quad core extreme.
Everything pointed to more = better. After a lot of looking around and
reading, it's not looking that way. A lot of what I've read has pointed
out that nothing utilizes the quad core well, and that the quad core is
an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Not so. you do get more for your money, so it's not a waste, just a
small gain in performance for a large gain in cost. Stock, or with a
good cooler and o/c it will outperform other CPUs with less cache on
most applications (not all). If that gives you an important performance
benefit it's not a waste of money, and even if it does it may not be
cost effective. If you can handle lots of threads go to multiple Xeons.

And if you are not doing the things which can use the extra cores, then
you are right that you don't benefit. But "doesn't help me" is not the
same as "worthless" in terms of use, there are a number of programs such
as rendering, video and sound editing, and similar which most definitely
will use all the threads, cores, and cycles you have.

After taking that into consideration, I thought it'd be a good idea to
dim my processor down some. I decided to go with a simple dual core.
That lead to the question of what the difference between would be
between the x6800 2.93 GHz dual core extreme and the e6700 2.66 Ghz
core duo. They've got the same fsb and cache size. Is it simply the
clock speed? If so, why is it classified as the "dual core extreme" and
a price difference of about $700.
I'll keep this short, too keep from rambling, and leave a lot of it
open to discussion. For the most part, I'm looking for a considerable
upgrade, and if the components are worth the money, then that's fine
with me. I'm interested in as many aspects as possible, especially the
aspects I've overlooked. I apologize if I'm bringing up an old topic or
two. I browsed over a lot of the topics and I didn't find my answer.


There are other choices, E series comes to mind. But if your application
can use threads, the Q6600 is really hard to beat, and it has all the 64
bit and virtualization features you might someday want.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.