The Elders' House of Pain
Public Forum => Pc Help/Tweak Page => Topic started by: TE_Taylormade on March 19, 2008, 03:33:28 PM
-
I have both of these processors and cannot figure out which one I want to RMA back. I would like to hear pro's and con's of both from any of you guys who have them or know more about them than I do, which is not a hell of a lot. I did some research on Tom's hardware and noticed that the Core 2 duo has better benchmarks on most everything but still can't make my mind up. I have the Striker II board with 4 gb of ocz 800mhz ram and going to be running vista too. I am mainly looking for speed in applications and gaming, that is about it.. Thanks for your help.
Tmade.
-
One thing about it, there isnt many games out that use four cores. I do notice all of them in use sometimes when I'm multi tasking. The 6600 has been my first and really only multi core experience. I can say it works great and it's always nice to have a little more in reserve for future apps or hardware upgrades.
-
I have a E6850 and it smokes everything I play. Not may games are capable of using 4 cores but, as 1337 said, it may be useful in a multi-tasking environment, but thats if you have an OS that is capable of using it to it's full potential. The quad is great if you want to be ready for the future as well, but remember, they always improve, and a better, newer, more advanced quad may show up in the future (when everything can use it). Both are good and your good either way you go.
-
2 Decent Article and compasrisons on the two below:
http://forums.devshed.com/cpus-104/core-2-duo-e6850-vs-core-2-quad-q6600t-482974.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Intel-E6750-Q6600-MSI-Gigabyte,review-29731.html
Myself I'd go with the Intel Dual Core I usualy go with Intel's as I never have had an issue. Currently am still running a Dual core Prescott a couple of years old
Intel Pentium 4 570J, 3800 MHz (19 x 200)
Field Value
CPU Properties
CPU Type Intel Pentium 4 570J, 3800 MHz (19 x 200)
CPU Alias Prescott
CPU Stepping E0
Instruction Set x86, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
Original Clock 3800 MHz
Min / Max CPU Multiplier 14x / 19x
Engineering Sample No
L1 Trace Cache 12K Instructions
L1 Data Cache 16 KB
L2 Cache 1 MB (On-Die, ECC, ATC, Full-Speed)
Multi CPU
Motherboard ID DELL Dim XPSGEN3
CPU #0 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.80GHz, 3790 MHz
CPU #1 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.80GHz, 3790 MHz
CPU Manufacturer
Company Name Intel Corporation
Product Information http://www.intel.com/products/browse/processor.htm
CPU Utilization
CPU #1 / HTT Unit #1 0 %
CPU #1 / HTT Unit #2 0 %
-
For gaming the 6850 is better due to the faster FSB and usually higher clocks. Also it be a bit easier to over clock if you wanted to that is. I like the quad core because I run my games on the two cores that are not running system processes, does this help.... probably not.
If your going for pure speed and gaming go with the 6850.
If your video encoding, audio encoding, multi-tasking or other processor intensive take go with the Q6600. The only reason I have a quad core is because I would have been retarded to not buy it at the price that I bought it at.
Snyp
-
well this is how i can best simplify the issue...
core2due has 2 cores split. providing memory for each core on 2 channels so here is a break down.
2 cores 2g memory 1 meg per core of memory. good
quad core has 2 cores per channel shareing channel memory and if you had 2 g of memory it would only allow 512 of memory per core bad
so if you decide to go quad core plan on getting 8g of memory or you may not see an advantage over the core2duo.
as far as os seeing and using the quad to its fullest... welll you will only see the other processosers kick in when the load or thread on one core is taxes to off load to another... with only 2g you might see it kick if you have several things going on dual monitor cs and downloads and browser windows all going at the same time.
i have a old core2duo on 1066 4 gig ram and my cores never go over 50% nforce570 split a
now my amd x2 4000 2000 mhz bus with 4g 800mhz ram both core's hover at 33% nforce 405
summarry_______________________________________________________
quad core is a good now if you can get enough ram and a good futre investment... open the pocket book for 8g ram.
core2duo 2-4 gig and your in a sweet spot.
Walmart Security
-
Oh.... here is another good point the core2duo only has to divide its cache on 2 cores not 4 so if you quadcore cache is divied into 4 witch is another factor on top of system board memory shared....
get 8 g to run quad good
4 gid for core2duo
if you pocket book can rock the 8g memory "i say go quad...."
if you want to stay cheep go core2duo with 4 g
Walmart Security
-
I'm gonna rock 8gigs of ram I think and stay with Quad Core... Not sure yet.
-
I'm going to get another 4 gigs. Already got 4 now- and this stuff is priced right too...
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3404049&CatId=3412 (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3404049&CatId=3412)
(http://www.ocztechnology.com/images/products/memory/b/OCZ_sliready_xtc.jpg)
-
same ram that I have leet
-
well this is how i can best simplify the issue...
core2due has 2 cores split. providing memory for each core on 2 channels so here is a break down.
2 cores 2g memory 1 meg per core of memory. good
quad core has 2 cores per channel shareing channel memory and if you had 2 g of memory it would only allow 512 of memory per core bad
so if you decide to go quad core plan on getting 8g of memory or you may not see an advantage over the core2duo.
as far as os seeing and using the quad to its fullest... welll you will only see the other processosers kick in when the load or thread on one core is taxes to off load to another... with only 2g you might see it kick if you have several things going on dual monitor cs and downloads and browser windows all going at the same time.
i have a old core2duo on 1066 4 gig ram and my cores never go over 50% nforce570 split a
now my amd x2 4000 2000 mhz bus with 4g 800mhz ram both core's hover at 33% nforce 405
summarry_______________________________________________________
quad core is a good now if you can get enough ram and a good futre investment... open the pocket book for 8g ram.
core2duo 2-4 gig and your in a sweet spot.
Walmart Security
Where did you get the above information from?
Oh.... here is another good point the core2duo only has to divide its cache on 2 cores not 4 so if you quadcore cache is divied into 4
The Q6600 has 8 MB of L2 cache roughly speaking 2MB per core. The 6850 has 4MB of L2 cache roughly speaking 2MB per core. FYI
-
Sorry i was looking at the wrong quadcore.....
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor - Retail
I'm on the same page now.
-
That's not that big of a deal :-P
Where'd you get your other information from? I've never heard of that and it sounds like bs to me. That is not how RAM works. It's almost as erroneous as saying "well i have a 2.4GHz dual core so i have a 4.8GHz computer."
-
please check here for direct comparison results
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=885492,890642&familyID=1&culture=en-US
here is processer specs and how it uses memory.
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/31559321.pdf
here you go snyper133 i can refrence specific point in the manuel to corespond with my generalzation....
-
I knew about the processors themselves, as far as the memory addressing to each core I would like to see that reference as I have not found it my first time through the document you linked which is the Errata for some of the quad core and extreme edition processors.
-
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CORRECT ME ON THAT
-
What is that supposed to mean?
I asked for a reference to how memory is addressed as I did not see it in the document you linked you said previously that you had a page number.
-
sorry... that previous message was not for you...
her is so helpful links that has some memory monitors and cpu monitors for you
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Best/cpu-monitor-xp.html
-
HERE IS A TID BIT TO HELP>>>
As X86 architecture is now fully in its 64-bit phase and who would've thought of it in 1980, looking at the clumsy 808, it can address lotsa memory if given a chance to - surely that's good for supercomputing, large databases, future super-duper games or 3-D simulations.
The current dual-CPU Xeon64 chipsets provide for four to eight slots of RAM, which, if using the 2GB registered DDR2-400 DIMMs, provide you with up to16 GB on-board memory - not bad for a start. For dual Opterons, same story - if using 4GB registered DDR DIMMs, you get 32 GB RAM right now. On quad-Opterons and quad-CPU Potomac XeonMP systems, there are usually four channels of memory, each with four DIMM sockets, unless some kind of bridging is used to enhance the memory capacity at the cost of higher latency, so the capacity doubles.
But what if we need even more memory, yet no more CPUs? After all, many large computing jobs may be happy with certain fixed computing power, but as large as possible RAM - database searches, proteonics, high-resoluting weather models or computational chemistry come to mind.
On Xeons, well, we could either make memory controllers with more channels, use bridges translating one memory channels into two, or wait for FB-DIMM generation with more channels anyway.
What about Opterons? The integrated dual-channel memory controller limits you to four DIMMs if using DDR400 timing, or up to eight DIMMs with DDR333 / 266 timing (see HP Proliant DL585). This way, a four way Opteron could have 64 GB of DDR400 or 128 GB of slower DDR memory on board. Then?
Well, each 8xx series Opteron CPU has three HT channels (currently supported at 1 GHz for 8 GB/s data rate per channel). In a quad-CPU configuration, let's say two channels go to the two neighbouring CPUs, so one channel is free on each CPU. Let's say then that one channel on CPU 0 and one channel on CPU 2 go to the I/O through respective PCI-X and PCI-E HT bridges and tunnels (sounds as if we're talking about a highway). This gives us 16 GB/s of total I/O bandwidth, more than enough for any current dual-GPU workstation, server or even 'distributed shared memory' tight cluster wit, say, multiple Quadrics rails.
So, one channel on CPU 1 and another on CPU 3 stay free - 16 GB/s of unused bandwidth. What if those 2 channels could connect to a large daughtercard (maybe on a dual-channel HTX slot format) with a nice memory controller circuitry that takes in those 2 HT channels on one side, and provides an extra eight 64-bit buses of DDR2-400 memory, for instance? That gives us an extra 32 DIMM sockets - with 4 GB DIMMs, it is an extra 128 GB RAM, and if using bridges/translators, you could further double the number of channels and DIMMs, to a total of 256 GB extra RAM, on top of the usual on-board memory.
Now, this memory would naturally have higher access latency for the on-board CPUs compared to their own RAM (probably an extra ~200 ns), but the bandwidth would be about the same, in fact two CPUs could access such RAM bank in parallel at full HT speed without contention due to so many channels. If insisting on latency reduction, a local SRAM cache of say 64 to 128 MB could be optionally used to face the two HT channels.
Any of the four CPUs on-board would need a maximum of 2 HT hops to reach the memory controller on the daughtercard, so, in an optimised design, the speed penalty would be low enough to treat this extra memory as a linear extension of main RAM, without the NUMA-ish "near" and "far" memory tricks required. An optimised quad-socket (up to 8 CPU cores) Opteron board with good cooling could fit this daughtercard on top of the motherboard, and still have the whole thing comfortably within a 3U chasis.
In the near future, with new Opteron sockets, and more & faster HT 2.0 channels (after all, AMD could easily put up to 6 HT channels on a next-generation high-end Opterons for greater SMP, I/O and memory scaling), this approach would make even more sense.
And for now, just imagine, 192 GB RAM with very respectable bandwidth in a standard 3U quad-CPU box! A great deal for memory-intensive HPC or database clusters, and hey, this much RAM will probably be enough even for the near-future 64-bit MS Office too, no matter how bloated that one is expected to be... ยต
were still on 2 channel MB so ram addressing is split into halfs......
the quad will have 2 channel with 4 threads
each cpu will grab memory from the shared channel..
if you have 2g on a 2 channel board...
2 cpu will have to share addressing from 1 g or ram
If the cpu is on a 4 channel board the will not have to share
I think there is a diagram and it will show the 1X00000000 addressing and the assignments....
its going to be eaisr than writing a book. and will show for 2 and 4 channel...
but pay attention to this paragraph
The current dual-CPU Xeon64 chipsets provide for four to eight slots of RAM, which, if using the 2GB registered DDR2-400 DIMMs, provide you with up to16 GB on-board memory - not bad for a start. For dual Opterons, same story - if using 4GB registered DDR DIMMs, you get 32 GB RAM right now. On quad-Opterons and quad-CPU Potomac XeonMP systems, there are usually four channels of memory, each with four DIMM sockets, unless some kind of bridging is used to enhance the memory capacity at the cost of higher latency, so the capacity doubles.
so i can show you this in a graph....
Walmart Security
-
I didn't see anything in what you posted about each core only having access to 1/4th of the memory. That's just not true.
Taylormade, you don't need 8GB of RAM to use the quad core effectively.
-
look... i dont want to argue. just discuss.. if you know how it complete works then tell me how. this is the information why i have came to my conclsion... any anyone will tell you that there is a signifagant increase using 8 gig on a quad... Let me know how it works guy's I would like to know if i'm wrong...
Thanks,
Walmart Security
-
Right now, isnt visat ultimate 64 the only OS that can handle 8gb of memory? and it doesnt even show a big increase in performance. I was always under teh imprression that it was the OS that handled the RAM, and if it could not handle more than 4gb or whatever, it would be useless to have 8gb, even if it is a quad core. I didnt know that the RAM had a direct effect on the processor. Its Random Access memory, so wouldn;t that just be for the OS and all the programs you run?
Im so confused! :dontknow: :?
-
XP 64bit can handle 8GB of ram also. But XP 64bit is a piece of trash that most companies will not even develop for.
Then you get into the server side OS's and even the 32bit versions can handle more then 4GB of ram.
-
I don't think 32 bit OS's can handle that much VM. My XP Pro will only show up 2.8gigs with 4 gigs installed. I have also heard this from many other people as well as other forums/threads. I guess Vista 32 might but i know for a fact xp 32 bit cannot.
-
VIP
When talking about 32bit OS's please look again and see that I said Server OS's. The Server side is alot different then the desktop side.
I have worked with the Server OS's for years and they can handle much more memory then a desktop OS.
Here is a reference for you to check out the differences.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
-
whoops didn't see the server reference, i thought we were talking about something that taylor could use since he started the thread asking about procs and memory. my bad