Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Ed Cregger" <ecregger bellsouff.net> wrote:
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....
>>
>> You are just a troll.
>
>
> --------------
>
>
> And you are being obnoxious.
So you have an opinion, your mother would be proud.
Ludicrous statements require citations. Repeating the same nonsense
over and over is just a troll IMO.
At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
must be overclock by 50%. That means you will need an aftermarket
cooler, it's not just the price difference between the two chips.
Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
overclocking. I'll wait until the >3GH quad core CPUs or octal core
CPUs are reasonably priced, and that probably won't be very long as
AMD gets its act together.
>
> Ed Cregger
>
>
>
>
> Path: flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!pr odigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!b igfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news. bellsouth.net!bignews6.bellsouth.net.POSTED!baefb1 e5!not-for-mail
> From: "Ed Cregger" <ecregger bellsouff.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <IJISj.2004$J16.1469 newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> <RL-dnWpMd7_I74bVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d comcast.com> <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <IrMSj.8220$iK6.6256 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYZg2rYICYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <nPMSj.8227$iK6.1041 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> Lines: 18
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Message-ID: <oSMSj.95763$Er2.79730 bignews6.bellsouth.net>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse bellsouth.net
> X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
> X-Trace: ofjmidbaofeaohdodbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboek pmaghclecmmfdopohemacbphcocjhaifeckep***ppmljikiaf lniapplgnlhbbkojilnahjifhnncnonldchemcckijbdcjjcpe bhhghhpmli
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 18:47:48 EDT
> Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:48:16 -0400
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505805
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 18:48:20 EDT (flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com)
>
>
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:fESSj.749$17.14@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger bellsouff.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>
>>> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....
>>>
>>> You are just a troll.
>>
>>
>> --------------
>>
>>
>> And you are being obnoxious.
>
> So you have an opinion, your mother would be proud.
>
> Ludicrous statements require citations. Repeating the same nonsense
> over and over is just a troll IMO.
>
> .
> Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
> overclocking.
Cite your sources....
I'm 39 years old and I overclock. There is nothing wrong with getting some
extra performance out of your money.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:h1%Sj.179738$nr1.73073@newsfe13.phx...
>
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fESSj.749$17.14@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger bellsouff.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>>>> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....
>>>>
>>>> You are just a troll.
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>>
>>> And you are being obnoxious.
>>
>> So you have an opinion, your mother would be proud.
>>
>> Ludicrous statements require citations. Repeating the same nonsense
>> over and over is just a troll IMO.
>>
>> .
>> Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
>> overclocking.
>
> Cite your sources....
> I'm 39 years old and I overclock. There is nothing wrong with getting some
> extra performance out of your money.
>
Add 20yrs to that.......:-).... I have a watercooled Q6600 running easily at
3.3ghz and I am sure it will do more. Many more folks overclock now than
just a few years ago because it has become so easy to do. This is a
HOMEBUILT group and most people here have a fair working knowledge of a PC
and overclocking can give a nice (free) increase in performance especially
with Intel's offerings. General discussion of overclocking is well within
topic here and more in-depth overclocking discussions can be found a
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600
> in practically every current application and benchmark.
It all depends upon which software *you* run. I had a dual core
E6400 previously, and now have a Q6600. The E6400 was
overclocked to 3.2 GHz at stock voltage and was 100% stable.
The Q6600 is overclocked to 3 GHz with a voltage increase of 0.1 volts
and is 100% stable. I would demand no less. Both required aftermarket
cooling. For the types of applications and games I run, I appreciate the
occasional 50% better performance of the Q6600.
Intel designs its cooling solutions for a percentage of maximum CPU
usage. That means that for extended full power usage, the stock
cooling system may be inadequate for some processors. http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html
Stock cooling is about at its limit with the 3 GHz E6850 for extended full
power usage. For the higher speed 65 nM quad core CPUs, I am certain
the limit would be exceeded, resulting in CPU throttling to control heat. I
find fault with stock cooling for both the push-pin mounting system and
the noisy high speed fan. I've put enough systems together and stress
tested them to have this opinion. I like to replace the push-pin mounting
system with these, which is secure and doesn't have a tendency to flex
the motherboard: http://www.heatsinkfactory.com/therm...t-p-16470.html
> For superior speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the
> Q6600 must be overclock by 50%. That means you will need an
> aftermarket cooler, it's not just the price difference between the two chips.
100% stable is just that. Significant risk of errors is putting together
a stock system and running it at stock speed and not knowing where
exactly that limit of stability is. You could be sitting right on the edge
and not even know it. Your memory could be at it's limit. Your
motherboard could be undervolting or your voltage could fluctuate wildly
as power demands change. As for the Q6600 at 3 GHz, yes, aftermarket
cooling is required for extended full power usage. Mine just happens
to also be quieter than the stock cooler.
> Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
> overclocking.
This really has nothing about being grown-up. It's a choice we have
each made based upon different perceptions of the same reality.
While I have made a significant investment of time to insure stability, I
would do the with a stock system.
> I'll wait until the >3GH quad core CPUs or octal core CPUs are
> reasonably priced, and that probably won't be very long as AMD gets
> its act together.
I think you are putting too much significance on three gigahertz, perhaps
comparing clock speed to what you have now. My wife's XP system has an
E4500 at stock 2.2 GHz speed with 2 GB DDR2 and integrated graphics.
In "normal use," which I define as not 3D gaming and not video editing, I
can't tell the difference in speed. Even her most demanding Flash based
Webkinz games play smoothly.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Ed Medlin" <ed edmedlin.com> wrote:
....
> Add 20yrs to that.......:-)....
Age means squat. The big test is whether I can keep up with new
technology kids are skillfully using.
> I have a watercooled Q6600 running easily at 3.3ghz
Exactly. You didn't want the ****ing contest to end, but you were
unable to approach the subject like a grown-up.
> and I am sure it will do more. Many more folks overclock now than
> just a few years ago because it has become so easy to do. This is
> a HOMEBUILT group and most people here have a fair working
> knowledge of a PC
Having knowledge of a PC and overclocking are two different things.
> and overclocking can give a nice (free) increase in performance
Discussing that with someone who completely ignores the fact he paid
for an aftermarket cooling device (right after he mentioned it), is
useless.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Fishface" <invalid ddress.ok?> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600
>> in practically every current application and benchmark.
>
> It all depends upon which software *you* run.
Something got lost in the translation. My argument is that the vast
majority of users don't need better than a E6850. Search results on
the Internet comparing the E6850 to the Q6600 make that perfectly
clear.
Supply and demand is the reason a Q6600 is only $30 more than a
E6850 at Newegg.
> The Q6600 is overclocked to 3 GHz with a voltage increase of 0.1
> volts and is 100% stable. I would demand no less.
Demanding and noticing errors are two different things. It really
depends on your applications and how important they are. If I were a
scientist running critical applications, I would follow Intel
guidelines. What you do is of course up to you since it's probably
not going to impact anybody else except maybe someone you play
online.
> Both required aftermarket cooling.
And you would add that to the cost of the CPU. I enjoy using the
included free heatsink and fan.
> For the types of applications and games I run, I appreciate the
> occasional 50% better performance of the Q6600.
According to everything I've seen on the Internet, a E6850 runs
high-end games well.
But, if you're so interested in performance, buy a QX9775.
All straw men aside. Again, my argument is that the vast majority of
users don't need more than a E6850 even if it weren't faster than a
Q6600.
>> For superior speed, probably at a significant risk of greater
>> errors, the Q6600 must be overclock by 50%. That means you will
>> need an aftermarket cooler, it's not just the price difference
>> between the two chips.
>
> 100% stable is just that. Significant risk of errors is putting
> together a stock system and running it at stock speed and not
> knowing where exactly that limit of stability is.
Right. Another ludicrous argument from another silly overclocker.
Wasted my time. Uhg. You won. Nice feint.
> You could be sitting right on the edge and not even know it.
Yeah, I think you're on the edge, but nobody cares and it doesn't
matter.
Have fun.
>
>
>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclo ne1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne t!trndny08.POSTED!12a0b661!not-for-mail
> From: "Fishface" <invalid ddress.ok?>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <IJISj.2004$J16.1469 newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> <RL-dnWpMd7_I74bVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d comcast.com> <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <IrMSj.8220$iK6.6256 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYZg2rYICYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <nPMSj.8227$iK6.1041 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <oSMSj.95763$Er2.79730 bignews6.bellsouth.net> <fESSj.749$17.14 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> Lines: 61
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Message-ID: <0e0Tj.815$k11.575 trndny08>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 16:17:00 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.117.254.139
> X-Complaints-To: abuse verizon.net
> X-Trace: trndny08 1209831420 71.117.254.139 (Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:00 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:00 EDT
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505843
> X-Received-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:01 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
> practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
> speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
> must be overclock by 50%.
Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz as
the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see the
Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850? And before you answer, remember,
both are Conroe cores and both have 9x multipliers! This is not
difficult math!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
class_a wrote:
> Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
> considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz
> as the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see
> the Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
> overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850? And before you answer,
> remember, both are Conroe cores and both have 9x multipliers! This
> is not difficult math!
Well, how about 25% then! Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here.
His brain is just wired wrong or something. I've got four cores at 97%
encoding video right now. Even if I de-clocked it by 25% it's still 50%
faster-- if it weren't for all those ****ed hidden, undetectable errors,
that is!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
>> practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
>> speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
>> must be overclock by 50%.
>
> Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
> considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz as
> the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see the
> Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
> overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850?
Only in a vacuum.
The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their stock coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If you're interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler point is reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.
> And before you answer, remember, both are Conroe cores and both
> have 9x multipliers! This is not difficult math!
Are you spitting on your monitor or drooling while typing that stuff?
>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c om!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com! news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 19:33:10 -0500
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 20:33:10 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <IJISj.2004$J16.1469 newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> <RL-dnWpMd7_I74bVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d comcast.com> <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <IrMSj.8220$iK6.6256 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <OsadnYZg2rYICYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com> <nPMSj.8227$iK6.1041 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <oSMSj.95763$Er2.79730 bignews6.bellsouth.net> <fESSj.749$17.14 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
> In-Reply-To: <fESSj.749$17.14 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <zvmdnbD_f87bmYDVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 15
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-cyBErJ2bBv3eVcUJH9dWvIJHRu4+8yFCVpuXaVB5Yr7KwqwZB+ AbJMFKwhsbMeGGINsMTBcWy8YsZ13!6k9dBY8LeFBtIe1N8Fj8 PqKQjv0Kz23Z2bL/tB5s9aHneHvLJHP0Q4anakBjdR4kIgL9zuCYfU3v!REY/BPSMtESbnnVpE6krFcTZb2L6
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 2367
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505856
> X-Received-Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 20:33:10 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Fishface" <invalid ddress.ok?> wrote:
> Well, how about 25% then! Anyway, we're beating a dead horse
> here. His brain is just wired wrong or something. I've got four
> cores at 97% encoding video right now. Even if I de-clocked it by
> 25% it's still 50% faster-- if it weren't for all those ****ed
> hidden, undetectable errors, that is!
Your writing resembles someone who spits and drools when he talks.
So does your rhetoric.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core? 
Linear Mode
