icarus

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

So I was reading in toms hard***.com, and I found out that the processor I was looking at basically sucks. I was looking at the quad core Q6600, and they overclocked a dual core and it beat the hell out of it... Im looking at the new 45nm E8400 and I was wondering if it could be overclocked to the same point, I have heard that it can but do you guys think overclocked it would beat the quad core 6600? finally is there anything special you have to do with the new 45nm technology?


Open for discussion.


Thanks

Bigeme

As far as I know the size of the transitors doesn't affect end user at all. You use less power and supposedly generate less heat.

I have a Q6700[edit: wrote Q6600] and I love it. I would imagine that it beats the pants off of a dual core. The biggest thing I have noticed about multi core processors is the ability to multitask. My laptop has a dual core and it will slow if I open enough applications, but with my quad core I haven't seen any slowdown no matter what I have run. For instance, I once ran Half-life 2 episode two with max settings, had outlook open, Azureus (bittorrent client) open, and was running a virus scan, and had no noticeable performance drop in my game. As far as raw speed goes though, I don't below most applications are capable of utilizing all the cores simultaneously so that speed does matter for that, but it might change in the future.

On another note, the cpu usage gauge on vista never gets above 50% no matter how much I try to use it (I'm assuming it goes above with more graphics intensive programs) so I thought I'd get folding@home or Seti to use some of my extra processing power, but they made the computer virtually unusable even though it only showed 100% utilization of core2. This was a few months ago and maybe it was a vista thing or has been resolved with those programs. I didn't really look into it.

Sorry for the rambling. Bottom line - I love the quadcore. Although the hardware on the laptop isn't quite up to par with the desktop, the slow down of multitasking is much more noticeable even from say using outlook, firefox and say mp3player at once.

icarus

I know that the quad core would be faster without the overclocking, but when they overclocked the 6600 they could barely get it up to 3.3ghz not even really safely, where as the dual core ran less hot and overclocked up to like 3.6 and that wasnt even the new 45nm 8400

icarus

I know that the quad core would be faster without the overclocking, but when they overclocked the 6600 they could barely get it up to 3.3ghz not even really safely, where as the dual core ran less hot and overclocked up to like 3.6 and that wasnt even the new 45nm 8400