Hi

The coming price drop on Intel CPUs is coming soon and as I am planning on building a new system I would like to understand it. So far I am going by the following outline which seems reasonable and reliable:



I'm looking at building a pretty high-end system that's a little future-proof with room for upgrades down the line. On the list I'm looking at the Q6600 and E6850 both priced similarly (whatever it will be in pounds I would appreciate information if anyone has it).

Obviously normally the quad-core would outstrip the dual-core as it can perform more tasks at the same time - this is my understanding. However in this case the E6850 has a higher clock speed and FSB but the Q6600 has 4 cores and a higher L2 cache.

There's something to do with DDR3 here as well I read somewhere and the Q6600 also doesnt have TXT (don't know what this is) so its a bit confusing. Can someone explain all this to me please, theoretically or direct me to a site with stats - all appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

The Million Dollar Question: Dual or Quad Core for the Same Price?

TXT is Intel's trusted execution technology. At the moment Intel is targeting it mainly at businesses. I is suppose to isolate separate execution environments to help protect the data they contain. It work in conjunction with the TPM.

Anyone got any confirmed details on what the price cuts were?

Well my understanding was that the price of the Q6600 was going to almost halve on the 22nd. Here in Australia that price got to almost half way, I just bought a Q6600 for $370, and it was originally $750. I would expect the same to be true where you live.

Ok so having read The Million Dollar Question posted by Mr Alpha the article boils down to this advice:



I'm looking to build a fairly high end rig capable of as much as possible and I have a few questions about this:

1. Firstly, in practical terms what exactly counts as video encoding and 3D rendering? Does watching videos and playing games in 3D environments count?
2. Overclocking the Q6600 to E6850 speeds - how hard is this to do (bearing in mind I've never overclocked before) and how detrimental would it be to the lifespan of the CPU?
3. With regards to future-proofing, is it likely we will see apps and games taking advantage of 4 cores anytime soon enough to make it worthwhile opting for it now?

1. No, video encoding is like if your a video editor for a movie and you have to render a 2 hour movie in less time. 3D rendering is for either making 3D movies or making (not playing) 3D games.
2. It should probably be done by someone who has experience if you've never done it before. If you do something wrong it could either not start or overload the CPU.
3. No, it's not likley. There are even now not a lot of games that take advantage of Dual-core, let alone quad core. You'll deffinatley get more performance out of the Dual-core.

Think of it this way, I high-end machine, is a high-end machine. If you get quad core, by the time it gets useful, 8-cores will be all the rage. It's close to impossible to avoid this at the rate technology is going now. You best bet is to get dual-core and it'll do just fine. The processor is always teh fasted thing in a computer and the least likley to need to be upgraded. My desktop is only single core Athlon (not even 64-bit) and only at 2.17GHz and it's absolutley fine for playing games like Battlefield 2142. (look at my profile for full specs). My point, dual core or quad core, it's still gunna be good. For what you want, you won't notice a difference and you'll be better of with dual core. Worst case scenario, you can upgrade it down the line.

Regards,
TheYoda

I'd actually like to butt in on question three. Crytek have already stated that their new game, Crysis, one of the most anticipated games of the year, will take advantage of multiple cores, as will Alan Wake, another awaited DX10 game. So yes, future games (in the next 6 months or so) will tak eadvantage of four cores, so those games, based on this information, will most probably perform better on a quad core than a dual.