[Munkey Boy]

Considering whether to get either a dual core E6850 which has a quoted clock speed of 3GHz, or a quad core Q6600 quoted at 2.4GHz? (Both are about £160)

I'll be video editing 1080i material for burning to Bluray, streaming video and music to a 360 & PS3, and playing games (would be nice to have a go at Crysis and Spore this year).

[Naqv]

Simple answer, quad core, especially over the E6850, if it is the E8400, then that would be a different matter.

The Q6600 G0 should do 3GHz on DEFAULT VOLTAGE anyway. Just raise FSB.
I don't think anyone should touch dual core now, unless they are half the price of a quad and they have serious money issues.

[Munkey Boy]

Are you saying the E8400 (which is available for £140) would be a better choice than either then? (Sorry I'm not the most knowledgeable on these matters)

[Naqv]

Tough choice.
The E8400 is:
-based on 45nm, so theoretically should be cooler and use less power.
-supports SSE4 which greatly increase encoding performance (however, only for software that support it, which is none that I know of, BUT will within the next year I reckon)
-1333FSB

Q6600
-based on 65nm, but the G0 version is energy efficient.
-1066 FSB I think.

Basically go for the Quad core Q6600 (as it is a QUAD core processor.) , but make sure it is the G0 version.
OR wait for the Q9450, which is basically a Quad core of the E8400 (2 x E8400 processors). It is priced at £218 from scan computers (pre-order which is what I have done).

To tell you the truth, you won't notice the difference between the Q9450 and Q6600, so I would go for the Q6600.

You will be happy with it for a couple of years.

Get 1x Q6600 GO version, stick it in your motherboard, stick the heatsink/fan on, switch computer on, go to BIOS, find section for FSB, change to 350 (for 2.8GHz) or 375 if you feel adventurous (for 3.0GHz) and volla, you have a 3GHz Quad core processor out of the box.

[Munkey Boy]

Much appreciated Naqv, sounds like the quad 6600 is the way I'll go. Reckon I'll get a proper heatsink/fan and overclock as you suggest also.

[DrugstoreCowboy]

If it was just gaming I'd suggest the E8400 too, especially as you are happy to overclock, if you are not desperate for the CPU you could wait for the Yorkfield Q9650.

Can't really go wrong with Q6600 though.

[Razor]

My vote is for quad core. Overclock the quad and watch it fly.

[Croatoan]

The Q6600 is still the pick of the moment.
The yorkies are due any time soon, the 9650 is going to be a stupid price.

the Q6600 will hit 3ghz without much fettling on a sub £15 arctic cooler.

Again it depends on how fast you want to encode. Yes you could buy a 3ghz quad goliath but if its only 25% faster?

If if takes 1hr 15mins instead of 1hr is it worth £160 vs £600

I'd suggest not.

Whether you'll get better encoding performance from a wolfdale vs a quad is debatable today.

No software at present uses sse4, few use all four cores of a quad efficiently.

Cheap quad power today

[wormvortex]

for video editing, defiantly the quad as video editing programs use all 4cores so it will be alot quicker and your be able to use the PC to do pretty much everything else why it runs.

[insomniak123]

just to throw a different viewpoint in, I went from a Q6600 to an E8400 when they were released - I much prefer the E8400. My Q6600 was an original and therefore didn't OC at all so I had 4 cores @ 2.4Ghz = 9.6

my new E8400 OCs to 3.6Ghz with ease, stable as a rock, so I've got 7.2Ghz - but it's 7.2Ghz that I can nearly always utilise. Finding stuff that makes use of 4 cores is like a needle in a haystack at the minute, and as far as I'm concerned, not worth it

Plus! - the E8400 has more cache = faster processing

I've noticed the difference in gaming is outstanding

As far as video encoding goes, I'm happy enough with it. The only one's I do now involve re-encodes of DVD quality MPEG2s, and I usually hit around 250fps. Not too shabby. Blu-Ray style VC1's and the like, I can get around 60fps with, not blisteringly outstanding and somewhat untested ground though, but I'd say that isn't too bad and definately acceptable

And I can play Crysis better now too

E8400 gets my vote

[jetinder]

Originally Posted by wormvortex

for video editing, defiantly the quad as video editing programs use all 4cores so it will be alot quicker and your be able to use the PC to do pretty much everything else why it runs.

Not all video editting programs do that, only ones written to use 4 cores do that.

I have Magix Movie Edit Pro 2005 (that was written in 2004 when Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon 3200 XP single core CPUs where considered the best) so its designed to use single core CPUs.

I'm very very happy with it but converting VHS to DVD can take up to 3 days non stop on my AMD Athlon 2500 XP + 1gb DDR ram, so i've been forced to upgrade to an Intel E6600 + 2gb of PC6400 ram + Asus P5KC motherboard (which can take all 1333 FSB and 45nm CPUs).

Ok i know its not a Q6600 quad core but i got a 2nd hand E6600 for £74 in the shops a new E6600 costs £154. I wanted to get a Q6600 but EVERY time i bid on e-bay for 2nd hand one prices where pushed to new Q6600 levels + postage.

So i gave up and got the E6600, i read a lot of reviews on it and they all say its a very powerful core 2 duo CPU so i hope when ever i build my new PC the E6600 will do a good job of VHS to DVD converstion.

With the Asus P5KC motherboard i'll still be able to go Quad core as and when the prices drop...........

New Q6600s cost as much new E6600s, i couldnt afford £150-£180 cpu, i cant justify the cost of it when i know prices of new always drop.

[Miss Chief]

Have to say, although you don't get 2x the core speed I can't fault my E8400 at all. It's newer tech than the Q6600 and cheaper too. When Quad cores are even less common than dual core CPu's most software will utilise dual core before Quad core. E8400 gets my vote too.

[Munkey Boy]

I think we're getting to the crux of my original question now: it's all well and good having 4 cores, but what if the software doesn't use them?

Does the operating system play a role in this? Should you be running Vista 64 as opposed to 32? (Does that make any difference in core use?) Which video editing programs do take advantage of the extra cores (if any)? I was thinking of Vegas Studio or Pinnacle 11...

[insomniak123]

Vista 64 will just let you utilise more RAM, (>3.5Gb) again this may be beneficial to you as you edit large videos, but will make no difference to the number of cores you can use

The software itself must be coded to run on multiple cores, if it's not, you'll find a quicker dual core will be much much more beneficial (as it's only gonig to use one, much faster core)


My opinion is that once quad cores become the norm and most apps can take advantage of them, this current batch of Q6600's and the like will be considered obsolete and be much to slow anyway. That's why I own an E8400

[Croatoan]

The other big draw of quads is that in my case, its not so much that app uses all four cores.

It more to do with what I can actually do with the system when a number of applications are running.

[booyaka]

simple answer from me

Quad core all the way.

I can play COD4 online, be burning a dvd in the background and also be Folding@home all at the same time with zero slowdown or stuttering.

Bang for buck the quad core is the way forward.

[wormvortex]

you could probably manage that on a dual core

[Brausch]

This review doesn't cover the exact models your looking at but the speed comparisons between dual and quad may prove useful http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

[xSequentialx]

for what u need ur comp for i would also go quad core. like others have stated get the q6600 OEM go version and get decent cooler and overclock it.

i personally wouldn’t bother waiting for the new 45nm quad cores (q2 2008) they will be cooler and u should be able to get a higher overclock from them but will warrant additional £50 or so.

also with nehalem round the corner giving u greater choice of either 2, 4, 6 or 8 core variants it maybe worth considering getting something cheap like a E2140 and overclock it until they arrive (Q4 2008, Q1 2009). (nehalem will also require new mobo as different sockets)

[Munkey Boy]

Sounds like there's pros and cons either way, but I'm tempted to feel the quad-core would give me more future proofing as more software will become available that takes advantage of multi-core CPUs - I can't afford to upgrade that often (it's been about 3 years since my last major overhaul), so I'm thinking the quad is the way to go.

[Flugel Hound]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread guys, but I'm here now I have a Q6600 running at 2.7 Ghz via a little up on the FSB. However it isn't really fast enough for my editing application. It often maxes out at 25% for 30" when opening complex programmes (the telly type not software programs) and is a bit slower rendering than the very latest top end kit that I use elsewhere. So basically time for an upgrade. Also, rarely does my main (and latest vers) editing app use more than one core.

I had issues overclocking once that entailed re-installing OS as I dont really know what I am doing, and would rather be editing really!

At the back of my mind is that I currently have a 1066Mhz bus device and that I should get a 1333Mhz bus device so as info flows through my PC quicker (as I think of it ). My RAM can take it...

So I am looking at 'downgrading' to an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16GHz) Socket 775 Wolfdale 1333FSB and could push this maybe to 3.5Ghz with a simple 'up' on the FSB. Losing the 'spare' two cores that are rarely used hardly seems an issue?

What do you think?

Cheers

D

Spec: XP SP2, Asus P5K-E Mobo, Q6600 Dual Quad Core @ 2.7Ghz (3.0 Ghz if I'm up against it!), 4Gb 800Mhz RAM Dual channel, 4 x 500Gb SATA Stripe O pairs, Quadro FX 1500 GFX, Soundblaster Audigy, Avid Mojo SDi.

[jetinder]

It depends on what application you're using to render video.

A lot of my friends have Q6600s at 2.4ghz and all 4 cores are used a lot most times they up to 90%-95% on each core when working hard.

If your application isnt designed to use multi cores efficiently, you can get the most powerful cpu in the world. Your application still won't feel as fast as one which is designed for multi core use or designed to use multi cores more efficiently.

2.7ghz -3.0ghz on a Q6600 isn't that fast (but it can still beat ANY AMD phenom II ), push overclock it to 3.4ghz. In the BIOS make sure the memory is set to your ram timings and then see what happens.

You have nothing to loose.

Last resort the Q9550 or 9650 are much faster than the Q6600 so you could try them.

[Flugel Hound]

Thanks mate. I THINK i upped the CPU voltage too high last time necessitating an OS install and I just cant be faffing with a PC that puts programmes together and risk hurting it mid project.

I use Avid, which is just starting to make some use of more than one core. I bought a multicore processor as the 'new' version 3 was supposed to make use of them, but that was just mostly internet folklore. They are getting there though (and using GPU more cleverly).

What do you think on the bus speed thing - 1066 v 1333. This might be more useful for me rather than outright processor speed. Avid rarely even uses the full power of a single core when rendering, despite my very fast 200MBS RAID SATA HDD's capable of taking it

D

[namuk]

Def Quad .. Q6600 x8 running 3.2 , 1.1 400Mhz mem 1600fsb ... on air . undervolted

my frend just give the E8650 to his bother and got a Quad but it was the Q9650. He thought the same about Dual core , untill he slapped that in been telling him for months. but real world testing you can not beat

but there is another factor what Mb is it going in? as this does help..

[Flugel Hound]

LOL - on air!!!

Its going in a Asus P5K-E Mobo.

How do i get the system FSB up? I know how to get the CPU clocking quicker (and cunningly that is callled FSB too!)

Cheers - I only have one shot at this LOL

D

[namuk]

This guide may help

C2D Overclocking Guide For Beginners P5K Add-On - Clunk's Forums.


As for Mb i ment the OP...

Originally Posted by Flugel Hound

LOL - on air!!!

Its going in a Asus P5K-E Mobo.

How do i get the system FSB up? I know how to get the CPU clocking quicker (and cunningly that is callled FSB too!)

Cheers - I only have one shot at this LOL

D

[jetinder]

My friends use Magix movie edit pro.

The FSB can be upped by adjusting the FSB frequency in your BIOS.

FSB 376 = 3.4ghz on standard volts.

Asus also has a windows utility which can do this as well.

[Flugel Hound]

Originally Posted by jetinder

My friends use Magix movie edit pro.

The FSB can be upped by adjusting the FSB frequency in your BIOS.

FSB 376 = 3.4ghz on standard volts.

Asus also has a windows utility which can do this as well.

I am printing my guide now Thanks for that (liking it here )

But how does the FSB 376 relate to the 3.4Ghz and the 1066Mhz speeds? What is the relationship between CPU clock speed and non CPU FSB speed. Related yes, but different measures of CPU processing speed and 'moving stuff about outside of the CPU' speed?

I hope I am not talking utter b0llox here

Lovely

D

[jetinder]

Originally Posted by Flugel Hound

I hope I am not talking utter b0llox here

No I'm not talking a load of kak.

Originally Posted by Flugel Hound

But how does the FSB 376 relate to the 3.4Ghz and the 1066Mhz speeds?

What is the relationship between CPU clock speed and non CPU FSB speed. Related yes, but different measures of CPU processing speed and 'moving stuff about outside of the CPU' speed?

Simple trail and error
i.e.

The FSB was increased from the standard 266 = 2.4ghz, each time it was increased by 1 PC was rebooted to Windows.

On re-boot the BIOS displayed what speed the CPU was running.

Carried on increasing by 1 up to a point where the CPU would no longer boot to windows and also no longer boot.

Then I knew what the max FSB was for that setup.

Ok its not a "classic" overclocking method as i was purely interested in CPU speed and let the motherboard take care of everything else.

But it worked and i didn't need to worry about the relationship between CPU clock speed, non CPU FSB speed, and 'moving stuff about outside of the CPU' speed?

Try it your self on your motherboard, worst which can happen is the PC won't boot due to wrong FSB and you'll need to reset the BIOS, but this way you will not fry your CPU.

[Flugel Hound]

Too dangerous for me - if I reset my BIOS I am too terrified of losing my hard won RAID configuration. The OS boots off a stripe pair (and then there are the other striped media drives...). I already run it at 2.7GHz anyway.

I may bite the bullet and get a raptor for the OS and save the raids for media only. Was just looking for SPEEEEEED!

Cheers

D