HI all, well mi question is stated in the title
After saving money for a while, i can buy finally a decent desktop computer
And i have the chance to get a Quad 6600, but since i have been playing whit old hardware (my Celeron M cpu, almost R.I.P ) i dont know the state of today scenario about quadcores, if their mature enough, to make it worth it to buy one, or should i buy an C2Duo whit that money, or to spend less, an athlon X2
I just dont want to buy it, and found out that i will be able to use the true power/advantages in like 1 year, when it will bw obsolete, well i guess thats everyones fear whit every new PC
The main porpuse of the pc will be to learn linux, a lot, so i will be compiling a lot, i am a casual gamer, but just very very casual, watch movies listen to music, etc it will be for linux only, and since i cant afford a new pc every 1 year, i hope it could last as long as it can
do you consider that is time to get a quad, or their power is not fully used, and i should go for a highest clock C2Duo??
(sorry for my english)
Last edited by AlmaMater (2007-11-12 04:09:37)
I recently got a Q6600 and am about the level of user as you. It's really unecessary, unless you are doing video rendering or compiling really large programs often. Most of the stuff I do is IO bound anyways...
If the Core 2 Duo is significantly less, I'd go with that and more RAM, for the level you are using, you'll likely see a performance improvement moreso than with a quad core.
Of course, the new Intel chips are being released tomorrow, so there should be a price drop soon.
save your money and go for
Athlon X2-3600+ etc
Kingstone-677 1g x4 ram
As stated by joe you need to find very specialized tasks to make use of a quad-core. Quad-core doesn't necessarily mean that all cores will be effectively used, so it all depends on a large degree on the software developers to optimize their programs for it. In view of your use, if performance is the main objective, a faster clocked dual-core would be more efficient than a lower clocked qua-core.
Should you go for a Intel C2D or AMD X2? C2D has the upper hand in performance, but at stock settings the differences isn't that great. If overclocking is an interest the C2D definitely has more headroom and gives a lot of performance per dollar. Nowadays as an overclocker you could even get a cheap little monster clocker from AMD, the "Black Edition" with unlocked multiplier. C2D will still be the winner (if you overclock both that is) but as most I've come to realize how little those differences make in real life (if not you're planning to get a super-duper workstation for calculations of DNA chains!), and AMD prices are really nice to the pocket.
For a while - mainly because of the hype the industry is in need of - you could hear that if you don't get such and such a powerful CPU you would bottleneck you new high-end graphic-card. Let's agree that it's a possibility, if you're planning to get like two Nvidia 8800GTX in SLI and use a big screen. Besides such an extreme scenario you'll doing fine playing the same games just as nicely independent of whether the system is run by a Intel C2D or AMD X2. The description "very very casual gamer" tells me you're not affected by the extreme scenario.
Choosing the right parts, getting a fully compatible setup of devices for a Linux system, is of more important. Prices are incredibly low, so you won't be ripped off what ever you choose to do.
Last edited by KimTjik (2007-11-12 08:59:15)
Great down-to-earth advice...core2 duo here...wish it was 16GB ram but only 2. Running in FaunOS without any HDD on USB flash. Low power dissipation and plenty fast with 2.8Ghz cpu. LCD display...no pci modules..VGA
Sign of the times: Navajo blanket..made in China
Hard work does not kill people but why risk it: Charlie Mccarthy
A man is not complete until he is married..then..he is finished.
When ALL is lost, what can be found? Even bytes get lonely for a little bit! X-ray confirms Iam spineless!
Thanks for the replies
actually have 3 CPU in mind
the Q6600 2.4 8 mb cache
C2DUO E6850 3.0 ghz 4mb cache
both cost the same here where i live
the other one is
ATHLON 64 X2 - 6400+ 2 mb cache BLACK EDITION (cost 80 US dollars less, at least here)
Im not an overclocking guy, but my concern are temperatures aswell, since here it gets pretty hot
the mobo would be for intel a:
MSI 7357-010 G33M-FI INTEL G33 SOCKET 775 C2DUO 1333 DDR2 VID-INC
and for AMD:
MSI 7349-010 K9NGM3-FIH NVIDIA 7050 SOCKET AM2 VID-INC PCIe
I hope its linux-compatible
And yes, its like the athlon 64 bits, everyone got it years ago, and i can say that only today is getting mature enough (the applications) for is REAL 64-bits purpose (for the normal desktop user at least) today
So, from what i have read, i think i should go for the C2DUO, the prices between AMD and INTEL are not incredible different here
What can i say, i get wet of thinking 4 cores lol, but thinking in a more serious way, quads still overrated, maybe i can get one in my next setup (in like 10 years lol)
And i realize the importance of RAM, i will go just for 2 gb, but then i can save some money and put 2 more
Intel hands down, I'd still stay away from AMD/ ATI fusion of crappiness.
If you think of spending that amount of money on the CPU, then the Intel C2D option give more value for the money. I wouldn't be able to make good arguments for why you should buy a quad-core - personally I would go for the dual-core in view of your options - but if you like the idea of it, why not? As I stated before: in view of the intended use you would rarely notice any difference between any of your options.
As an overclocker my options would look different than yours (I'm putting in a new AMD 5000+ Black Edition in one of my systems, because I couldn't resist the incredible low price - more than 50 % cheaper than a E6850). In response to the harsh comment by Mikko777, I could give you a pretty exact estimation to what difference we're talking about:
- an Intel E6550 is equal to an AMD X2 6000+ (C2D is stronger in certain applications like the X2 is in others, but in the end of the day they go head to head)
- so in clocks a 2,33GHz C2D is equal to a 3,00GHz X2
- if running with 100 % load the C2D is more power efficient, but in idle the X2 is better (the QX9650 Mikko777 gave a link to is even idle more efficient, but for a premium price of 999 $ )
- even though the X2 6000+ is slightly cheaper the difference is to little to be of any importance
But your options seem to be aimed at something more expensive.
About MSI: be aware of the plain stupid procedure needed if flashing to a new BIOS not using Windows (download the zip file for the motherboard you had in mind, unzip it and read the user guide)! It's usually a good idea to check such things before buying any product. Abit, Asus, DFI and others have better procedures, or shall we say that they keep using the old stable one. I've good experience using Abit and Linux, since Abit sometimes even releases new BIOS versions with improved support for Linux.
Man it's awfully difficult to choose, isn't it?
Last edited by KimTjik (2007-11-12 20:55:58)
- if running with 100 % load the C2D is more power efficient, but in idle the X2 is better
Where do you get that from, judging from the figures (in the link), even quad core intels idle lower than double core amd's.
And I wasn't being harsh, and no it aint difficult to choose unless your an amd fanboy.
Get intel and nvidia (8800GT) with linux --> pay 20€ more --> get technical excellence and lower powerbill and less heat.
Altho you'd need to wait after the christmas for the dual core penryns tho...
Last edited by Mikko777 (2007-11-12 21:21:36)
Mikko777, please take it easy. Good for you that the choice is such an easy one. Otherwise words like "crappiness" and "fanboy" isn't belonging to the peaceful vocabulary. I simply tried to give the person here some information independent of my own choices (what that now would be since I'm surrounded by three Intel and two AMD systems).
You need to do more than to look at the diagrams. Reading the text of this article gives some clues:
These results are without Intel EIST and C1E states enabled or even AMD PowerNow, but using that will typically drop the Idle wattage (and CPU clock) down further as well.
The comparison between AMD with PowerNow and Intel with SpeedStep looks radically different (besides those diagrams showing a system total, which depends on more than the single CPU; chipset differs unfortunately a lot in power consumption). But under full load 4 cores of C2D is even equal or more effecient than a dual-core AMD, which is impressive (bear in mind though that the AMD X2 5000+ Black Edition clocked to 3GHz is close to identical to a C2D E6850 in power consumption; yes it's still the same 20 % slower, but in view of being such an old architecture it's a fun fact - you see I'm not interested in Intel vs. AMD but in the technical stuff).
Actually bit-tech.net is awfully anfair to the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. It's not that much faster than previous versions of C2D (yes it's a good result, but many had too high expectations), but most impressive is that with SpeedStep enabled those four cores might drop down to some 4W power-consumtpion according to some tests! That's a reason enough to congratulate Intel. However the current C2D architecture isn't that power efficient. Furthermore the new Penryn will probably not be available at a consumer level - if you don't view 999 $ as such - until spring time.
I don't make up my comments Mikko777, if you then disagree is another question, and the beauty of freedom!
Last edited by KimTjik (2007-11-12 22:01:34)
Get yourself a second generation PC with a lower clock dual core processor, 2GB of RAM and something like the X1950 if you want to play recent games. You will get this system really cheap (a little more than 400€ for my example system with a 5200+, 2GB RAM, X1950GT and an asus 690G mainboard) and you'll hardly notice a performance difference compared with a high-end system, but you'll save a lot of money.
since i cant afford a new pc every 1 year
Ask yourself: What do I really need? A 1000€ pc monster or a second generation 400€ system which is not much slower, but a lot cheaper?
I see only gaming and compilation as applications which could profit from a faster system, but you said you don't play a lot and the biggest bottleneck for compilation is usually memory and disk speed anyway.
P.S. My current gaming system at home (3800+,1GB RAM, 1800GTO) cost me less than 300€ and I could play Bioshock at 1440x900 fluently. No need to pay 900+€, when I'm hardly there anyway.
Thanks for all the replies
after reading, and investigating some more, and because i had to reduce the money destinated for the PC
ill get this:
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 - 5200+ CORE WINDSOR SOCKET AM2 2MB BOX
MSI K9NGM3-FIH NVIDIA 7050 SOCKET AM2 VID-INC PCIe
RAM DDR2 MUSHKIN EM2-6400 2GB KITDCH (2X1024) 800MHZ PC2-640
And thats the best i could do whit the new budget, considering, my payments options, and the variety of parts here where i live. (very limited)
But ill have Intel in mind in my future
Its still better than my Celeron M, 256 ram, 40 G 4200 rpm notebook... that was my first goal lol
Last edited by AlmaMater (2007-11-13 19:33:32)