I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
question would apply to single versus dual.

What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual core
CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of things
does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
processing allow? An explanation or references would be appreciated.
I might do a little research in the meantime.

This is just a guess.
Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.









--
yeah, I'm giddy

After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait and
hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on the
"extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to take
advantage of more cores.








--
If you'd like to see a little technical discussion on the subject,
check out the thread in (sci.electronics.design).

class_a <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> After lots of research... for the majority of users, looks like
>> faster dual core (E6850) is the way to go instead of slower quad
>> core (Q6600). Intel's current 3GH+ quad core CPUs are overpriced
>> IMO. Personally, I could probably use a quad core, but I'll wait
>> and hope the prices drop radically over the next year or two on
>> the "extreme" models. Also, more applications will be written to
>> take advantage of more cores.
>
> ????

I will attempt to clear up your misunderstanding.

> I think the Q6600 is _very_ well priced.

What part of "3GH+" don't you understand?

> I just installed a G0 stepping Q6600 on an Abit IP35Pro and it
> went straight to 3GHz with no issues.... I didn't even have to
> increase the core voltage.

But of course I'm talking about stock speeds. If you want to get all
excited about overclocking, there are better groups IMO.

> I've been running BOINC on it for a week which is loading all four
> cores to 100%

That's nice.

> So, four cores at 3GHz for a little over $220?

But in fact, the Q6600 is 2.4 GHz (and $220 US at Newegg, or $650 on
eBay).

> You just can't go wrong!

I agree. But lots of other overly excited users say exactly the
same about the E6850.

> A dual core E6850 for $30 less would be left in it's dust as an
> overclocked Q6600 at 3GHz is running the same 9x multiplier and
> clock speed but has twice the cores.

There are a thousand other silly overclockers who disagree with you.

> To me, the extra money for the Q6600 is $30 very well spent!

You aren't "the majority of users".

class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:

....

> Which is just an E6600 that has been overclocked by Intel and rebadged....

That's just nonsense.

The rest of your argument is tedious and immature IMO. Post your
opinions to one of the overclocking groups, refer to it here, and I
will take a look at what you come up with.











>
>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:00 -0500
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:45 -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$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> In-Reply-To: <hFKSj.8201$iK6.803 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <OsadnYdg2raNEYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 76
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-0W1A1mmQxjW6LEeGbtgx59JOd06mqcFynyCxyPgp/S1gDB8tlwkqQgPCay81qI53d/lFPKmpJosomUp!hCTomeUFGPTc59LCGZNjQ5fkifY0LsTdTpJuy7sjkD4dl1QNsPFyu6vK4KZDy9pXjCc+Wfhxd74q!D5FLHzgq0skmuC+h92CQQ8/pmSFt
> 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: 4324
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505798
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:48:04 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>

class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:

> The comments of someone who has nothing left to debate with....

You are just a troll.














>
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:24:21 -0500
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 18:25:07 -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>
> In-Reply-To: <IrMSj.8220$iK6.6256 nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <OsadnYZg2rYICYbVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 17
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-RhRXhAszqdAo/AznpMaqmYM1A+Uy8VPcWxQaflfq1opWnsP1HVCVMnT/+Eh0rgDGekUkLf1iomcQoK0!p34PMGN4MaT1XoXhtGah8S9DC0u6fxIBkOX/tVKJclyBydc0Mxt74ysVyse6YInlK53hoXqAMgln!buIS3SbegzrTB9hPKWP4UzxEAImb
> 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: 1.3.38
> Bytes: 1977
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:505802
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 18:24:24 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>

"John Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:nPMSj.8227$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

Ed Cregger

"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!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews6.bellsouth.net.POSTED!baefb1e5!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: ofjmidbaofeaohdodbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboekpmaghclecmmfdopohemacbphcocjhaifeckepfagppmljikiaflniapplgnlhbbkojilnahjifhnncnonldchemcckijbdcjjcpebhhghhpmli
> 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)
>
>

"John Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fESSj.749$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "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.

"Shadow36" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:h1%Sj.179738$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "John Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:fESSj.749$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "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.



Ed

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.