Tam-the-Bam said:

quake 4 doesnt need two cores to run properly. never mind 4. call of duty 2 is patched, and doesnt scale particularly well. yet again another game that really likes a powerful GPU not so fussy about the CPU.
the others you mentioned are of course not even out, and therefore we dont really know how they will scale..........STALKER was supposed to be great on quads. multithreaded. nah. the source engine was supposedly optimised for multi threading, it doesnt scale either. show me something where i NEED a quad, right here, right now to run properly. and i will show you a man who has evolved an extra appendix. before its time.
im willing to admit that there are some games filtering thru that benefit from quads, lost planet. but its hardly a neccessity. lost planet only scales a measely 25-50 percent, instead of the near 100 a quad should give over a dual. that lack of efficiency makes overclocking a dual much further than a quad currently can reduces quad advantage as well. lost planet begs for pixel pushing anyway, money better spent on a more powerful GPU than CPU as is usually the case these days.

I just told ya Bioshock & LostPlanet use 4 cores. Lost planet has the best option to
date.I can select 1,2,3, or all 4 cores. Entirely my choice!!

so what? is what im saying. they use quads. what exactly is the point of running a game at 120FPS on a quad, when it already runs 60FPS on a dual............and you know that that difference is rather exaggerated. my point is quads get you nothing extra thats currently useful in gaming! i can run bioshock 60FPS on my dual, and an ageing GPU. when you turn on vsync, its no less than you get.................its exactly how i said it. where do i NEED a quad. what possible advantage would dropping in a slower quad to my setup get me, except 99 percent of games running slower, and 1 percent of games giving 25 percent scale on an already rock solid frame rate. lol
when its proven to me they give an enormous advantage in a good selection of games, then i will be interested. but for now a faster GPU is nearly always the better option.

its like the 64 bit thang again. not really as useful as the marketing dudeys would like you to think. its still not absolutely a necessary component for fast gaming, unlike a top end GPU.

take this as a hypothetical situation. say you keep what setup you have for crysis. quad. say i keep everything i have got now, dual. but when crysis comes out i go buy the fastest new nvidia in november. the top of the line G92. which machine will be faster on that game? its a pretty safe bet the ridiculously faster GPU will obliterate any advantage a quad core CPU would bring. dont get me wrong, im not dissing those who chose to get a quad on a new build. its a good idea. but for most people upgrading.....it shouldnt be top of the list. especially not for gaming.

Tam-the-Bam said:

I didnt know that.

Quad Core helps (especially in Lost Planet) for concurrent rendering. Have you played
LP? Have you seen the DX10 Features in that game??? Quad's ideal WHEN SELECTING
the DX10 options and there are a lot. As for Bioshock, well, it's got a wee bit of DX10
Rendering. LP uses higher Res graphics, where as Bio uses big chunky low res.
That's why almost everyone's getting HIGH FRAMERATES on medium PC Builds.

Tam-the-Bam said:

i actually have. but from what i know, LP is a seriously shader heavy game, as are most new games. a quad core gets you a less than 50 percent scale, a faster GPU gets a massively more significant frame rate increase. i cite again. even for that one single example you can give me, ONE. thats it. it is far from actually being a vital advantage, and even further from being a neccessity............also why bother citing bioshock as an example for quad core in the first place then ?!?!?!?!, when you just admitted there it pretty much makes no difference to medium level build. EXACTLY my point. it makes the same amount of useless difference on quake 4 and COD2 then doesnt it!
it just seems to me that quads are ever so overrated. useful? in VERY strict and very few applications and circumstances. neccessary? nope.

No i said Bioshock doens't utilise DX10 like lost planet does. Lost planet has motion blur,
etc, etc. Ok so tell me the purpose of Dual & Quad cores? Why do you have a dual?

Tam-the-Bam said:
so bioshock it doesnt need a quad at all then. the point im pressing. i have a dual because buying into a new faster clock for clock architecture required me to do so.

all im saying is that quads are a tad hyped. for a new build and the price of a dual i would probably drop one in myself. but as an upgrade from an existing fast dual, its an errrrrrrrrrrrrm........interesting decision to say the least for the vast majority of people.
like i said. if you are a gamer, i would be hesitant to upgrade something that wouldnt give you the kind of advantage a faster GPU always gives.

Hmmm well i got the BFG 8800 GTX... more than fast! lol

Tam-the-Bam said:

true. but it wont be in november come G92 lol. its likely G92 will make an ultra look slow. it wont matter WHAT quad you pair with an 8800GTX, it aint gonna be faster at games than a equally clocked dual with 2nd generation DX10 mofo ninja GPU. i would luuuuuuuurve *free* 4 X FSAA aka X360, but from what i gathered its much harder to implement on a PC GPU, so many resolution variants. it would probably need a stack load of eDRAM, an amount easily defined and calculated in a console.

FTW my rig will rock any gameCome on Mark i wanna see some temps from that h/s

Vulcan,

so....... between a quad and a dual for a normal user..... 50/50 between regular apps and games.... usually run one or two regular programs at a time.

Q6600 @ 2.44 ghz/ 1066fsb or E6850 @ 3.0 ghz / 1333fsb

Price between the two are identical.

Which proc if the gpu are the same between the two (at least with a HD2900XT 512mb or 8800GTS 640 class) ??


From what you have been posting... kinda look like you would lean towards a E6850.

Quad just for future proofing.Even though you cant future proof a PC.But G G you tend to keep you systems a while so id say go with the quad

Mothow said:
I still hvae the same temps I did before the HSF switch.

Well maybe after the thermal patse settles you'll see some improvement.And are they idle temps you can expect similar temps but what about at 100% load? Are you applying your as5 like this
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_intel_quad_wcap.pdf

Nah. I just used a bit more than normal when using a dual or single core CPU. If I have to redo it, I will. No biggie. To be honest, it never even entered my mind that with it being a quad core, AS5 application may be different.

Right now, I am at a very crap OC. Im at 3Ghz, but my RAM is UNDERclocked. Temp is about 50C idle.

Try the way as5 shows.It might help.I always us a very tiny bit of paste.And i usally have pretty good temps.

Well, I overclocked the CPU to 3Ghz with DDR2 1000 at 5 5 5 15 and I can do Super PI in 17 seconds, temps idle are still around 50C believe it or not, in game with BioShock, temps are 60C. I even overclocked my video card, and now I get twice as many FPS in BioShock. Quite nice.

I started to Prime the system, but temps were in the 70's. Kinda got scared and I didnt want to leave it like that for 12 hrs or so. I may not even prime it so long as I dont get any BSOD's, freezes, and the like.

Maybe tomorrow, Ill try putting the AS5 on the way that link suggests.

Holy s**t! My pump's not been working properly. I got inside the pute last night and
the tubes were boiling! The cpu block was hot as hell. I think the power to the board came
loose. It's workin now. Temps are in 30's (all cores) and priming now. Jeez! What a freak
out!