Thread: CPU Question - Faster Dual Core or Slower Quad Core?

Except that Jason likes to make assumptions rather than research facts:

First, a note because the charts at Toms still use the Q9450 and have not updated to the Q9400.  The Q9400 is a price cut from the Q9450 (which was not selling as well as projected) the difference is the 9400 has LESS cache making it slower.  So the numbers shown for the Q9450 should be adjusted DOWN for the 9400.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...s-q9450-phased
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-52...rice-drop.html

UT3, 1680x1050
E8600: 137 FPS
Q9450: 141 FPS The (Q9400 is replacing the Q9450; smaller cache=slower so this number is LOWER with a q9400)
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...x1050,819.html
Very little difference and when you switch out the 9400 for the 9450 it it will be less than the E8600

WIC, 1680x1050
E8600: 153 FPS
Q9450: 143 FPS
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...x1050,820.html
Here is the E8600 outperforming the Q9450 at WIC, note that the 9400 will be lower yet.

On the Supreme Commander test the Q9450 DOES beat out the E8600.  So do several quad core AMD's.  This because Supreme commander is one of the true multi thread optimized games.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...x1050,821.html
Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance.  1680x1050
E8600: 29.80
Q9450: 32.8
Keep in mind the Q9400 will perform lower than th 9450 (by a hair)


So yeah, the Q9450 outperforms the E8600 by a hair on multi core optimized games.  But the Q9400 will not perform as well as the Q9450.  These Q3 2008 charts have very few games on them or I would provide more data.  I am willing to bet money that when they post more charts for games like CoD, etc, the E8600 will be winning out.

Now, I know Valve released a multicore patch for source, and TF2 uses it.  But it was my understanding that beyond 2 cores there is little difference, as prior to the patch it used a single core.  Apparently they offloaded the Particle system, AI, and some material texture subsystems to the second core.


Jason, can you show me some benchies that show CoD4, TF2, and those other games you listed performing better on a Q9400 then on a an E8600?

The Q9400 is slower than the Q9450, and in all the somparisons I see, many non-multicore optimized games run substantially better (this means CSS, BF series, and most games at TTP BTW which does not get the multi core benefit of the latest valve patch) on the faster dually.  But the Q9450 slightly betters the E8600 for SOME multicore optimized games (such as supreme commander, a RTS that has massive amounts of AI occurring).


As someone who has some programming experience professionally and in school, I can tell you, most games do not lend well to multi-threading, especially beyond two cores.

All the being said, either processor will kick butt.  I stand by my assertion however that the E8600 will outperform the Q9400 for most games.  If you do a lot of video editing, 3d modeling or other core intensive work as well as your gaming, get the quad.  But if you are an internet surfer, word processor, and gamer, get the dual.

You still do not get it.

He is building a machine for the now. More than likely his next cpu upgrade will be in 1-2 years.

You are telling me you are recommending a cpu that is only 4-10 fps faster than the quad?
137fps compared to 141fps.
153fps compared to 143fps.

Wow soy you must have robotic eyes because the last time I checked you cannot tell the difference when over 90+fps.

In order to get the most of your money, stay future proof(for now), and have the option of running multi taks then get the quad.

If you want to be closed minded, can see the difference between 137fps to 141fps, and dont care about new games updating supporting multicore go with that dual.

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

You still do not get it.

He is building a machine for the now. More than likely his next cpu upgrade will be in 1-2 years.

You are telling me you are recommending a cpu that is only 4-10 fps faster than the quad?
137fps compared to 141fps.
153fps compared to 143fps.

Wow soy you must have robotic eyes because the last time I checked you cannot tell the difference when over 90+fps.

In order to get the most of your money, stay future proof(for now), and have the option of running multi taks then get the quad.

If you want to be closed minded, can see the difference between 137fps to 141fps, and dont care about new games updating supporting multicore go with that dual.

You obviously did not read the post, because one of those numbers favors the Q9450. And as stated the Q9400 is slower than the Q9450, meaning that these numbers will be larger differences in the end. Further, these games are "Multi core optimized" if you play CSS , or any other TTP game on them you will see a larger difference. But I already said all that. read before you type please, I hate to repeat myself, and with you, I always seem to have to do that. Now how about those benchies?

I guess you don't read as well.
You repeat yourself because I do not buy your baloni on dual vs quad so you state your arguement over and over like some mindless zombie.

Games do not need multiple cores; they are coded in such a way that multi-threading is not as possible as with some other applications, such as video editing. Applications like 3dSMax and Adobe Premier run better on a slower quad core than a faster dual core.

When you make baloni comments like this you are asking for it.
You talk the difference between the two quads we are comparing but still dog it by saying its useless and you are better off with dual or single core cpu's.
This might have been the case months ago but its time for you to get updated.

It is pointless to go single or dual core at this time.

I see what you are saying about the

You still do not get it.

He is building a machine for the now. More than likely his next cpu upgrade will be in 1-2 years.

You are telling me you are recommending a cpu that is only 4-10 fps faster than the quad?
137fps compared to 141fps.
153fps compared to 143fps.

Wow soy you must have robotic eyes because the last time I checked you cannot tell the difference when over 90+fps.

In order to get the most of your money, stay future proof(for now), and have the option of running multi taks then get the quad.

If you want to be closed minded, can see the difference between 137fps to 141fps, and dont care about new games updating supporting multicore go with that dual.


You obviously did not read the post, because one of those numbers favors the Q9450. And as stated the Q9400 is slower than the Q9450, meaning that these numbers will be larger differences in the end. Further, these games are "Multi core optimized" if you play CSS , or any other TTP game on them you will see a larger difference. But I already said all that. read before you type please, I hate to repeat myself, and with you, I always seem to have to do that. Now how about those benchies?

but still you cannot tell the difference betwwen those frame rates.

Best bet is to get a entry level quad a good fan and OC it to 3.2

Alright there is too much huff and puff for a simple question.

CPU Question - Faster Dual Core or Slower Quad Core?

Get the entry level quad and overclock it.
Buy a nice Zalman cpu cooler and take it to 3.2GHZ FSB1600 and multiply 8x.


End.

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

Alright there is too much huff and puff for a simple question.

You mean the huff and puff that you initiated with your know-it-all holier-than-thou attitude? It really gets old.

You know what I do go off the deep end when it is called for.

I am saving a guy from making a huge mistake and not wasting his money and 6 months from now say WTF to himself.


What gets old is people wandering these forums acting as if they have virgin ears.