Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

[imported_BiBi]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

CRAP.... I got the E8500 over a quad last year.... grrrr

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

CRAP.... I got the E8500 over a quad last year.... grrrr

Over an I7 bad, over a Q6600 GOOD!

[samchoc]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Over an I7 bad, over a Q6600 GOOD!

I got my E8500 last december. Changed it from a Q6600 lol I figured my 2 cores running at 3.16Ghz was gonna be a lot better than the 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz in overal (operating system, games, etc...) I was pleased until they released bc2 and coulndt use antialiasing. Its not my video card or the rams so it must be my cpu. I still have my Q6600 but i am not going to bother putting it in my computer since i dont think i am gonna see such a big difference in performance. I am going to stay with my E8500 and enjoy the game without AA (still exellent graphics) and wait until i buy miself a new i7 system.

[Highrisk]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Let's pray they just optimize the game a little more. It led most of us to buy new hardware and I hate it when that happens lol.

[Mrt1989]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Quad Core is the way to go , Dual core really struggles with this game

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I got my E8500 last december. Changed it from a Q6600 lol I figured my 2 cores running at 3.16Ghz was gonna be a lot better than the 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz in overal (operating system, games, etc...) I was pleased until they released bc2 and coulndt use antialiasing. Its not my video card or the rams so it must be my cpu. I still have my Q6600 but i am not going to bother putting it in my computer since i dont think i am gonna see such a big difference in performance. I am going to stay with my E8500 and enjoy the game without AA (still exellent graphics) and wait until i buy miself a new i7 system.

Lots of people have problems with the AA. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I clearly don't. Never heard of AA being CPU tied before. Sometimes I get the soldiers speaking in their own languages (like I have it set-in-game), but sometimes the game insists on giving me the camp foreign accents instead (like I dont set it to). Its not just the AA setting that is bugged in game.

Quad Core is the way to go , Dual core really struggles with this game

Oh yeah, are you telling us that from experience or cos you read it somewhere? I have an E8400 dual core and I run the game on higher settings and with higher frames than my mate who has an I7. Of course, he runs a 5770 whilst I have a 5850. In the single player game, I can more or less max it out with a solid 60FPS most of the time. In the multiplayer I get mostly 50-55FPS (annoyingly just short) with everything on high HBAO off. The lowest frames I will ever get will be on multiplayer when there are lots of guys leaping all over the place and a tank blows up in my face. In this situation, I get a momentary blip of just 30-35 FPS.

(V-Sync is of course ALWAYS enabled through d3d....people who state FPS without v-sync enabled are 'f****s')

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

(V-Sync is of course ALWAYS enabled through d3d....people who state FPS without v-sync enabled are 'f****s')

[rumple9]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Load of rubbish - I have an E8400 dual core clocked to 3.6Gz and a Geforce GTX 260 clocked to 700Mz and I can play this game on max settings with HBAO on but with AA at 4 and shadows on low with 45-60 fps in multiplayer and it runs smooth as silk

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Load of rubbish - Is people's lack of understanding on how multi-threaded applications work and their ability to put claims that just violate the laws of math. There is a reason quad-core is recommended for this game. Even with your e8400 clocked to 3.6Ghz you are not going to sit here and tell me you don't drop in frame rates for short periods of times that are below 45 FPS. Then we take the account you are OC'd to 3.6Ghz acting like that is the norm.

No CPU/GPU combination out there can maintain a 15 FPS spread in this game under any circumstances where graphics are on higher detail.

Problem is that you can take your e8400 oc'd to 3.6Ghz and throw in 3 $800 videocards and you are still going to drop well below 60FPS when that cpu starts bottle-necking in multiplayer explosions @ 100% load (I've witnessed it) while a q8500 at stock operating much less than 100% load will crunch those numbers with ease.

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Load of rubbish -BLAH BLAH BLAH I read some 2nd hand opinion on some wiki page somewhere so it must be true.....blah blah balh....I own a Quad core so goddamnit, it must be important.

Problem is that you can take your e8400 oc'd to 3.6Ghz and throw in 3 $800 videocards and you are still going to drop well below 60FPS when that cpu starts bottle-necking in multiplayer explosions @ 100% load (I've witnessed it) while a q8500 at stock operating much less than 100% load will crunch those numbers with ease.

This post is old.....but the subject of slower Quad being better than a faster Dual due to 'multithreading' is a subject with a whole lot of mass delusion going on. This should settle it once and for all:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1

ONLY UPGRADE FROM A DUAL TO A QUAD IF THE QUAD IS FASTER THAN THE DUAL!

[Basil.]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I don't like the fact that are only using one cpu and they just disable the cores to do the test. I would also like to see the test for bfbc2 using war tapes.

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I don't like the fact that are only using one cpu and they just disable the cores to do the test.

It is also a good argument that CPU architecture hugely influences performance, regardless of the speed of any chips being compared. However, the OP stated this:

I have both cpu's and i would like some feedback from you guys to help me decide wich one i should put in my rig to run Bad Company 2 the best. I am running at 1920x1200.

Q6600 or E8500 ????

In the end, he listened to all the parrots on here and chose the Q6600 over the newer, lower nm fabricated, lower power consuming, cooler and allround better Wolfdale E8500. He made this terrible decision based on all the mis-information surrounding 'multi-threading' in games. By taking a top of the range 6-core CPU and testing multi-threading performance by simply disabling cores, the articles proooooooves that multi-threading in games is not yet all that effective beyond 2 cores, and by sacrificing a cooler faster dual core for a hotter slower quad, the OP has really kicked his system in the balls.

TBH, I was on the verge of making the same mistake, but I had the good fortune to observe my mate running BFBC2 on an i7 setup @ 4GHz, and realised at that point that at this present time, investing in a quad setup (a real quad setup that is, i.e. and i7 NOT an Q6600) was simply not worth the money, considering the minimal gains I would get over my E8400 @ 3.85Ghz.

[dfour]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Im sure I saw a test where they tested all the sound setups with BC2 and only found 1 or 2 fps difference between them. It might make a little more difference on a dual core than on a quad but I cant see it making enough difference to be a problem.