Need hardware upgrade advice - should I go dual core or quad core?

[nikita]

If you don't want to overclock, here's a chart comparing some processors: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/3d-studio-max-9,369.html?p=1273%2C1272%2C1271%2C1270%2C1269%2C1275%2C1268%2C1267%2C1265%2C1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1262%2C1257
You can change the benchmark and add other processors for comparison using the drop-down boxes above and below the chart. For this chart, I chose 3DSMax because it's a renderer too.

The general conclusion you can draw is that Intel doesn't try to fool you. The more cores and the higher the number, the better the performance indeed.
Another lesson you can learn from this thread is, that overclocking leads to endless benchmarking-madness. 

[Xpleet]

I just posted you some facts, take it or leave it.

But I tell you this, saying "take this because it's new!!1111!1" or "take it becuz it's have a nicer cache!!1111" are inarguable statements.


If you want real values and truthes, digg them up in the internet, it's big enough.

If you want to be a sheep and feed the company, alright don't listen to the tests and benches out there and go ahead just buy what's cool and new.

[buchvecny]

well xpleet yes, the fact q9xxx series is newer doesnt necessary mean its better. However instead of whining about your q6600 excellence you should provide more proof. More than a single test from 3D mark. I personally like super PI test. Its simple and easily understandable. Or you could just scan something truly real to us such a benchmarks in Vue, which is similar to TG2 in terms of rendering.

[PG]

Or use fraps to benchmark a selection of your games,at least 4, one that will be easy for it to run, one that it will struggle with, one that will particularly stretch the RAM and CPU and one that will stretch the GPU. You can test any other games to get median values.

[Xpleet]

Dang, can't find more of the 9300 but tests of the Q9450 confirm the same thing.


This tests shows that a Q6600@ on 3,6 equals almost the results of a Q9450@3,6 that is alot more expensive!!! 3,6 Gigaherz is the maximum for the Q9450 due to the low multiplier.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287

All OC people run tests on 3DMark06 and take the CPU results. As I said earlier it has a brilliant CPU bench in it.

I say sorry but everything I find tells me that the Q9ers are SHIT for OC'ing and can be equaled, if not topped by the Q6er series. The Q9450 seems to get a little better 5% on it's max overclocking than the Q6600.

But below Q9450 and not mentioning that it's hell of expensive, it's non worthy to get a 9300 or 9350 if you want to overclock!

I mean Google it for yourself don't believe me.

[nikita]

I think by "proof" they mean something more substantial than google or some forum. From my experience you can find any opinion about a product if you google for it.

Here are some benchmarks with oc'd q9300 and q6600: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_8.html

btw, one last remark: If it's that hard to decide which one is better then the difference is probably very small  and thus irrelevant anyway.

[BlueRose]

Im not into overclocking and find the benchmarks a little hard to understand - it would be a LOT more useful if someone did some specific benchmarking around Terragen and the assorted possible hardware combinations, that would make this a lot easier for someone like me who wants good performance but isnt into the technical side of things that much.

The sad news is it turned out more expensive than I thought when you throw in the need to upgrade to 64bit Windows, so wont be happening anytime soon (not unless I get a spectacularly good bonus at work sometime  )

Thanks everyone for the comments, advice and feedback, its been a really interesting discussion, and I certainly learnt lots for when I do get a chance to do the upgrade.

[nikita]

http://tg2bench.kk3d.de/ A TG2 benchmark. Some of them are overclocked, but the clock speed is included in the table so there should be no problem to pick the ones who run at the default speed.

If you buy a windows - buy the system builders edition. It's a lot cheaper and the only thing that's missing is the support - but who has ever used microsoft's support line?

[PG]

I say sorry but everything I find tells me that the Q9ers are SHIT for OC'ing and can be equaled, if not topped by the Q6er series. The Q9450 seems to get a little better 5% on it's max overclocking than the Q6600.
But below Q9450 and not mentioning that it's hell of expensive, it's non worthy to get a 9300 or 9350 if you want to overclock!

Is the Q9 series a 45nm processor? because the idea of that is that you can overclock with higher voltages while producing less heat. Whether it still outperforms other processors is a different story.
I had a look at the two processors and found that your Q6600 has a 65nm process and an 8MB cache running at 2.4GHz while the Q9450 has a 45nm process, a 12MB cache and defaults at 2.66GHz. I couldn't find anything on thermal power of the two but I would assume that the Q9 was lower. This would mean that the Q6600 can overclock further without needing to increase the voltage but the Q9450 can can go further on much higher voltages.

[mogn]

I can definitly recommend the Q9450. I installed it manday, and today I ran the 3dmark06 test (free version).
It surpasses my expetations without OC.
Compared with the rest of the system, the difference between Q6600 and Q9450 is not frigthning.

[Xpleet]

But some of us don't like to pay so much for a q9450, while at the same time with OCing we can bring the Q67 at Q9450's level and higher. I have seen multiple evidences now affirming the sad fact, that the Q9ers don't get much %power/mhz-fsb. And the problem here is, that there is also a low fsb limit due to the multiplyer. So you can't get a Q945 past 3,6 (450x8=3600) and sadly 3,6 brings a Q9450 to 5100 points in 3Dmark06.


Well, with a stock cooler and a cheap prize I have my Q6700 stable at 3,2 which means 5060 points for me, and with a little modification I could get it to 3,6 which brings it to about 6000.


I don't like the fact that it is that way, the new ones imo should be outstanding compared to the old 65nm quads but it's not the case.

In conclusion the Q9000ers are on option

-if you want a lot less power consumption
-you do not want to overclock
-less heat production(?) and vcore, should require a lot less fanspeed and therefore make a quiter pc. Haven't confirmed this.

[tenth]

The difference between 2 or 4 cores depends on, what they are used for ...

3D-Mark is good for testing overall gaming performance - that's the main reason, why this benchmarking tool got programmed - but not for applications like 3D programs !
If you look through all the tests being done, they are mainly focused on calculating moving realtime 3D gaming graphics - cpu + gpu or only cpu, but that's misleading in the end and only reliable for gamers.

All 4 core cpu's are good for playing games, but there are the fastest 2 cores, which are doing better in gaming, simply because most nowadays games don't support 4 cores directly, because this is a more complex programming in games, due to all of the different things that have to be calculated in games - like graphics, physics, artificial intelligence, sound, playing music, gameplay logistics and so on ...

So that's way with 4 cores, each core only get's used roughly like between 25 to 50 percent of it's power, the rest get's wasted. Still - the 4 core cpu in such a situation doesn't get pushed to it's limit compared to a 2 core, which might be using both cores up to 100 percent. So - a 4 core cpu won't be heating up like a 2 core - meaning overall lower temparature and quieter machine - less strain on the hardware.

If you need a cpu, which is excellent to work with applications like 3D programs, here we need render power - like Terragen, 3DS-Max, Cinema 4D, Vue, Poser ... and all those well known programs more - it's a total different picture !
Here, like the newest build 1.988.1 of TG2, they will use 2 cores or 4 cores to their full 100 percent - but if you have 4 cores run at 100 percent and only 2 cores at 100 percent, then the situation is twisted around - the 4 core cpu can show it's full potential and it will pay off !!

With the newest build of TG2 and my Q6600 at 2.4 Ghz each of the 4 cores (no overclocking), 6 GB RAM, Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1, the calculation time in the tg2bench-test was 1 minute and 22 seconds. If you check the listing at http://tg2bench.kk3d.de/ you can tell, this is way faster then an overclocked Q6600 with the older build version of TG2 !!
And you won't reach such a rendering result with a 2 core - even the fastest 2 core can't compete !

What helps even more with those 3D programs nowadays, is for sure the use of 64bit operating system, because the pipeline got a much higher bandwidth to send/receive data and can use a lot more RAM than a 32bit operating system.

Here one more link to a conclusion from a test at tomshardware.com - which compared 2 and 4 core cpu's in different situations and the conclusion tells the story:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1700-8.html

If you want the fastest rendering times, get a 4 core - if you want the fastest gameplay right now (until all the newest games in the future will definitely use 4 cores and more) still get a fast 2 core. If you want a good mix of both, i believe a 4 core stays the winner !

[BlueRose]

WOW!  Thanks tenth, thats an incredibly helpful answer, and what I really needed someone to tell me.

Quad core with 4 GB memory and 64 bit upgrade it is then!

[buchvecny]

yay took time to convince your for quad

[tenth]

ups