RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Originally posted by: jaredpace
yah, but you're comparing older 65nm tech. 2 more cores is obviously not providing a benifit for the cost premium. If you check the crysis bench in the xbit link, theres about a 6 percent increase in performance when using the overclocked wolfdale.
while its 6% it's still faster, so where is the arguement? especially when the price is cheaper.
the decision to buy a q6600 lies in the need for use of multi-threaded programs. Then the premium is worth it.
In the meanwhile I'll look for comparisons of oc'd q6600 vs oc'd e8400 in games where the resolutions are very high.
What's comparing 65nm or 45nm have to do with anything? If 2.4ghz is more than sufficient and 2.93ghz isn't providing any benefit with 8800GTX, then 4.0ghz 45nm isn't going to provide any more benefit whatsoever.
In Crysis benchmarks you linked an E8500 4.3ghz is getting 82.8 frames while Q6600 3.6ghz is getting 78.03 frames. I would wager there is no onn on the planet that could physically tell the difference between 83 vs. 78 frames and say that 78 frames is too slow. Not only that but you would increase your resolution or image quality until at the very least you can squeeze the most image enhancements and performance is at 60fps (= 60HZ on an LCD or it's maximum frame output).
Your argument would make a lot more sense only in a scenario where E8400 OC provided much higher MINIMUM framerates in games over Q6600 OC. Unfortunately I cannot find any benchmarks to support this either.