Regular Joe Benchmarking - Do you need Quad core?

[republic]

I'm a big geek, it's my job and my hobby.  You read all the review sites extoling the quad core revolution.

Well, my pc is built on a budget...a public school salary budget in fact.  I bought the cheapest modern (not P4 Netburst nonsense) dual core processor Intel currently sells, the E2140.  I overclocked it, and tested it against the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600...overclocked.

It is widely accepted that the only current game that really takes advantage of quad cores is Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance.

Software Specs:

I tested woth Forged Alliance @ 1280x1024 and low fidelity (to stress the cpu as much as I could rather than the burden being on the video card)

XP Pro SP2 all current patches
ATI Catalyst 8.1

Here are the specs of the machine used in the test:

E2140 1.6GHz @ 3.0GHz (No voltage adjustment needed...simply raised the bus speed from 200mhz to 375mhz)
MSI P35 Combo running at 375MHz Bus
2GB Kingston DDR2 800 running at 750 (my motherboard's next step was 900 which was too much for my ram)
Visiontek 3850 512MB video card clocked stock @ 700MHz Core 875MHz Memory

Q6600 2.4GHz @ 3.0GHz (No voltage adjustment needed...simply raised the bus speed from 266mhz to 333mhz)
MSI P35 Combo running at 333MHz Bus
2GB Kingston DDR2 800 running at 800
Visiontek 3850 512MB video card clocked stock @ 700MHz Core 875MHz Memory



After several runthroughs the difference is very slight.  All numbers represent frames per second when running the /perf benchmark.

Q6600 @ 3.0GHz - 8.12min - 76.16max - 62.774avg
E2140 @ 3.0GHz - 7.82min - 76.43max - 58.568avg

I was stunned.  Less than 10% difference between a $70 chip and a $280 chip.



Just for kicks, I also tested both cores with a lesser video card, a X1950GT which is a good mainstream, affordable performance.  Akin to a 8600GT or the previous generation of 7800GT etc.

Q6600 @ 3.0GHz - 9.26min - 75.81max - 44.629avg
E2140 @ 3.0GHz - 8.16min - 75.00max - 40.553avg

Again, just a hair less than 10% difference.

The min and max scores are so close they really lie within the margin of error.  Needless to say, I'm very pleased to have paid 25% the price for 90% of the performance.

Perhaps quad cores will be worth it with later games, but already quad cores have been out well over a year.  Some suggest that Windows itself is the reason quad cores are so underwhelming in games.

Of course, if your job is rendering video, transcoding audio etc, the quad cores will run off and leave a dual core...but for gaming...there's just not enough difference.



Just thought I'd share this.  When I was going to build my computer I couldn't find a good review that covered the e2140 compared to a quad core.  Which...should be a pointless comparison...but it's not.  

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The biggest problem with overclocks is that the results vary. Someone else might not get a stable overclock like that.

I have my E4500 running at 2.9ghz also btw. But having built a couple Q6600 systems recently I can tell that the quad core improves desktop responsiveness quite much when multitasking. i.e. work use.

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
The biggest problem with overclocks is that the results vary. Someone else might not get a stable overclock like that.

I have my E4500 running at 2.9ghz also btw. But having built a couple Q6600 systems recently I can tell that the quad core improves desktop responsiveness quite much when multitasking. i.e. work use.

Especially for someone like myself working in the graphic design field.  3d modeling, heavy photoshop files, compressing video files...this is where the quad core would more than likely wipe the bottom of your E2150.  The C2D series, Conroe and Allendales are exceptional overclockers.  After setting up my computer last year, I overclocked my E6400 to a mild 2.66ghz.  On stock coolers, people can reach the 3ghz mark on my processor.

But for yourself, you don't need the quad core for what you do.  You obviously were able to get an excellent overclock.  And those benchmarks are pretty good.  How are your temps?  Did you use an aftermarket heatsink or artic silver?

[Joker]

Very interesting test, Republic. Thanks for posting that.

I'm not a big geek, so I need to ask this question:
Is it true, then, that the clock speed is more important in determining game performance than the multiple cores?
The reason I ask is that currently the Q6600 2.4 GHz is the same price ( $279 ) as the E6850 3.0 GHz. Would the E6850 do a little better in games, while the Q6600 might be better at video editing or photo work? I suppose I mean at non-OC'ed speeds here.

I'm working on a new game machine for myself and considering these two. I mostly play AH, but do some video editing and photoshop stuff also. Of course, either one will be a huge improvement over my old computer.

Joker

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Joker
Very interesting test, Republic. Thanks for posting that.

I'm not a big geek, so I need to ask this question:
Is it true, then, that the clock speed is more important in determining game performance than the multiple cores?
The reason I ask is that currently the Q6600 2.4 GHz is the same price ( $279 ) as the E6850 3.0 GHz. Would the E6850 do a little better in games, while the Q6600 might be better at video editing or photo work? I suppose I mean at non-OC'ed speeds here.

Depends on the game.  If the game is coded for Quad Core, they actually are very close (in games like Supreme Commander).  But the E6850 has a faster FSB (1333mhz) from the (1066mhz) of the Quad Core and also is clocked faster.  Benchmarks I've found show the E6850 gets anyone from 10-35 more FPS in games not coded for quad core.

[republic]

Originally posted by Fulmar
And those benchmarks are pretty good.  How are your temps?  Did you use an aftermarket heatsink or artic silver?

I'm using the stock cooler, with some arctic silver.  Temps stabilize around 50c during a long Supreme Commander game.  The Quad ran warmer (around 55c), as is to be expected.

Originally posted by Joker
Is it true, then, that the clock speed is more important in determining game performance than the multiple cores?

No, clock speed is only a portion of the equation.  Cache size makes a big impact (in gaming), and eventually Quad cores WILL be faster as more software is written for multicore.  Between the choice of a Q6600 and a E6850, I'd go Q6600 without hesitating.  The only real reason to choose dual core over quad is when there is a price disparity.  If your ready to drop around 275 for a cpu, go Quad core.  It will no doubt give you a longer upgrade cycle.

Besides, I'd be good money that Q6600 would run at 3.0GHz as the one I tested did.


I will note that I plan to upgrade to a Q6600 soon, only because my job requires me to do heavy video editing etc.

However if your on a budget, don't think that you are going to suffer in gaming with a dual core cpu.  Dual core is still, and will be for some time, very competitive in gaming.

The main reason for the post was to show the amazing potential of the E2000 series.  I've never known a time when you could get a 100% overclock out of a cpu.  Even the fabled Celeron 300A didn't give us that much headroom.  For a ~$70 cpu to rival a ~$270 cpu....it's mind boggling.

[Fulmar]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=872&chart=425

Everything game related points to the E6850 winning.  Everything CPU intensive, such as encoding, arithmetic, rendering points to the Q6600 winning.

Pick your poison.

[republic]

Originally posted by Fulmar
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=872&chart=425

Everything game related points to the E6850 winning.  Everything CPU intensive, such as encoding, arithmetic, rendering points to the Q6600 winning.

Pick your poison.

With the new Penryn cores due out any moment, I'd really hate to see anyone buy an expensive dual core right now.  Once Penryn arrives you'll get more for your money.

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by republic
With the new Penryn cores due out any moment, I'd really hate to see anyone buy an expensive dual core right now.  Once Penryn arrives you'll get more for your money.

The Q6600 and E6850 are the same price:  $279.99

But if you want to play the 'I'm waiting for the next generation of _____ before I upgrade, fine by me.  It's an endless cycle.

Penryn will just lower the cost of older generations.  The key factor in choosing a computer is budget.  $1000 will buy you a faster computer in a year as today, but do your needs require an upgrade now?

[republic]

Originally posted by Fulmar
The Q6600 and E6850 are the same price:  $279.99
 

Exactly.  A Quad core *should* get you a much longer upgrade cycle.  If a program is multicore aware, 4 cores running at 2.4GHz will wipe the floor with 2 cores running at 3.0GHz.  The problem is, games currently don't utilize the additional 2 cores..

But if you want to play the 'I'm waiting for the next generation of _____ before I upgrade, fine by me.

Penryn is literally just days away, not some 6 month away 'currently only on paper' part...

Penryn will just lower the cost of older generations.

Which is exactly why I would wait if I was wanting a fast stock clocked dual core.  You're sure to either get a good deal on that E6850 or a better performance for the same price with the E8500 (3.16Ghz with 6MB of cache @ $266).  Or...you can get slightly better performance at nearly $100  cheaper with the E8400 (3.0GHz with 6MB of cache @ $183).  Compared to the E6850 (3.0Ghz with 4MB of cache @ $275).

If you want dual core...wait for Penryn there'll be much cheaper parts for the same performance.  If you want quad core, Penryn won't bring much savings or much of a performance bump for the same money.

For a roadmap to Penryn and prices http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=19

[Fulmar]

I haven't followed up on Penryn in a while...thanks for the info.

[republic]

Originally posted by Fulmar
I haven't followed up on Penryn in a while...thanks for the info.

No problem, I actually used to be an AMD man, but when Phenom came out with that TLB bug...I jumped ship back to Intel.  I just built my new Intel system so I had to research quite a bit.  I decided to go with the E2140 just long enough to convince my boss I needed a Q6600 for work.  

[715]

I'm going to build a new system sometime soon and the dual core Penyrns look good.  How long do you guys typically wait before trying a new CPU and new MB?  I don't want to find out I have to install an old CPU to flash the motherboard so it will recognize the new CPU.  (I have an aversion to troublesome builds )  Also, I want to stay with XP SP2.  Last time I built a system I was forced to upgrade to XP because 98 would not work properly with the new (at the time) MB.  Will brand new MBs still work on XP?

[republic]

Originally posted by 715
I'm going to build a new system sometime soon and the dual core Penyrns look good.  How long do you guys typically wait before trying a new CPU and new MB?  I don't want to find out I have to install an old CPU to flash the motherboard so it will recognize the new CPU.  (I have an aversion to troublesome builds )  Also, I want to stay with XP SP2.  Last time I built a system I was forced to upgrade to XP because 98 would not work properly with the new (at the time) MB.  Will brand new MBs still work on XP?

Generally I look at the manufacturers website.  They'll say Penryn ready or what have you.  They'll have a CPU compatibility guide.  I also don't usually buy a motherboard unless I've read a favorable review from one of my favorite hardware sites.  Tomshardware, Anandtech, Techreport, etc.  As far as I know, there aren't any motherboards that require Vista.

I was burnt with AMD, I assumed socket 939 would be supported longer...then they jumped to AM2...and now only AM2+ boards are certain to work with Phenom.  (Though many AM2 boards will work...it's difficult to find out which ones, and the ones that do all need bios updates.)

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by republic

I was burnt with AMD, I assumed socket 939 would be supported longer...then they jumped to AM2...and now only AM2+ boards are certain to work with Phenom.  (Though many AM2 boards will work...it's difficult to find out which ones, and the ones that do all need bios updates.)

Yeah, that Phenom deal was a mess.  I was pleasantly suprised that my Asus P5N-E SLI board will take the Penryn.