Quad Core Processor Question

FSUddin

FSUddin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Hi,
I bought a new computer with a 2.4 Ghz Intel Quad Core Q6600 processor that has Vista Home Premium (32-bit), 3 GB ram and a GEForce 8600 GT video card. I was wondering if anyone knew how I could check if I was getting the most out of the processor and if not, what setting to tweak through Vista. Maybe my expectation was too high for a blazing fast computer.

FSUddin
 
[quote name='FSUddin']Hi,
I bought a new computer with a 2.4 Ghz Intel Quad Core Q6600 processor that has Vista Home Premium (32-bit), 3 GB ram and a GEForce 8600 GT video card. I was wondering if anyone knew how I could check if I was getting the most out of the processor and if not, what setting to tweak through Vista. Maybe my expectation was too high for a blazing fast computer.

FSUddin[/quote]


I think it depends on the applications/games if it's designed for multi-core usage.

Don't have a multi-core processor yet but I am sure you will see a speed up from what you had before.
 
[quote name='FSUddin']Hi,
I bought a new computer with a 2.4 Ghz Intel Quad Core Q6600 processor that has Vista Home Premium (32-bit), 3 GB ram and a GEForce 8600 GT video card. I was wondering if anyone knew how I could check if I was getting the most out of the processor and if not, what setting to tweak through Vista. Maybe my expectation was too high for a blazing fast computer.

FSUddin[/QUOTE]

Try upgrading to Vista 64 bit?
 
The only good reason to have quad-core processors right now is to use apps that explicitly benefit from it. I chose to buy it because I encode videos using x264 and encoding speeds increase.

For pure gaming performance, it's probably preferable to have a fast dual-core like CK said. Also when it comes to gaming performance the graphics card is the "star" as games become more reliant on its power; I hope the OP didn't scrimp on the graphics card for spend more money on the CPU just for gaming performance.
 
Like most people have already stated, you aren't likely to see any performance gains in gaming with your quad core CPU. Very few games on the market were written to take advantage of the extra two cores (except maybe Crysis). That being said, future games will probably support quad core CPUs (and beyond) so it's safe to say that you have a good gaming system that won't be obsolete in 6-9 months.
 
You could probably over clock that thing to at least 3.0 ghz easily (I have my Q6600 up to 3.2 with a moderate voltage increase). To do that just hit delete as you are booting up your computer to enter bios and raise the front side bus. The front side bus should be at 1066 right now (2400 / 9 * 4). To get it to 3.0 ghz you would have to raise that to 1333. I wouldn't just go and do that, though. First of all your motherboard might not work well with processors at higher speeds (make sure it supports 1333 front side bus). Second of all you need to make sure you don't also over clock the ram too much or your computer won't boot up and you will need to reset the bios. To keep the ram speed down you have to change the ratio between the front side bus and the ram. Lastly like others have said you need to make sure it doesn't get too hot. Try googling speedfan for a program that keeps track of your processors heat and prime95 for a program to raise its heat output to the highest it will get in games and make sure it never goes over 70 degrees. If it does it is too hot and you should lower the front side bus.

If you are trying to improve performance in games, you should really either over clock your video card or buy a new one. Your processor already outclasses your video card by quite a lot and over clocking it won't help with games very much at all. And even though everyone here thinks 4 cores are a waste, they really can help with running lots of applications and don't even cost that much more than dual cores if you consider how well they over clock.
 
[quote name='DrFoo']
If you are trying to improve performance in games, you should really either over clock your video card or buy a new one. Your processor already outclasses your video card by quite a lot and over clocking it won't help with games very much at all. And even though everyone here thinks 4 cores are a waste, they really can help with running lots of applications and don't even cost that much more than dual cores if you consider how well they over clock.[/quote]
Whoa, there! *waves* Q6600 user here; I replied earlier in the thread. I don't think quad-cores are a waste; they're beefy enough for the rough stallion that is x264. However, I fear that the OP did not look into potential bottlenecks when choosing his parts. Thus my "scrimp" comment earlier.

EDIT: Oh, and about overclocking, first OC'ing the CPU will void the Intel warranty AFAIK (from other accounts, Intel can't readily tell if a RMA'd processor has been overclocked, but still). Overclocking does shorten the life of your processor and possibly your system. Also keep in mind the power supply when overclocking; if the power supply can't handle the juice required for the task then your entire system is in jeopardy. Just because you gain performance by OC'ing does not guarantee stability in your system so games might crash unexpectedly. Please keep these in mind.

Finally: FSU, is your system pre-built?
 
i have a q6600 and have taken it 3.0...

I currently have it lower though since im using a stock heatsink.. havent bought a nice one yet. I hate installing those things especially on intel boards with backplates.

And yes the q6600 at stock speeds is nothing to great for gaming. Bump that up to 2.8-3.0 and youll be in the game. My score in 3d mark goes up almost 2000 points bu just going up to 3.0
 
For the majority of PC games, the gfx card is more important than the processor. To quote some fellow named Rook from Rock, Paper, Shotgun:

"
People put way to much importance on the CPU, Tom’s Hardware actually has a great roundup of this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-7.html
Look at how often the CPU matters in games like CoD4, it’s inherently GPU bound. Even in cards like the 7900 where going from a dual core 1.8ghz to a 3.2ghz quad core results in about 5% performance improvement at low resolutions.
I’m pretty sure that’s the case with UT3 as well considering anandtech’s CPU scaling, even running 1 core was more than enough to push UT3 to 100+FPS http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3127
So, regardless of the CPU used in the benchmark, it’s not going push it to 100-200% performance increase in a GPU bound game like UT3."
 
so many cores...i saw a mac with 8 cores! its like we are finally almost to the technological level of star trek. im pretty sure the original enterprise ran on 16 cores. we are almost there people!
 
[quote name='SNAKE EYES EX']Here is a great link for speeding up your boot time if you have a multi-core CPU. This sped up my boot time considerably.[/quote]
This can be done on XP. However, my boot time difference using this is negligible. Also, I did some Googling on this tweak and it appears to be not-so-great. Maybe Vista detected fewer cores for you before the tweak?

If Bootvis is supported on Vista, I'd rather recommend that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top