Who says Quad Cores are Useless ! Check HD 4870 X2 scaling benchies

[Supra]

Today we are testing at a range of CPU’s with the new Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics card, to try and determine what kind of processing power is required to push this new dual-GPU monster to the limit. In total there are 40 CPU configurations tested, including processors from the Intel Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo series, along with a number of AMD Phenom X4 and Athlon64 X2 processors…

Legion Hardware

Excerpt from Conclusion

There were certainly a number of interesting results recorded when testing such a large range of processors with the Radeon HD 4870 X2. Perhaps the most interesting thing that we have noticed is how much faster the Core 2 Quad processors were when compared to the Core 2 Duo’s, this is not something that we have really seen before.

[muzux2]

lol, read that two weeks ago..
I like Q6600 performance at its default clocks, wonder why don’t they OC it to 3Ghz?

[junkiedogg]

Hmm. .. There is mostly a 2-10 FPS diff b/w overclocked E8400 and overclocked Q9650, except for Quake wars with 23 FPS diff.

Doesn’t justify spending almost twice the money. And that too is with a 4870X2, I guess it wouldn’t matter much with a 4870 or GTX 260. Of course, I could be wrong …

[Vandal]

I for one never said that , furthermore whoever did is an a**hole. With 1600 SPs you just know 2 cores are going to be seriously bottlenecked. Ditto with the GTX280.

[Lord_Nemesis]

Got myself a Q9550 two weeks back. But still could not install it yet due to busy office schedule and due to unavailability of TR Ultra 120 locally. :ashamed:

[Vij]

I guess its slowly getting to a time when the quad cores will start to matter for any midsegment card even…

@LordNemesis

Gosh, you have xbox360, PS3 and a very fast gaming PC… too much?

[FaH33m]

@vij

I guess its slowly getting to a time when the quad cores will start to matter for any midsegment card even…

@LordNemesis

Gosh, you have xbox360, PS3 and a very fast gaming PC… too much?

his name says it all the lord…heheheh .. dunno if Nemesis was the greek god of gaming

coming back to the topic ..

does it mean that if a person invests in a gaming PC which he plans to keep for atleast 2-2.5 years..a Q6600 would suit him more than a E8400 ? cause later on games might favoring proccys with more than 2 cores

[Udit]

this is why I ordered a Q9650 from my local dealer for 27k

[Striker10]

@Udit

this is why I ordered a Q9650 from my local dealer for 27k

You have a 20" monitor and you bought a very expensive quad-core(27k is ridiculous man!) processor just for the 4870? Oh!!!

[Lord_Nemesis]

btw, if anyone noticed all the games selected for the review are Quad optimized already. So its quite obvious that there would be significant performance boost in those games when using a Quad.

To be fair, I would say that there would be very few games there you will see a significant boost with a Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz over an E8500 @ 4.2 GHz, but there would be a lot many games where the reverse will be true.

[Udit]

@broar94

You have a 20" monitor and you bought a very expensive quad-core(27k is ridiculous man!) processor just for the 4870? Oh!!!

Feb 15 2007 to Sept 20 2008 = E6600
Sept 21 2008 to H2 2010 = Q9650

[i_max2k2]

I have preferred quads over duals ever since they were affordable, I’m glad such noticeable differences can now be seen. Long live qx9650