Tweet
I donīt understand why the actual high-end top dual-core, the E8600 have a score performance so low compared with others processors more weak like E8500 and even though the Q6600 even be a quad-core it's of a processing technology more ancient and have less power frequency then E8600 that have a greater fsb and a greater multiplier. I don't understand what a hell of benchmark test do you use and how do you use for give that results.
-
-
If software is written to take full advantage off all available cores, then a quad core CPU (Q6600) can be faster than a dual core CPU (E8600).
PerformanceTest was designed to fully use the CPU during the CPU tests.
The technology improvements in the E8600 don't fully compensate for having only half the number of cores. Except with software that only uses 1 or 2 cores at a time, where the E8600 would look significantly faster than the Q6600.
The results of the E8500 and E8600 are close, as they should be. Close enough that other factors come into play, like the motherboard being used, the O/S (32bit or 64bit), RAM used, how clean the system was before testing, etc..
Could it be that you have just purchased a E8600 and now annoyed to realise that cheaper CPUs might have given similar performance in some circumstances?
Comment