I need new PC...
What is better/faster for LFS S2?

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 or Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600?

btw, Barton 2500+ @ 2.2 here...

Thx.

If it's just for LFS then the E8400 will be faster (at standard speeds and when overclocked to full potential). LFS only utilises one core so having dual or quad core makes no difference. However, Q6600 will be cheaper and it will provide more performance in certain applications (like video editing/photoshop) than the E8400. If it was my choice I'd go for a Q6600, but I use other applications that utilise quad core performance.

Sooner or later all apps will use 4 cores (most new games do, for example) - If your coming from a slow single core you won't be able to tell the difference between a E8400 or Q6600, and will still get a huge performance boost - but the Q6600 will be more future-proof.

Yes, but I need PC only for LFS...

Can owners of these processors leave info (number of FPS) in this case: FE1, FZ5, 19 AI + U (last)... Pls.

Minimum is ~30 here...

E8400@3600, AA8X,AF16x.

Quote from nesrulz :

Yes, but I need PC only for LFS...

Can owners of these processors leave info (number of FPS) in this case: FE1, FZ5, 19 AI + U (last)... Pls.

Minimum is ~10 here...

With a Xeon X3210 (think of a Q6600 running at about 2.05 GHz) I get about 40-50 FPS with Triple Monitors running, which goes straight up to vSync when the grid moves - or i just sit at vSync all the time with a single monitor running...

Ovidiu23, thx man, great results! :eek:
Jakg, thx.

Hey, I have

E8400 - Stock speeds
8800GT 512mb OC - Abit
4gb 800mhz ram

Max gfx etc. AA AF max

I'd plump for the Q6600. When programs in the future start to utilize 4 cores it'll be leagues ahead of the E8400. Go for personal choice, if you upgrade frequently it may be better to plump for the (slightly) better performance of the E8400 now and upgrade to a more powerful Quad chip in a year or so

(Been using a Q6600 since November 2008 and going strong. )

lukelfs, thx for info!

S14 DRIFT, can u post ur results with Q6600?

4x AA, 8x AF set in LFS rather than in CCC.

Those are hi-res skins and I have got quite a few high quality textures and the like, so pretty good. Also running active AIM and MSN conversations and WMP in the background

Graphics in LFS set to as high as possible

2Gb of RAM, ATi 2900HD Q6600 (Both at standard clocks. :hide

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

4x AA, 8x AF set in LFS rather than in CCC.

Those are hi-res skins and I have got quite a few high quality textures and the like, so pretty good. Also running active AIM and MSN conversations and WMP in the background

Graphics in LFS set to as high as possible

2Gb of RAM, ATi 2900HD Q6600 (Both at standard clocks. :hide

What's up with your road/grass/interior textures man?

Thx u S14 DRIFT.

Quote from pb32000 :

What's up with your road/grass/interior textures man?

stock E8400, 4gb 800mhz ram, ati radeon hd4650 512mb
everything max
66fps, 8AA and 16FF


big upgrade for me, went from a pentium 4 2.66ghz :P

Thx u anbiddulph.

If your looking for a proc right now go for the Q6600 like Jakg said.
Way more future proof, also very usefull within windows. Application goes so much faster then a c2d. Be wise take the quad. You wont miss the 5 FPS which what the e8400 gets more.

For the next few years I don't expect quad core will improve race sims. Also, windows stuff will not be faster with quad vs dual core, only very marginal, unless you're heavy into the few programs that effectively use multicores...

For the far future quad core might be an idea, but by then the 6600 will be slow. I'd concentrate on the next couple of years and if you do the regular web/music/dvd/simracing, 2 cores is plenty, and more ghz per core is the way to go.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Interior might be fine actually but doesn't the tarmac look VERY blocky to you?

Both look shite to me. However the MIP Bias (if adjusted) is the reason that it looks so ****ed up.

Quote from pb32000 :

Interior might be fine actually but doesn't the tarmac look VERY blocky to you?

Ehm.. everything's as high-textureish as it'll go... it looks fine on the monitor.. maybe it's the image compression idk.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Ehm.. everything's as high-textureish as it'll go... it looks fine on the monitor.. maybe it's the image compression idk.

It looks fecked up for me too. It looks like loads of lines.