E8400 or Q6600...

Will you be using programs that can utilize all four cores of the Q6600 (video rendering/encoding, etc)? What will be the main use of this computer... essentially.
When do you plan to upgrade your CPU after you get either the E8400 or Q6600?
 
I've got a QX9650 and an E8500.

QX9650 tops out at about 1680 FSB and about 4.2ghz
E8500 goes all the way up to 1900FSB and is currently at 4.35ghz
same 780i motherboard

I used to be all about quads till my boss showed me the difference in real world performance not just benchmarking.

Having 4 cores behind a small Front side is pretty much dead weight and extra heat.
but having 2 screaming fast cores behind a high front side gives actual better performance.
 
<bangs head against keyboard> This question AGAIN? really?! no seriously?

You're kidding right?

Ok, I guess you're not kidding so I guess I'll answer you.

This has subject has literally been beat to death over & over.

<insert quad here q9450, q6600, q9300> vs <insert faster dual core here: e8500, e8400, e7200>

1. Whats important to you?
gaming - e8400 will be faster
encoding - q6600 will be faster

low heat, lower power cosumption = e8400

2. How long do you plan on keeping the system?
1-2 years = e8400 will last you long enough till your next upgrade
2-3+ years = q6600 may hold up better as more apps down the road take advantage of all 4 cores.
 
Q6600 always.
The benefits of the extra OC on the E8400 make no difference. There is a distinct group of people still pushing the "E8400 vs Q6600" argument as if it is a valid one. Truth is, the extra clocking in the E8400 is only good for [H]ard penis and has no real world effects. When it comes down to "Which is a better investment?" long term, short term, gaming, or encoding: It's the Q6600.

The "E8400 vs Q6600" argument is a myth.
Don't listen to them. These are the same people buying 45nm duals to push 4 GHz simply because "it's 4 GHz and that is so awesome", regardless of performance benefit.
 
To the OP thanks for taking the beating so I didnt have to :)
Also thanks for the link to the other thread on this. That should be sticky.
 
mstersmith said:
To the OP thanks for taking the beating so I didnt have to :)
Also thanks for the link to the other thread on this. That should be sticky.
Click to expand...

LOL

I was honestly unsure even after reading all the bloated posts on other threads.
 
Cmustang87 said:
LOL

I was honestly unsure even after reading all the bloated posts on other threads.
Click to expand...

And you thought your "new" thread was somehow special and would convince you one way or another? Maybe you should ask a different question since you read the same one asked by other people already and didn't find the answer. The fact that you knew other threads existed, had read them and STILL started a new thread asking the exact same question is a bit... I dunno.. stupid?
 
UtopiA said:
Q6600 always.
The benefits of the extra OC on the E8400 make no difference. There is a distinct group of people still pushing the "E8400 vs Q6600" argument as if it is a valid one. Truth is, the extra clocking in the E8400 is only good for [H]ard penis and has no real world effects. When it comes down to "Which is a better investment?" long term, short term, gaming, or encoding: It's the Q6600.

The "E8400 vs Q6600" argument is a myth.
Don't listen to them. These are the same people buying 45nm duals to push 4 GHz simply because "it's 4 GHz and that is so awesome", regardless of performance benefit.
Click to expand...

Uh yea right man whatever you say...
you only say that cause "you" run a quad
look at this
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0

seems you are so far off base that you aren't in the ball park
and that games DO in fact favor a OC'd dual thank you very much

BTW I run a 8400 @ 4.23Ghz.
 
I'm not seeing it.
Where exactly am I off-base?
:)

Looks like 125 vs 150 fps.
And 70 fps vs 90 fps.

Hmm?

you only say that cause "you" run a quad
Click to expand...
And you're saying the opposite because you run a dual.

If it's worth sacrificing two extra cores just for the e-peen factor of 4 GHz, then more power to you. Enjoy that number in CPUZ.
 
No one is gaming at 1024x768 though and at higher res it's all GPU.
 
UtopiA said:
Q6600 always.
The benefits of the extra OC on the E8400 make no difference. There is a distinct group of people still pushing the "E8400 vs Q6600" argument as if it is a valid one. Truth is, the extra clocking in the E8400 is only good for [H]ard penis and has no real world effects. When it comes down to "Which is a better investment?" long term, short term, gaming, or encoding: It's the Q6600.

The "E8400 vs Q6600" argument is a myth.
Don't listen to them. These are the same people buying 45nm duals to push 4 GHz simply because "it's 4 GHz and that is so awesome", regardless of performance benefit.
Click to expand...

This is the truth. A 3Ghz core, when you're talking about gaming, is pretty much equal to a 4.5Ghz core. Above 3Ghz there is no real advantage in current software.

The quad's "other" 2 cores, the ones often unused by current games and applications, can pick up the load from things running offscreen, background processes etc, and keep things over all running more smoothly. This is especially important if you multitask a good bit.

The dual will be at a considerable disadvantage in 2-3 years time when compared with a quad, so if you intend to keep the machine for any great length of time that's another tick in the quad's favor.

At the moment, the Q6600 is the clear price to performance winner. 3.2Ghz is almost a certainty with aftermarket cooling, and 3.6Ghz not at all unreasonable to shoot for. 3Ghz is almost always attainable on the Intel stock cooler if you have to put off a purchase for a bit. That's more than enough. Sure, it's 10-15% slower per clock than the Q9650 in some tasks, but that's a minor difference, and the Q9650 is half again as expensive as the Q6600, a $350 chip instead of a $200 one, and a bit less if you pick one up used.

The Q6600 wins. End of story.

Oh -- and FSB speeds mean almost nothing on the modern Intel platform. There is absolutely no noticeable difference between 8x400 for 3.2Ghz and 9x356 for 3.2Ghz on my machine. It's something I've been curious about in the past. Got over it. Moved on.
 
silent-circuit said:
Oh -- and FSB speeds mean almost nothing on the modern Intel platform. There is absolutely no noticeable difference between 8x400 for 3.2Ghz and 9x356 for 3.2Ghz on my machine. It's something I've been curious about in the past. Got over it. Moved on.
Click to expand...

Intel's large caches and superior pre-fecth tehcnologies makes RAM speed less of a factor...
 
why are we still comparing them as if they are completely equal in price?

is price never ever a factor?
 
Sojuuk said:
why are we still comparing them as if they are completely equal in price?

is price never ever a factor?
Click to expand...
Don't they run about the same price?
Sometimes one is on sale, and the other isn't, but they're both around $199 usually.
 
Sojuuk said:
why are we still comparing them as if they are completely equal in price?

is price never ever a factor?
Click to expand...

The Q6600 can be had for $180 (and rarely, a bit less) used, $200-220 new. The E8400 runs $190-$210 new, and $160+ used. They're within $30 of eachother. The price difference is negligible at best.
 
The OP wasn't clear in his requirements, but I still don't believe a quad is for everybody. Maybe everybody on the [H] forums, but not everybody. I can't see saddling my 90yr old grandmother with a hot, power hungry quad for surfing the Internet and email when even a dual is more than she'll ever need. In fact, she still has some old single core AMD. Runs cool and works for her.

Not even 5 years from now will I think everybody needs a quad. The percentage will be higher, sure. But not everybody.

And if anyone says because "Windows" will need it, that's a cop out. Microsoft bloat should not be a reason for needing a quad just to run an OS.

Anyway, I digress.... If the OP wants a faster dual, he will run his games faster than a quad today. That is fact. He can always change later.

Robert
 
Valnar said:
The OP wasn't clear in his requirements, but I still don't believe a quad is for everybody. Maybe everybody on the [H] forums, but not everybody. I can't see saddling my 90yr old grandmother with a hot, power hungry quad for surfing the Internet and email when even a dual is more than she'll ever need. In fact, she still has some old single core AMD. Runs cool and works for her.

Not even 5 years from now will I think everybody needs a quad. The percentage will be higher, sure. But not everybody.

...

Robert
Click to expand...

This is an enthusiast website however, so for the most part, people here are not tweaking the PCs in question for the elderly :p
 
Valnar said:
The OP wasn't clear in his requirements, but I still don't believe a quad is for everybody. Maybe everybody on the [H] forums, but not everybody. I can't see saddling my 90yr old grandmother with a hot, power hungry quad for surfing the Internet and email when even a dual is more than she'll ever need. In fact, she still has some old single core AMD. Runs cool and works for her.

Not even 5 years from now will I think everybody needs a quad. The percentage will be higher, sure. But not everybody.

And if anyone says because "Windows" will need it, that's a cop out. Microsoft bloat should not be a reason for needing a quad just to run an OS.

Anyway, I digress.... If the OP wants a faster dual, he will run his games faster than a quad today. That is fact. He can always change later.

Robert
Click to expand...

No, the faster dual will do jack in games today vs. the quad at /any/ kind of /reasonable/ resolution. In other words, considering (again) that this is an enthusiast website and we're talking about custom-built PCs for gaming, 1650x1080 / 1600x1200 and higher. Very few gamers building their own towers are still using a 15" CRT or 17" LCD. At 1680x1050 (which is a few less pixels than 1600x1200) you're already GPU-limited in modern titles, and in older titles... you're getting 300FPS regardless, so it doesn't matter.

We're not talking about laptops. We're not talking about UMPCs. We're not talking about saving the earth by shaving off 15 watts from your idle power draw. We're talking about reasonably high end gaming PCs.

There's even an issue with your hot power-hungry quad for surfing/email argument -- the thing only clocks up, getting "hot" and "power hungry", when necessary. Speedstep's great like that.

Again -- we're not talking about your grandmother or anyone else's -- they should get a cheap Dell, so they have warranty support and don't call you every other day to ask why they can't get their email to work. Your grandmother doesn't need a custom-built PC.
 
Whoah... slow down there cowboy. Seem awfully sure of yourself don't you? That's two posts in one thread. No one else's opinion matters? Perhaps Intel should just stop making the E84xx series altogether?

Robert
 
Valnar said:
Whoah... slow down there cowboy. Seem awfully sure of yourself don't you? That's two posts in one thread. No one else's opinion matters? Perhaps Intel should just stop making the E84xx series altogether?

Robert
Click to expand...
Now why would they do that?
The 45nm 4 GHz E8400 is such a great marketing tool for them.

Feel the power of 45 nm !!!
 
Valnar said:
Whoah... slow down there cowboy. Seem awfully sure of yourself don't you? That's two posts in one thread. No one else's opinion matters? Perhaps Intel should just stop making the E84xx series altogether?
Click to expand...

One: It's not opinion if you back it up with fact. That's been done so many times at this point that I don't feel the need to go find bench comparisons at 3 vs. 4 Ghz. As so many already pointed out, this thread is nothing new, it's a rehash of a rehash.

Two: Yes, I am sure of myself. The numbers back me up beautifully. Two posts in one thread? Sorry, next time I won't bother to reinforce my point.

Three: I assume you mean E8xxx series? Since the E84xx series would be a series of... one.

Four: Don't "sign" your posts, it's against forum rules. :)
 
Well shit, I was wrong when I picked my E8400 over a 6600. I guess I wanted the larger cache and the higher clock speed for something other than playing video games.
 
Met-AL said:
Well shit, I was wrong when I picked my E8400 over a 6600. I guess I wanted the larger cache and the higher clock speed for something other than playing video games.
Click to expand...

While this certainly may be a valid point. What exactly do you do on your PC that isn't multi-threaded, or only multi-threaded to be able to use 2 but not 4 cores that you see a benifit by running 4GHz vs 3GHz?
 
RamonGTP said:
While this certainly may be a valid point. What exactly do you do on your PC that isn't multi-threaded, or only multi-threaded to be able to use 2 but not 4 cores that you see a benifit by running 4GHz vs 3GHz?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a few seconds off WinRAR compression.
 
RamonGTP said:
While this certainly may be a valid point. What exactly do you do on your PC that isn't multi-threaded, or only multi-threaded to be able to use 2 but not 4 cores that you see a benifit by running 4GHz vs 3GHz?
Click to expand...

Battlefield 2142 :D And I run my system at stock.. my OC'in days are over. Tired of the noise, the fiddlin', etc... I guess it doesn't excite me anymore like it used to. I run my e8400 stock with the stock cooler in a Lanbox Lite and it is hella fast, stays cool, and the entire system is quiet.
 
Met-AL said:
Battlefield 2142 :D And I run my system at stock.. my OC'in days are over. Tired of the noise, the fiddlin', etc... I guess it doesn't excite me anymore like it used I to. I run my e8400 stock with the stock cooler in a Lanbox Lite and it is hella fast, stays cool, and the entire system is quiet.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In situations like that where no OC takes place, power and cooling are at a premium, 4 cores aren't of much benifit over 2, the E8400 is certainly the better option.
 
RamonGTP said:
Fair enough. In situations like that where no OC takes place, power and cooling are at a premium, 4 cores aren't of much benifit over 2, the E8400 is certainly the better option.
Click to expand...


Yaa, and I realize that I am just one step away from being a console owner. :D
 
silent-circuit said:
One: It's not opinion if you back it up with fact.
Click to expand...

You have no facts. You only have your preferences as to what you feel is better. That's fine for you. Speed of all (x) cores added together is not the only variable that matters to everybody.

You jumped on me man. I wasn't picking a fight.

Jeez.
 
Valnar said:
Speed of all (x) cores added together is not the only variable.
Click to expand...

Also, it's not a 1:1 performance increase either. The return is lower per core the more cores you add to the equation.
 
Met-AL said:
Also, it's not a 1:1 performance increase either. The return is lower per core the more cores you add to the equation.
Click to expand...

True, but also important to note that the return on over-clocks is also less the higher you go. Law of diminishing returns works in both scenarios, probably even more so with clock speeds versus cores.
 
I own both. I'm an overclocker and a folder. I'm split on this. Overcloking the E8400 is more fun.
 
Valnar said:
You have no facts. You only have your preferences as to what you feel is better. That's fine for you. Speed of all (x) cores added together is not the only variable that matters to everybody.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are facts that back Silent-Circuit up:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/10

And that was after a quick google search. I'm pretty sure that there are ton of threads on this forums with even more links that back up the fact that once you get around 1680x1050, the difference between 3.0Ghz and 4.0Ghz is pretty damn small or even zero. Most likely those same links will also show that there are very little performance gains from going with a quad-core CPU over a dual-core CPU.

$10 says someone is gonna post the same question in a few more days.:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top