• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

E8400 vs Q6600

J

JLangevin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
1,181
Im going to be upgrading my processor from my OC'd E6300 tomorrow and need advice on which to go with. The E6300 has been overclocked for nearly 2yrs @ 3.4ghz without any issues. I run 1/2 ID Watercooling with a dual 120mm radiator, so heat isnt going to be an issue.

I do not do any extreme gaming nor do I do any extreme multi-tasking. So Im sorta leaning towards the E8400. Price is an issue right now, so this is why I'm limiting my options to these 2 processors.

Does anyone know what typical overclocks on the E8400 looks like? Ive been impressed with the E series Dual Cores thus far and if the quality is like that of my E6300, Ill be happy. I have a friend who upgraded his E6300 with a similar overclock to a Q6600 and has mentioned that he hardly notices a difference.

Please, tell me which you think I should go with and please support your decisions. Thank you.
 
well since you dont do extreme gaming or multitasking is there a reason that you feel like you must upgrade? if you had to though id say get the e8400 since its 45nm which means its cooler, less power, and overclocks pretty high most people say they get at least around 4.0ghz
 
E8400 will run a lot cooler and obviously go higher than a Q6600 its already at 3ghz vs 2.4 and the multiplier is higher so it will be easier to OC if you really need to. i have a couple of them in my studio with bigh scythe heatsinks on them and the fan doesnt even come on during normal use. i tested one for OC and got it up to 3.8 very easilly. however i dont really need it on that machine and set it back to standard and lowered the voltage slightly.

my main (and gaming) pc has a q6600 which is great, i can host a game server and play on the server at the same time, and people who join get great pings. things like encoding videos for ipod and rendering work great as well
That machine has raptor game drive and gigabyte i-ram drive for swap and temp. i am almost always the first in a map.

in the winter i have the q6600 at 3.2 ghz no problem, during the summer i have reduced it to try and save on AC. its "only" at 2.8ghz.
 
Well myself coming from a ds3 on 6300 to dq6 on a 6400 and E6600 and to Q6600 on a p35r. To a gaep35ds3r and now to a Q9650 on a p5e3 and Q6600 myself with all the money, spent the only place you will see it is benchmarks mostly. Cache size makes a difference, cooling makes a difference only to whom youreself in the end. Ive spent countless moolah and does it make a difference to me yes but this is a hobby now days instead of my job like it use to be. A 6300 still is not a slouch even at 3.4 maybe theres something else you would like to upgrade. But myself if I was to do it again would keep my 6300 till intel releases Nehalem then you might truly actually see a benefit of a monumental difference. And I settled on my Q6600
 
So it sounds like you are saying that I may not see a noticable difference between the E6300 @ 3.4 and the E8400 @ 4.0. The major difference between the 2 that I see is the 2mb L2 vs 6mb L2.

The reason Im looking at upgrading the processor is that since its been run at 3.43 at almost 2yrs, I have to wonder how much life is left on it. Plus, I like to try and stay with the times as much as possible. However hearing that I may spend the money, and not see results... is disconcerning.
 
I just don't know how much you'll see the results in real world usage. If you don't do any thing that needs the processor in the first place, why spend the money? Obviously your never going to see the results if you never have to.
 
JLangevin said:
The reason Im looking at upgrading the processor is that since its been run at 3.43 at almost 2yrs, I have to wonder how much life is left on it. Plus, I like to try and stay with the times as much as possible. However hearing that I may spend the money, and not see results... is disconcerning.
Click to expand...

Realistically, you probably have 10+ years of life left on that CPU. If you aren't using the power, and it sounds like you aren't, then save the money or use it on something else you need - maybe more storage or something.
 
Like everyone else said, you won't see a major increase in performance by upgrading. Unless you encode a lot of video or do some intense gaming, which you said you don't, there really is no point in upgrading your CPU right now.

BUT, if I had to chose it would be the Q6600. 2 extra MB's of L2 cache, EASILY clocks to 3.0Ghz on stock voltage (most G0's anyways) and shreds an 8400 in video encoding.
 
Well its definitly nice to hear that this old 1.86ghz C2D is worth keeping. I was half expecting to hear "Replace that old POS" or "definitly go with a new processor, that thing is slow"

Let me be a little more clear on exactly what it is that I do with my PC, perhaps it will help in the decision making.

When is comes to gaming, I mostly play World of Warcraft, and when bored with that, I still play F.E.A.R, COD4, and Flight Sim 10. One of my hobbies that I do when I have time is amature film editing, both from digital and captured media. (Mini DV).

Does this help with any of your advice? I would like to be able to run Crysis someday, and am worried that I might be bottlenecking with my 8800 Ultra. 3DMark08 Score with this processor / gpu is 13,130 Marks. Is that decent?
 
45nm's are known to be faster than 65nms while running much cooler

E7200 (45nm) @ 2.53GHZ 3MB L2 vs E8400 (45nm) @ 2.53GHZ 6MB L2, the E8400 would be 8-15% faster than the E7200, since the E6300 is on an older 65nm I would say the E8400 at same speed would probably be 10-18% faster.

But since your E6300 is at 3.4GHZ, there is no reason to upgrade.
 
Well I do plan on overclocking the E8400 to 4.0. Since Im running watercooling, Im sure it will be an easy milestone to hit.
 
Not worth it, don't do it. Nothing but video encoding really is bottlenecked by the processor anyway - if you do a lot of that, quad might be worth it. Otherwise that E6300 has years of life left in it.
 
How will my E6300 OC do with games of today, and in the future? For instnace, Crysis?
 
depends on your resolution at lower resolutions games are more cpu dependent but when you start getting higher the work load will be put onto your graphics card instead.
 
If you don't think you need a quad core then the E8400 is the way to go. I got mine to 3.6GHz without even blinking. They are awesome overclockers. However I have to wonder why you want to upgrade. If you aren't gaming or doing heavy multi-tasking or professional applications it doesn't make sense to spend money on an upgrade that really won't do anything for you.
 
Dan_D said:
If you don't think you need a quad core then the E8400 is the way to go. I got mine to 3.6GHz without even blinking. They are awesome overclockers. However I have to wonder why you want to upgrade. If you aren't gaming or doing heavy multi-tasking or professional applications it doesn't make sense to spend money on an upgrade that really won't do anything for you.
Click to expand...

Because we're [H]ard, we're not casual computer users, we always strive for MOAR POWER!
 
Don't worry about Crysis, it's crap anyway. It'll run like crap on a low end system just as much as it'll run like crap on a high end system. So no matter what you do, don't expect to be able to play Crysis like you'll be able to play any other game. Given that, you should be fine with any other game :p


Just my opinion though...I played it and it was just OK on my system with a 3.6Ghz Q6600, 4Gb DDR2 1066, and a 8800GTS640 at 1440x900 res. No AA enabled.
 
JLangevin said:
Im going to be upgrading my processor from my OC'd E6300 tomorrow and need advice on which to go with. The E6300 has been overclocked for nearly 2yrs @ 3.4ghz without any issues. I run 1/2 ID Watercooling with a dual 120mm radiator, so heat isnt going to be an issue.

I do not do any extreme gaming nor do I do any extreme multi-tasking. So Im sorta leaning towards the E8400. Price is an issue right now, so this is why I'm limiting my options to these 2 processors.

Does anyone know what typical overclocks on the E8400 looks like? Ive been impressed with the E series Dual Cores thus far and if the quality is like that of my E6300, Ill be happy. I have a friend who upgraded his E6300 with a similar overclock to a Q6600 and has mentioned that he hardly notices a difference.

Please, tell me which you think I should go with and please support your decisions. Thank you.
Click to expand...
If you intend on OCing again, go with the e8400 (or better yet 8500 .5 the x ;) ).

If you had an application(s) that was highly optimized for quad core, obviously that's the best bet but most games and most applications will not be, until quads are mature, which they won't be for several more years. Obviously you know this.
 
JLangevin said:
I have a 22" Widescreen, so we are talking 1680 resolution.
Click to expand...

You will not see CPU bottlenecking at that resolution with your CPU running at its current speed. Considering what you've said you do on your PC, it doesn't look like there's any compelling reason for you to upgrade altogether. You mentioned that you have a limited budget, therefore I would suggest that you stick with your current setup for the time being, and once you get enough cash, upgrade to a good quad like a Q9650 or Q9550 if you feel the need. Going to a 45nm quad will give you a lot of speed benefits for video encoding and multitasking as well as giving you quite a bit of overclocking headroom, whereas right now getting a faster dual-core won't do that much.
bigdogchris said:
If you had an application(s) that was highly optimized for quad core, obviously that's the best bet but most games and most applications will not be, until quads are mature, which they won't be for several more years. Obviously you know this.
Click to expand...

Windows (especially Vista) takes advantage of multiple cores for multitasking very efficiently. Anyone who runs more than two applications at a time will benefit from a quad-core CPU, especially when dealing with applications that use a moderate amount of RAM and CPU power, like video/audio encoding, large spreadsheets, browsers with lots of open tabs, media playing, etc. You don't need a quad-optimised program in order to take advantage of a quad.
 
Alright, since I didnt get a single response in favor of an upgrade, I went to the shop and got some UV Lighting, the Antec PCI Slot VGA cooler to help with my Ultra's temps, and added some drops of UV die to my coolant to spice up the appearance. I also got some new fans for my radiator, and some blue LED items. I figured since I spent so much time customizing my side panel with a plexi window, I would make it look nicer.

For those who are interested, the window is a smoke color 1 way plexi, so when the PC is off, it blacks out and you cant see inside the PC. Once the power is turned on, the lights and UV tubes on the inside light up illuminating the inside of the case. Similar to that of 1 way glass in an interigation room etc. I did this mod some time ago and would be happy to share some pics if anyone is interested. You would also get to see the way I mounted my radiator. Im proud of my first real case mod and my P182.
 
The E6300 has been overclocked for nearly 2yrs @ 3.4ghz without any issues. I run 1/2 ID Watercooling with a dual 120mm radiator, so heat isnt going to be an issue.

I do not do any extreme gaming nor do I do any extreme multi-tasking
Click to expand...

So
1) You have no issues with your current cooling, or OC setup.
2) You have no need for a quad.

I'd say upgrade RAM or GPU, but that Ultra investment probably hurt the wallet a bit. I'd say then... the most important upgrade of all is your display. Happy with it? Most users upgrade their display once a blue-moon, so if you really have an upgrade bug, that's where it should go :D

I'm not really a big fan of putting money into case modding, unless you go to LANs/Contests where it can generate revenue.
 
HydroBudz said:
and shreds an 8400 in video encoding.
Click to expand...
Link?


Dan_D said:
If you don't think you need a quad core then the E8400 is the way to go. I got mine to 3.6GHz without even blinking. They are awesome overclockers.
Click to expand...


Yep, I got mine up to 3.7 on stock cooling in a Lanbox that I set up with emphasis on quietness instead of cooling performance. Amazing little chips the E8400's are. The 6600's are as well.
 
Ok, a little update on performance...(specs in sig are current)

I just installed Crysis and it reccomended all settings on Very High. So, I left it and changed the resolution to 1680. on a 22" LCD monitor. With Fraps open, Im geting 208fps average. I get absolutely no stutters or chops in fights, and the AA is set at 4x. Im beyond impressed with this chip and the things its still able to do.

To the guy with the Q6600 and said its only running "ok" - Id seriously look at something causing issues. Perhaps my GPU is giving me the benifits.

As for the Ultra setting me back, no... not at all. Friend of mine Upgraded to a GTX280 and now a 4870x2 and gave me his Ultra (only 7 months old) for doing the swaps for him (as well as some case mods). Free is always welcomed.
 
Zero82z said:
Windows (especially Vista) takes advantage of multiple cores for multitasking very efficiently. Anyone who runs more than two applications at a time will benefit from a quad-core CPU, especially when dealing with applications that use a moderate amount of RAM and CPU power, like video/audio encoding, large spreadsheets, browsers with lots of open tabs, media playing, etc. You don't need a quad-optimised program in order to take advantage of a quad.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it does. But people act like a e8400 is going to struggle with the multitasking workload, and your only savior is a quad. That's simply not true. I see it in almost every thread and i've never once brought my e8400 to it's knees to justify a slower quad that's 'better at multitasking'.
JLangevin said:
I just installed Crysis and it reccomended all settings on Very High. .... With Fraps open, Im geting 208fps average.
Click to expand...
You might think you're getting 208fps. Might want to rethink your benchmark tool buddy :p ;)

in game press ` and type r_displayinfo 1
 
Jlangevin, good call not upgrading. your cpu has enough longevity in it to cary you over to the next line of cpus. I would definately wait for a core i7's to come out before looking for a new cpu.

for the record. you are not getting 200fps in crysis. run the timedemo (located in the install folder) and see what you get. its not gonna be close to that. more like 20 - 40fps at those settings at the very best.
 
the lure of upgrading is probably just for bragging rights, I actually do alot of video encoding,so I went with a Q6600 over my 6420 @3.2ghz, big diff :)
(you don't really need a link to prove that Q6600 @3.0ghz is faster then an E8400@3.0ghz for video encoding 0.0)

as for your case, I agree with everyone, you don't seem to need it atm, 3.4Ghz C2D is more then enough for now =) you might be able to wait for need-a-ham
 
I went for the e8400 when i asked myself the same question.

Difference is I just asked myself... and didn't start a new thread of a beat to death topic thats been addressed 500x in the past few months.
 
JLangevin said:
|- E6300 C2D @ 3.43ghz *490x7*
|- Gigabyte 965P-DS3 Mobo
|- Patriot DDR2 PC-6400 2gigs
|- Custom 1/2" Watercooling Loop
|- SilverStone 650watt Powersupply
|- NVidia EVGA 8800 Ultra
|- Sound-Blaster Audigy SE
|- DVD/RW Lightscribe x2
|- Antec P182 Gunmetal with Custome Side Window
Click to expand...
You need to check the version of your MoBo before you upgrade. If it's ver 3.3 then there's a firmware update that will allow compatibility with 45nm processors. It it's anything lower you're stuck with 65nm (which means you can rule out the E8400) or you'll have to upgrade your MoBo. If that's the case, I would probably stick with what you've got. As others have mentioned it's possible you won't even see any performance boost at all given your resolutions and usage. Better to save the money for a Nehalem upgrade further down the road.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm sure it does. But people act like a e8400 is going to struggle with the multitasking workload, and your only savior is a quad. That's simply not true. I see it in almost every thread and i've never once brought my e8400 to it's knees to justify a slower quad that's 'better at multitasking'.
Click to expand...

Fanboys are one thing. However, there are very tangible benefits to going with a quad, and to deny that would be giving false information.
 
Zero82z said:
Fanboys are one thing. However, there are very tangible benefits to going with a quad, and to deny that would be giving false information.
Click to expand...

Very tangible benefits for some users, true, but for the vast majority of users (though maybe just a simple majority of [H] readers) there is little to no benefit at all.
 
Forceman said:
Very tangible benefits for some users, true, but for the vast majority of users (though maybe just a simple majority of [H] readers) there is little to no benefit at all.
Click to expand...

I agree.

1) Most software doesn't use more than two cores effectively.

2) Software that is single threaded benefits from a faster core with more cache

3) SMP games do not utilize more than 2 cores effectively

In my case, I play games a lot and they are mostly single threaded games, and my video encoding applications do not benefit from core 2 and core 3, they get all then need from core 0 and 1. So the choice was 4 slower cores that I will make use of 2 cores most of the time or two faster cores that I will be able to make more use of?
 
People who run a lot of applications concurrently will benefit from having four cores. That's the main benefit to people who don't use SMP apps. It's very noticeable when you have applications that use a lot of resources, like file archiving programs, browsers with lots of tabs, media players, encoding, etc. Quads aren't for everyone, but for people who use their computers for a large variety of tasks, they can be very beneficial.
 
I went from an e6600 to a q6600 to an e8400.

I am most satisfied with my e8400, but I liked my e66 more than the q66.
 
stain. said:
I went from an e6600 to a q6600 to an e8400.

I am most satisfied with my e8400, but I liked my e66 more than the q66.
Click to expand...

I own all those same CPUs. The E8400 is a damned fine overclocker, and better than my E6600 in that regard. So naturally I like it better. However my Q6600 is my favorite of that bunch.
 
wildkatz84 said:
q6600 is more future proof
Click to expand...

By the time four cores are absolutely necessary the Q6600 won't be powerful enough to get the job done. There is no such thing as "future proof" when it comes to computer hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top