So... Q6600 or E6850?

monir said:
I'm still in the process of learning many things, but if you hace four cores and say you wanna play games while using xifre or teamspeak all running at the same time. wouldn't a quad core do better in that situation than a dual core?
Click to expand...

Possibly. Both are so powerful it would be hard to tell the difference in normal desktop usage scenarios.

[CaM]Spoon;1031102418 said:
If your so sure that games in 2 years will be using 4 cores why not get the q6600? If the game is gonna use 4 cores im pretty sure the q6600 is gonna be crazy fast still. Doesnt make sense to spend 300 dollers on the dual then in 2 years saying youll upgrade to quade becuase games are gonna start using it. Becuase if thats true then 2 years from now the quades will be twice as fast as that dual on games.
Im on same boat but still trying to see what improvement games will get with quads in future. If unreal 2007 gives any performance gain then ill get the quade.
Click to expand...

Well there is one game that uses quad core CPUs very well NOW and that's Supreme Commander. There are other games that claim they use it but don't seem to like STALKER and possibly C&C3. In any case there is no real difference between a Core 2 Duo operating at 2.4GHz vs. 2.93GHz vs. a QX6700 at 2.66GHz in most games. The entire Core 2 Duo family is incredibly quick for today's applications and testing shows that the difference between one mid range Core 2 Duo and a high end one is very little. So why not get the Core 2 Quad anyway? Those extra cores might come in handy pretty soon.
 
nooh said:
No I mean the FSB,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

Multiplier is a 9 on it , 9 x 333Quad pumped(1333fsb)=3.00ghz
Click to expand...

How does the higher stock FSB limit you at all, though? That's where you're losing me. A 9x multi isn't going to be any more restrictive to FSB overclocking on a 333fsb chip than it is on a 266 one. Starting higher doesn't alter it insofar as that goes, so I don't get where you are obtaining your information.
 
[CaM]Spoon;1031102418 said:
If your so sure that games in 2 years will be using 4 cores why not get the q6600? If the game is gonna use 4 cores im pretty sure the q6600 is gonna be crazy fast still. Doesnt make sense to spend 300 dollers on the dual then in 2 years saying youll upgrade to quade becuase games are gonna start using it. Becuase if thats true then 2 years from now the quades will be twice as fast as that dual on games.
Im on same boat but still trying to see what improvement games will get with quads in future. If unreal 2007 gives any performance gain then ill get the quade.
Click to expand...

Q6600 still crazy fast in 2 years? My guess would be 'no'. Not compared to what will be out in 2 years anyway. I don't think a CPU upgrade every 2 years is a very aggressive upgrade schedule, and if I can get more out of the E6850 than I can with the Q6600 over those 2 years then don't you think that's the better route?

Then again Dan_D brings up an interesting point that the difference in performance of 600MHz isn't really significant. Is this true? If so, there's no reason anymore to go with the E6850 since it loses its one theoretical performance advantage. I'd love to see an up-to-date CPU scaling article on [H], FS, AnandTech, or some other reputable site.
 
MentatYP said:
Q6600 still crazy fast in 2 years? My guess would be 'no'. Not compared to what will be out in 2 years anyway. I don't think a CPU upgrade every 2 years is a very aggressive upgrade schedule, and if I can get more out of the E6850 than I can with the Q6600 over those 2 years then don't you think that's the better route?

Then again Dan_D brings up an interesting point that the difference in performance of 600MHz isn't really significant. Is this true? If so, there's no reason anymore to go with the E6850 since it loses its one theoretical performance advantage. I'd love to see an up-to-date CPU scaling article on [H], FS, AnandTech, or some other reputable site.
Click to expand...

I think Anandtech did have a Core 2 Duo scaling article at one point, but I've been unable to find it.
 
"greater higher power" dang it. now i'll have to jump on the bandwaggon and upgrade :( i was hoping my system would hold up a little longer since i installed an x1950 pro for SM3 games.
 
You need as many cores as possible, so that you can [F]old and game.

More folding for the [H]orde !!!!!!!!

 
These cores are coming out way too fast. We got dual core what, a little over a year and a half ago? As it looks right now, there really aren't that many games that utilize dual core, let alone 4 and 8 cores.

To be honest, the difference between my friends dual core and my single core is very little, even on games that have support for dual core.

All this hardware is out running the software(which is nothing new). Developers are throwing out poorly coded games, just so they can get in on the advancements of hardware. Remember Doom III? Instead of taking the time to code it right, they threw out a game that ran like shit, but looked great.

I remember when the pentium d's came out, and everyone was getting them cause they might as well, things will come out for them eventually right? WRONG. By the time anything decent came out for dual core, the X2's were destroying them, and everyone was finding out that they were not very good.

The only thing I could justify getting a quad core for is maybe encoding or rendering stuff that would be DRASTICALLY faster on a quad core. Or if I felt my E-penis was getting too small. :D
 
Nobody's mentioned memory .... what are the memory requirements for a Q6600, I mean is 2Gb enough.
 
stenna_b said:
Nobody's mentioned memory .... what are the memory requirements for a Q6600, I mean is 2Gb enough.
Click to expand...

Intel processors have no memory requirements. You can run them with anything you can install in the board.
 
the next unreal engine will support quad cores:

"Tim Sweeney: Unreal Engine 3's threading support is quite scalable. We run a primary thread for gameplay, and a secondary thread for rendering. On machines with more than two cores, we run additional threads to accelerate various computing tasks, including physics and data decompression. There are clear performance benefits to quad-core, and though we haven't looked beyond that yet, I expect further gains beyond quad-core in future games within the lifetime of Unreal Engine 3."

but if you are like me and waiting for games like crysis and ut3, then why build a system now instead of waiting till december (or when they get delayed to next year), cheaper + faster components

also thats the unreal engine 3, so any game based on it will have the same optimizations, not just ut3
 
Must have newest technology now!!! That's the purpose of this site!!! Push the newest technology as far as it will go.
 
Dan_D said:
Intel processors have no memory requirements. You can run them with anything you can install in the board.
Click to expand...

I think he just means that having 512mb and 4 cores is going to limit the cpu's. How much will it take to run optimally. 2GB, 4GB, 8GB...
 
Shmuckety said:
I think he just means that having 512mb and 4 cores is going to limit the cpu's. How much will it take to run optimally. 2GB, 4GB, 8GB...
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the processor, but rather what the system will be used for and what operating system the machine is using. A Q6600 operates no more efficiently than a E6600 given a specific amount of ram.
 
Dan D..

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 4MB L2 LGA775 @3.01GHz w/Swiftech Apex Ultra H20-220 Watercooling System (Awaiting install

In your Signature there.. ummmm Dont you mean 8mb ??? instead of 4mb cache?

LoL...

Just to point that out ;) ;)
 
Dan_D said:
It has nothing to do with the processor, but rather what the system will be used for and what operating system the machine is using. A Q6600 operates no more efficiently than a E6600 given a specific amount of ram.
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that 1gb per core is the best, so therefore with a quad core, 4gb would be the optimum.

MentatYP said:
Q6600 still crazy fast in 2 years? My guess would be 'no'. Not compared to what will be out in 2 years anyway. I don't think a CPU upgrade every 2 years is a very aggressive upgrade schedule, and if I can get more out of the E6850 than I can with the Q6600 over those 2 years then don't you think that's the better route?

Then again Dan_D brings up an interesting point that the difference in performance of 600MHz isn't really significant. Is this true? If so, there's no reason anymore to go with the E6850 since it loses its one theoretical performance advantage. I'd love to see an up-to-date CPU scaling article on [H], FS, AnandTech, or some other reputable site.
Click to expand...

First off the quad core CPUs just came out a few months ago, of course game developers haven't coded anything to take advantage of this yet. In 2 years the Nelhem 8 cores will be out, AND then we will be arguing why switch from quad core to octo core?!?! Theres nothing optimized for it yet!!!?!?!?! Anyways onto the point, being that quad core will be able to carry you for a long time, at least the 2 years that you're talking about. Games coming out towards the end of the year will be optimized for quad core and thats when the real preformance of quad core will be shown.
 
I wish valve would release that damn multi-core update already, I wanna see what kind of gains quad-core gets in CS:S. My opteron 170 is only good for 50ish fps in big firefights, what mhz C2D would I need to maintain 100fps minimum?
 
shiznit said:
I wish valve would release that damn multi-core update already, I wanna see what kind of gains quad-core gets in CS:S. My opteron 170 is only good for 50ish fps in big firefights, what mhz C2D would I need to maintain 100fps minimum?
Click to expand...

The multicore update is for halflife episode 2 iirc.
 
LostInRehab said:
The multicore update is for halflife episode 2 iirc.
Click to expand...
I thought it was for the whole source engine? The previews said that we can expect gains in past source engine games as well since they were able to multi-thread rendering, ai, sound, and the rest. I just wanna be able to run CS:S at 100fps and use 100 rates.
 
SoCalDJ said:
I'm under the impression that 1gb per core is the best, so therefore with a quad core, 4gb would be the optimum.
Click to expand...

Since the cores share the memory equally I think that statement is bogus. If we were talking about Opterons, and making sure each processor had it's own dedicated memory that would be one thing, but no Intel platform has ever worked that way. It will be the applications that decide how much memory is optimal and unless Intel changes something about the design of their motherboards and memory controllers, as well as how the CPUs interact with memory, this will not change.
 
I'm kinda in the same boat, however I am leaning towards the 6850 myself, just because I still "have it in my head" that higher speed = faster machine. I built a QX6700 System for a guy at work and outside of benching it just didn't "feel" super fast.
 
Kangg said:
I'm kinda in the same boat, however I am leaning towards the 6850 myself, just because I still "have it in my head" that higher speed = faster machine. I built a QX6700 System for a guy at work and outside of benching it just didn't "feel" super fast.
Click to expand...

Put that Q6600 on water cooling and then see what happens. :D
 
I actually asked the q6600/e6850 questionin another thread too. Does someone who has a Q6600 let us know what temps they idle at? I have a scythe ninja i bought for the sole purpose of ocing and im wondering if that would be enough cooling for the quad core.
 
Im not sure about the Q6600 ( 1066fsb ) but the upcoming Q6850 ( 1333fsb ) has a new stepping ( G0 ) and it runs very cool from the few that Ive seen..... If the E6850 shares the same stepping as its quadcore counterpart then its going to be a monster overclocker..... Ive seen a few Q6850 run 4000mhz on air ( with decent temps too) the E6850 should do alot better than that.... Also I think the 1333fsb cpus can handle high fsb better, pair it up with a P35 board and it should be alot of fun..... one E6850 did 618fsb already:D

Myself, Im not buying on july even at that price, but if I have to choose Ill go with the E6850, especially if the Q6600 on july is the same ones thyre shipping now,,,,,,
 
i would go with an 6850 because it should be plenty enough for ya in the up coming years. anyone who holds on to proc as long as you have (i had a amd xp 3000 for bout 4 yrs myself now a c2d e6400) would still do just as well meaning price/performance and by the time you need 4 cores they will be really cheap!
 
Quad core all the way, I think the benefits are great until you hit 8 cores. This will give me render times almost twice as fast as with the E6850 in programs like 3DStudio and Terragen. If you compare them, there's a chance you lose about 10% on performance, there's also a change you'll gain about 90%, I think it more than evens out. Also, the Q6600 is already fast enough for any game, even if it does run at a slower speed, but when running SupCom, Crysis, and the new source engine, the E6850 can't compare.

And really, remember when people asked the same question with the single and dual core Athlons, you could get an FX-55 for the same price as an X2 3800 and people were having trouble deciding. I think it's obvious now that the X2 would have been better and would still be a decent processor today.
 
I never said I played them, just that running them will be a lot better on a Q6600.
 
In my experience with other processors in the past, the lower end chips tend to overclock better in the end for some reason. I don't think the E6850 will be a very impressive chip simply because it is already clocked from the factory as high as it is. Now, I could be wrong since this is all pure speculation, however, just look at the X6800 vs. E6600 results. People were getting the exact same speeds from a chip that costs $800 less. I think you will have better OC results from the Q6600 than you will from the X6850 and it will probably, in the end, prove to be more powerful because eventually their will be apps and games alike geared towards utilizing 4 cores.
 
kill4killin said:
In my experience with other processors in the past, the lower end chips tend to overclock better in the end for some reason. I don't think the E6850 will be a very impressive chip simply because it is already clocked from the factory as high as it is. Now, I could be wrong since this is all pure speculation, however, just look at the X6800 vs. E6600 results. People were getting the exact same speeds from a chip that costs $800 less. I think you will have better OC results from the Q6600 than you will from the X6850 and it will probably, in the end, prove to be more powerful because eventually their will be apps and games alike geared towards utilizing 4 cores.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about percentages the lower end chips clock higher because there is more headroom for them because they are so low from the clock ceiling of the chip design. The higher end chips often reach higher speeds, but a lower percentage clock increase. The E6850 is likely to be slightly revised silicon. I would expect much better overclocks out of the E6850 than I would the Q6600. With that said, for some applications there is no substitute for extra cores.
 
/me pokes his head in...

I'm amazed that people even ask this kind of question. Dual core vs quad? It's like saying "Do I want a 12 oz can of Pepsi for $.99 or a 44 oz Super Big Gulp for $1.09 at 7-11." :D

The choice is so obvious it's not even funny, regardless of whether someone thinks "Oh I don't need that much..." because you just never know when you could use that extra bit.

If they're roughly the same price (and in a month and 2 weeks, they pretty much will be) why even bother asking the question?
 
bbz_Ghost said:
/me pokes his head in...

I'm amazed that people even ask this kind of question. Dual core vs quad? It's like saying "Do I want a 12 oz can of Pepsi for $.99 or a 44 oz Super Big Gulp for $1.09 at 7-11." :D

The choice is so obvious it's not even funny, regardless of whether someone thinks "Oh I don't need that much..." because you just never know when you could use that extra bit.

If they're roughly the same price (and in a month and 2 weeks, they pretty much will be) why even bother asking the question?
Click to expand...
If every program scaled well with extra cores then you would be absolutely right, although not to the degree of your soda example. Problem is that many programs are still single threaded and by the time most of use can really use quad core Penryn will be out with hopefully less heat and definitely higher clocks. That's why many of us are looking at the e6850 as a stop gap until we can get a quad core that overclocks well w/o water.
 
After reading this thread I am more confused than ever which one to buy. I'm not fully convinced the E6850 is that much faster than the Q6600 in gaming, am I not paying attention?

I mean, we literally have a summer with a few major releases claiming quads will be a benefit in performance... so why not go with the Q6600?
 
Teknikallysekure said:
After reading this thread I am more confused than ever which one to buy. I'm not fully convinced the E6850 is that much faster than the Q6600 in gaming, am I not paying attention?

I mean, we literally have a summer with a few major releases claiming quads will be a benefit in performance... so why not go with the Q6600?
Click to expand...

I'd opt for more cores. You can still achieve a 3.0GHz overclock with a Q6600 which should be plenty. There is no substitiute for cores. All the E6850 might bring you is better overclocking, but again, at some point there isn't going to be much of a return on that.
 
If you think about raw mhz i think it helps. lets not forget how efficient these core2s are.

if you have any dual core at 3ghz, you get 6ghz of computing power
if you have any quad core at 3ghz, you get 12ghz of computing power

no-one is going to be able to reliably answer if all that power will be used, etc. yes most things are still not multithreaded, but that surely is the way that things are going forward. in the price bracket that you are looking at, future-proofing i think is quite important (from a value-for-money perspective, regardless of how interested you are in spending less, no-one pays over the odds for something), and with the q6600 you get just that. if i was you, id get something as a stopgap until the pricecuts arrive and then go for a q6600.

i still remember the difference i felt when moving from a athlonXP to opteron 165 - it was immense, and now i can 'feel' it when i am on a single-core computer.


games etc: you need the beefiest gfx card you can get. good ram also helps, lets not forget we need to get data to these chips so they can do their thing - good RAM, and fast SATA2 disks will help here.


i personally do not see where the confusion is - the q6600 is a more powerful chip, by far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top