Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
overclocking is easier than adding cores.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
So... Q6600 or E6850?
- Thread starter MentatYP
- Start date
NO.
That is NOT how it works. Parellel computing isn't the same as having 8 or 12GHz processors. Not at all. First and foremost any form of SMP isn't that efficient and secondly you aren't going to get that type of linear performance increase from multi-threaded apps.
Future proofing is a flawed concept as no one can predict the future. Especially not in relation to the computer market as a whole. As for the rest of your statement, I am not entirely sure where you were headed but it will be awhile before most mainstream applications will take advantage of quad core. V8, 4x4 and to an extent, quad cores don't belong in the home right now. They simply will go unutilized by most. Only the heaviest multi-taskers and individuals who have software that actually makes a quad core or greater system worth while should purchase one. There is an argument for high end gamers to purchase quad core because of several titles claiming to be able to make use of it and of course as time goes on this should improve.
I've got news for you, the differences had to do with architectural improvements and the on-die memory controller being the largest change that would improve your experience. The extra core helped in multi-tasking but the real improvements came from elsewhere.
Everything helps.
No, it's not more powerful by far. It's far more powerful given certain circumstances.
right, well thats put me in my place!
Sorry, I've been on a endless rant all day. Comes from being really bored at work I think. I'm also highly opinionated, and that's hard to keep in check at times.
In any case my main objective was to put things into perspective and squelch any misconceptions before they get out of hand. The internet tends to take misconceptions and amplify them. It is important to combat them at every turn or the general populace will believe these PC myths and everyone suffers.
Things like each core needs 1GB of ram and the best example is the concept of bottlenecking CPUs and video cards that's gotten seriously out of control here. People tend to read things that might even be true, and they sort of only loosely grasp the concept of the thing they read in passing and tend to apply what they've learned to multiple situations without truly understanding the thing they read in the first place.
Anyway, I'm done ranting now.
It's two vs four. You (meaning the person contemplating the purchase of the Core 2 Duo or the Core 2 Quad) might not think that right now having 4 cores makes sense, but... buy for the future, not for the moment.
Considering that more software is being released or updated every day to take advantage of multithreading and multiple cores/processors, why take the chance on missing out on so much capability?
Besides, while I don't drink Super Big Gulps like I used to (sometimes 2-3 a day, actually, since I lived about 500 feet from one once), that example still holds for me. I'd rather have the ability to do more than not. Think of another analogy:
Would you buy a Ferrari that couldn't do anything better than 55 MPH (or 88.5 KPH for those people that use such systems)? While a Ferrari typically doesn't get to truly open up to 180 MPH, it's nice knowing that if you're driving down a highway all alone in the middle of nowhere and the mood strikes you, you can.
I say go for the Quad and never look back, but that's just me. I do all sorts of things that could benefit from having a quad core rig right now: 3D graphics, video encoding, even audio work would benefit tremendously for me, but again, that's just me.
I can't see why anyone would choose the E6850 over the Q6600 if all other factors are the same (same mobo, same RAM, same storage subsystems, etc) and only the chip was the difference - and they were relatively the same in terms of cost.
The potential performance benefits outweigh any overclocking potential to me even if the overclocked performance is greater, but then I'm not a diehard overclocker anymore, I haven't been since the Celeron 300A days, actually. It's just not a driving factor to me (no relation to the Ferrari example).
Considering that more software is being released or updated every day to take advantage of multithreading and multiple cores/processors, why take the chance on missing out on so much capability?
Besides, while I don't drink Super Big Gulps like I used to (sometimes 2-3 a day, actually, since I lived about 500 feet from one once), that example still holds for me. I'd rather have the ability to do more than not. Think of another analogy:
Would you buy a Ferrari that couldn't do anything better than 55 MPH (or 88.5 KPH for those people that use such systems)? While a Ferrari typically doesn't get to truly open up to 180 MPH, it's nice knowing that if you're driving down a highway all alone in the middle of nowhere and the mood strikes you, you can.
I say go for the Quad and never look back, but that's just me. I do all sorts of things that could benefit from having a quad core rig right now: 3D graphics, video encoding, even audio work would benefit tremendously for me, but again, that's just me.
I can't see why anyone would choose the E6850 over the Q6600 if all other factors are the same (same mobo, same RAM, same storage subsystems, etc) and only the chip was the difference - and they were relatively the same in terms of cost.
The potential performance benefits outweigh any overclocking potential to me even if the overclocked performance is greater, but then I'm not a diehard overclocker anymore, I haven't been since the Celeron 300A days, actually. It's just not a driving factor to me (no relation to the Ferrari example).
Wow, this thread is still going strong! Glad to see that it wasn't such a clear-cut decision, and hopefully the various opinions here will help others make the decision too.
YABD (Yet Another Bad Analogy). First of all, the rumored prices for the Q6600 and E6850 after the Q6600 price drop are the same: $266. Secondly and more importantly, it's not even remotely a matter of, "Oh, do I need that much?" Especially since the relative performance you get out of each processor isn't so straightforward (4 x 2.4GHz vs. 2 x 3.0GHz) and is software dependent. I want as much as I can get at a particular price point. I'm all about getting as much performance as I can with the budget that I have, and that's why I posed the question in the first place.
It is a question of, "Which one will be better for my computer usage habits," and from the answers posted so far, that's not going to be universal across the board. As demonstrated by the various posts here, those who do lots of 3D rendering, video encoding, etc. will gravitate toward the quad core at slower speeds per core, since those apps take advantage of as many cores as you have. Me and many others here don't use much software that can take advantage of all 4 cores, and for us the dual core is an attractive solution for a year or two with its faster clocks per core. Only the most optimistic prognosticators would predict widespread multi-core compatibility in software within that timespan, so by the time I'm ready to upgrade again in a year or two hopefully there will be more multi-core programs that I would actually use and CPUs with 4 cores or more will have become more mainstream and not command such a premium. I hope I don't have to ask this question again when that time comes--I hope multi-core compatibility will be a standard feature in many more new programs by then.
/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."
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?
YABD (Yet Another Bad Analogy). First of all, the rumored prices for the Q6600 and E6850 after the Q6600 price drop are the same: $266. Secondly and more importantly, it's not even remotely a matter of, "Oh, do I need that much?" Especially since the relative performance you get out of each processor isn't so straightforward (4 x 2.4GHz vs. 2 x 3.0GHz) and is software dependent. I want as much as I can get at a particular price point. I'm all about getting as much performance as I can with the budget that I have, and that's why I posed the question in the first place.
It is a question of, "Which one will be better for my computer usage habits," and from the answers posted so far, that's not going to be universal across the board. As demonstrated by the various posts here, those who do lots of 3D rendering, video encoding, etc. will gravitate toward the quad core at slower speeds per core, since those apps take advantage of as many cores as you have. Me and many others here don't use much software that can take advantage of all 4 cores, and for us the dual core is an attractive solution for a year or two with its faster clocks per core. Only the most optimistic prognosticators would predict widespread multi-core compatibility in software within that timespan, so by the time I'm ready to upgrade again in a year or two hopefully there will be more multi-core programs that I would actually use and CPUs with 4 cores or more will have become more mainstream and not command such a premium. I hope I don't have to ask this question again when that time comes--I hope multi-core compatibility will be a standard feature in many more new programs by then.
So, you're going for the Q6600, right?
I know all the arguments, points of view, etc. And you're right, but come on, a 2.4 vs a 3.0? If you're that concerned with 600 MHz clockspeed difference (and I'm not discounting the overclocking potential of the E6850 here, I'm just ignoring it) wouldn't you rather just get the quad and be done with it, knowing that in time - meaning weeks, perhaps months - stuff will really start to appear with better multithreading support for a wider variety of applications and software?
It's a no brainer for me, that's all. Just an opinion, like the rest that have been offered. I'll take the quad anyday over a dual core and twice on Sunday. Errrmmm... yeah, that sounds right.
I'll just say this outright because I've owned a Core 2 Duo rig of recent times: If you've never used a Core 2 Duo before, you simply have no idea what kind of power those things are capable of, really. No AMD processor I've tested or worked with can touch them for pure processing power. Stuff I normally have to wait on with this old P4 630 box I just got crankin' along at 3 GHz *with HT* simply doesn't hold a candle to the C2D T5500 laptop I owned earlier this year running a 1.66 GHz. That laptop would eat this machine alive in raw performance. Crunching a DVD on this box with DVDShrink (*a multithreaded app* by the way) takes 35 minutes to do a typical DVD9 to DVD5 conversion - that C2D laptop that I miss dearly would do it in about 11 minutes, and it's nearly half the clockspeed, but it is two cores so I understand that. Even so, with just one core at ~23-25 minutes, it's still way faster in terms of raw performance.
Quad or nothin'... that's my stance.
I know all the arguments, points of view, etc. And you're right, but come on, a 2.4 vs a 3.0? If you're that concerned with 600 MHz clockspeed difference (and I'm not discounting the overclocking potential of the E6850 here, I'm just ignoring it) wouldn't you rather just get the quad and be done with it, knowing that in time - meaning weeks, perhaps months - stuff will really start to appear with better multithreading support for a wider variety of applications and software?
It's a no brainer for me, that's all. Just an opinion, like the rest that have been offered. I'll take the quad anyday over a dual core and twice on Sunday. Errrmmm... yeah, that sounds right.
I'll just say this outright because I've owned a Core 2 Duo rig of recent times: If you've never used a Core 2 Duo before, you simply have no idea what kind of power those things are capable of, really. No AMD processor I've tested or worked with can touch them for pure processing power. Stuff I normally have to wait on with this old P4 630 box I just got crankin' along at 3 GHz *with HT* simply doesn't hold a candle to the C2D T5500 laptop I owned earlier this year running a 1.66 GHz. That laptop would eat this machine alive in raw performance. Crunching a DVD on this box with DVDShrink (*a multithreaded app* by the way) takes 35 minutes to do a typical DVD9 to DVD5 conversion - that C2D laptop that I miss dearly would do it in about 11 minutes, and it's nearly half the clockspeed, but it is two cores so I understand that. Even so, with just one core at ~23-25 minutes, it's still way faster in terms of raw performance.
Quad or nothin'... that's my stance.
So, you're going for the Q6600, right?
I know all the arguments, points of view, etc. And you're right, but come on, a 2.4 vs a 3.0? If you're that concerned with 600 MHz clockspeed difference (and I'm not discounting the overclocking potential of the E6850 here, I'm just ignoring it) wouldn't you rather just get the quad and be done with it, knowing that in time - meaning weeks, perhaps months - stuff will really start to appear with better multithreading support for a wider variety of applications and software?
That's a big part of why I started the thread. I think I asked along the way about clock scaling and how much performance the extra MHz would provide. If the 2 CPUs were clocked the same of course it'd be a no-brainer.
Wouldn't I just rather get the quad and be done with it? Not if my ratio of dual-core-capable to quad-core-capable programs is still so lopsided in favor of dual-core and will continue to be until my next upgrade cycle in a year or two. If I could see definitively in benchmarks that the raw clock speed difference gives little to no advantage, then yeah I'd go quad. Definitely. Heck, if I could find definitive benchmarks that show Adobe Lightroom working faster in a quad than a dual I'd go quad. I think I've lost days, maybe weeks worth of my life staring at the "loading" graphic when zooming in to 100% in Lightroom. I've seen claims both ways: some say it does use all 4 cores and some say it doesn't. I just want to see some numbers.
I disagree....
I think buying a Q6600 is like buying a BMW M5, fast and seats 4 people.. Buying E6850 is like buying a Ferari, it only seats 2 but will blow the M5 in a race.....
But I do agree that if youre not really into overclocking then there's no reason to choose the E6850..... The Q6600 will be a good clocker but it wont be anywhere near the E6850..... To be honest I wont trade my E6600 for a Q6600 right now unless I can sell it and get another E6600....
In a way I agree with what you said about low end cpus overclocking the same as the more expensive ones but the X6800 should generally reach a higher overclock than any other C2D.... The reason theyre getting about the same speed is because its easier to beat up a cpu that cost you $300 than one that cost you $1100....
I think the E6850 will overclock 400-500mhz more than the Q6600.... easily
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
/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."
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?
Agreed,bigtime,oh,and Bioshock (for the PC) fully supports 4 cores
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
for me its: constant video encoding... so 4 cores is a no brainer for me there, and also the future..... because I only upgrade about once every 4-5 years or so (seriously )
and I'm sorry... but nobody can say with a straight face that 600mhz of clock speed difference will be better than double the cores 5 years from now..... people take of how you don't buy specifically for futureproofing, but that doesnt mean that there isn't sometimes a clear cut choice that will be better for the future.... double the cores with not much of a clock speed difference is definately that choice
) and I'm sorry... but nobody can say with a straight face that 600mhz of clock speed difference will be better than double the cores 5 years from now..... people take of how you don't buy specifically for futureproofing, but that doesnt mean that there isn't sometimes a clear cut choice that will be better for the future.... double the cores with not much of a clock speed difference is definately that choice
for me its: constant video encoding... so 4 cores is a no brainer for me there, and also the future..... because I only upgrade about once every 4-5 years or so (seriously
My condolences.
Has anybody even tried to say that
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
600mhz is actually huge. In my opinion yes. 2.8ghz vs 3.4 ghz... hmmmm big difference. give me that extra 600mhz plzz.. ill take it anyday. hAHAHAHA..
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
My condolences.
Has anybody even tried to say that
well if you read back one of the big questions is futureproofing, and how nobody can say definitively which one is better for that, so I was addressing that...
besides, if you read what I said, I didn't actually say that anyone had actually said that
In games it may not be. If you are already getting 60FPS all the time then 600MHz of CPU power might only give you 61FPS. I'd rather have four cores personally.
I've got a Q6600 and an E6600 already. I can't tell the difference between any of my games on the E6600 at 3.6GHz and any of them on my Q6600 at 3.0GHz. Sure benchmarks might show an increase here and there but I assure you the actual difference in gameplay isn't discernable. If it were, I'd be using the E6600.
And not to mention that new id Tech 5 demo they showed at Apple's WWDC the other day. Damned sure it'll make full use of multiple cores. It's the future of computing, so... why not grab a quad while it's cheap and be on the cutting edge, bleeding all the way?
im going to Q6600 too after the dust settles, the way I see it I can squeeze a few GHz on the Q6600 to reach 3GHz, but you cant squeeze 2 cores out of that E6850 although it definitely reach higher clocks than that of a Q6600 i think going down the line more applications will utilize multiple cores..
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
e6850s are hitting 4.2ghz+ on air, my choice just got a lot harder.
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=154068
4.36ghz on air !
4+ghz dual core or 3ghz quad core, got a decision to make.
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=154068
4.36ghz on air !
4+ghz dual core or 3ghz quad core, got a decision to make.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
wow, that *is* high....
if thats becomes a typical OC (i doubt it will, but for the sake of arguement), then it really would be a hard decision, even considering the extra cores!
This posts go around and around in circles.
Even though 4.2GHz is helluva impressive, someone who can actually make use of a Quad core will still be better off with a 3GHz Quad.
I use engineering codes which can make use of as many cores as I have. My dual core is around 90% as efficient as two equivalent processors running in parallel. I actually tested this, I am not pulling this out of my a$$. A 3GHz Quad would give me .... 4x3GHz = 12GHz and remove 10% = 10.8GHz equivalent CPU (more or less). To get this with a Dual core you would need to overclock it beyond 5GHz.
So to each their own.
Even though 4.2GHz is helluva impressive, someone who can actually make use of a Quad core will still be better off with a 3GHz Quad.
I use engineering codes which can make use of as many cores as I have. My dual core is around 90% as efficient as two equivalent processors running in parallel. I actually tested this, I am not pulling this out of my a$$. A 3GHz Quad would give me .... 4x3GHz = 12GHz and remove 10% = 10.8GHz equivalent CPU (more or less). To get this with a Dual core you would need to overclock it beyond 5GHz.
So to each their own.
Sabrewulf165
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
Q6600, no question.
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
regardless. Q6600 > E6850..
Get the Q6600. enough said.
Get the Q6600. enough said.
Ok, before I get myself too deep in shit, let me just ask the question, and I want a serious answer about this because it's a serious question, and Dan addressed some of it with respect to gaming earlier in a post (no matter how fast your damned processor is it's only going to benefit you so much in gaming, etc)... so... the question is...
What the hell are folks needing 4.2 GHz for? If anyone is about to say "Because I can..." don't bother, that's a bullshit answer and doesn't tell me anything.
So really, what would people do or what do people do that seriously requires that much processing power that doesn't fall into the "OMFG 4 GHZ I'M GONNA POP A GNAD..." etc.
I do 3D work that would be kickin' at 4 GHz on a dual core but then I see that quad at 3 and think, "Ok, that was the more efficient and optimal path so no big deal." I do video encoding and again that 4 GHz dual core would be great, but the 3 coming up behind it and overtaking it because of double the processor cores would still be the most efficient and optimal solution for me and many others.
What is it about the damned overclocking that suddenly becomes the most powerful draw when faced with a more efficient and optimal solution for multithreaded apps for basically the same price?
"Can someone explain that to me like I'm a six year old?" to quote a famous line from the movie Philadelphia... 'cause I don't get it. I remember hitting 450 with that Celeron 300A and was like, "Wow, this is so cool" and that was about it. I haven't bothered again till I got an Athlon 750 and bumped it to 900 and burned it out after 6 months, and these days getting an E4300 and running it at a clean 2.4 right outta the box with the pad mod or even better is quite an interesting thing.
I just want someone to actually tell me what they do or need 4.2 GHz from a processor for. I know Folding@Home is an important thing to a lot of people - I'd consider that a legitimate reason on some levels but that effort is a combined one and the concept that one individual's machine running at 4.2 GHz over another one running at a much slower speed loses something on me. There's no tangible benefit to F@H that I can see right now or at any point in our immediate future (meaning humanity, not just this forum).
I'm expressing a personal opinion about F@H and efforts of a similar nature (and I used to run a Grid.org dnet with 1500 machines on it so I do know something about distributed efforts) so please don't lash out because of it. I sometimes think the F@H work is a dead end in many respects, but again, that's just me.
So, what do peeps do with 4.2 GHz boxes? Seriously... no goofs, no silly answers, and no "just because I wanna" if you can get away with not providing such answers. I'd really like to know what drives people to the higher clockspeeds on single or dual core machines over the obvious benefits of more cores working together at slightly reduced speeds - and I'm smart enough to know that 4.2 GHz x 2 cores does not equate to 8.4 GHz of processing power or 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 GHz, etc.
I'm just being curious, so consider that when you respond. Thanks...
What the hell are folks needing 4.2 GHz for? If anyone is about to say "Because I can..." don't bother, that's a bullshit answer and doesn't tell me anything.
So really, what would people do or what do people do that seriously requires that much processing power that doesn't fall into the "OMFG 4 GHZ I'M GONNA POP A GNAD..." etc.
I do 3D work that would be kickin' at 4 GHz on a dual core but then I see that quad at 3 and think, "Ok, that was the more efficient and optimal path so no big deal." I do video encoding and again that 4 GHz dual core would be great, but the 3 coming up behind it and overtaking it because of double the processor cores would still be the most efficient and optimal solution for me and many others.
What is it about the damned overclocking that suddenly becomes the most powerful draw when faced with a more efficient and optimal solution for multithreaded apps for basically the same price?
"Can someone explain that to me like I'm a six year old?" to quote a famous line from the movie Philadelphia... 'cause I don't get it. I remember hitting 450 with that Celeron 300A and was like, "Wow, this is so cool" and that was about it. I haven't bothered again till I got an Athlon 750 and bumped it to 900 and burned it out after 6 months, and these days getting an E4300 and running it at a clean 2.4 right outta the box with the pad mod or even better is quite an interesting thing.
I just want someone to actually tell me what they do or need 4.2 GHz from a processor for. I know Folding@Home is an important thing to a lot of people - I'd consider that a legitimate reason on some levels but that effort is a combined one and the concept that one individual's machine running at 4.2 GHz over another one running at a much slower speed loses something on me. There's no tangible benefit to F@H that I can see right now or at any point in our immediate future (meaning humanity, not just this forum).
I'm expressing a personal opinion about F@H and efforts of a similar nature (and I used to run a Grid.org dnet with 1500 machines on it so I do know something about distributed efforts) so please don't lash out because of it. I sometimes think the F@H work is a dead end in many respects, but again, that's just me.
So, what do peeps do with 4.2 GHz boxes? Seriously... no goofs, no silly answers, and no "just because I wanna" if you can get away with not providing such answers. I'd really like to know what drives people to the higher clockspeeds on single or dual core machines over the obvious benefits of more cores working together at slightly reduced speeds - and I'm smart enough to know that 4.2 GHz x 2 cores does not equate to 8.4 GHz of processing power or 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 GHz, etc.
I'm just being curious, so consider that when you respond. Thanks...
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
Overclocking is a hobby, people do it because they enjoy it. Same reason people mod their cars, nobody "needs" underdrive pulleys and superchargers, buy they do because it makes them happy. If someone is gonna get more pleasure from oveclocking a E6850 to 4+ghz than a Q6600 to 3ghz, then that's their business the way I see it.
Exactly. I seriously enjoy water cooling and overclocking. I don't do this because I need to, at stock speeds my machine can play any game out there today very well. I do it because I enjoy it. The added performance bennefits are really secondary.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
my PC (in sig) can beat up your PC
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
I Agree fully with you..but in this case
3ghz Q6600 > E6850 4ghz..
If you have the money.. Spend it on whatever you please. But if your Rig is Fast, you love your rig, you have no need to upgrade. I see a lot of people with E6600 @ 3.6ghz wanting to upgrade for the simple fact they want the Quad core. I mean. WTF?? Unless you are going to be using the cores then fine i can agree with the upgrade. But to the people who are Impulsive buyers.. I have no sympathy foryou
Yes. That's not all that bad considering the E6600 started out at $320ish. The E6850 will probably take up the E6600's old position and there will likely be a 3.2GHz or 3.33GHz part to cover the higher end price points as 1333MHz FSB parts begin to clear out the older 1066MHz models.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
anyone with quad core mind trying the GRAW 2 demo? I noticed it runs 2 separate processes in task manager with both cores at 100% on my Opteron 170 and I was wondering if we could see results for dual vs. quad core C2D.
edit: I lowered the sound from extreme to high (128 vs 64 channels probably), and both cores are around 90%
edit: I lowered the sound from extreme to high (128 vs 64 channels probably), and both cores are around 90%
I can't do it tonight, but I might be able to this weekend sometime.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
I hope you are right, but people are saying the G0 is for xtreme quad versions only. qx6850 is $999 yikes.
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
Q6600 is not G0
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,010
Just my opinion on this matter :
Myself, I'm a F@H hard hitter (Sorry bbz_Ghost, to each his own ) so It's a no-brainer to pick a Q6600 myself and I may do it during fall of 07 after seeing what Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield do in terms of pricing, compatibility and performance. I'm even sure that I may be able to pick if for cheap
However, In all honestly, if F@H is removed out of the equation, then it's a coin toss. On a side, if the claims I see here is true, getting 4+ GHz on air is a real boner but having 4 cores will make the choice more future proof. Trying to run a Q6600 past the E6850 speeds would also be a nice achievement...
The real answer can be found by asking some questions : Do I encode or do graphics work ? Y: Q6600. Do I keep the platform for a few years ? Y: Q6600. Do I multitask a lot (game while encoding something or chat while listening to a movie) ? Y: Q6600. Otherwise, either one is good.
stenna_b : Thank you for those links, it's great news indeed
Myself, I'm a F@H hard hitter (Sorry bbz_Ghost, to each his own
) so It's a no-brainer to pick a Q6600 myself and I may do it during fall of 07 after seeing what Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield do in terms of pricing, compatibility and performance. I'm even sure that I may be able to pick if for cheap However, In all honestly, if F@H is removed out of the equation, then it's a coin toss. On a side, if the claims I see here is true, getting 4+ GHz on air is a real boner but having 4 cores will make the choice more future proof. Trying to run a Q6600 past the E6850 speeds would also be a nice achievement...
The real answer can be found by asking some questions : Do I encode or do graphics work ? Y: Q6600. Do I keep the platform for a few years ? Y: Q6600. Do I multitask a lot (game while encoding something or chat while listening to a movie) ? Y: Q6600. Otherwise, either one is good.
stenna_b : Thank you for those links, it's great news indeed