E6850 or Q6600???

Ducman69 said:
There are actually quite a few recent and upcoming titles that are designed to take advantage of multithreading, with the Alan Wake devs going as far as saying that to try and play their game on a single core is just foolish although possible with hyperthreading (albeit at a huge performance penalty).

Tom's Hardware has done a CPU shootout, and one of the games they have tested that is designed to take advantage of multi-core CPUs is Supreme Commander (which is getting a HUGE expansion soon btw).

842392677_00ccfd4fb5_o.png


Surprisingly though, the dual core 6850 still scored higher. However, games like Alan Wake and Crysis may give the performance advantage to the quad-core, not counting all the 2008 titles (unless you're planning to upgrade your computer every 12 months). It sounds like you really can't go wrong with either though, with each having little advantages here and there, and they are the same price.
Click to expand...


I bet the q6600 would score higher if it was matched to the e6850 3ghz speed.
 
yah then you can say. E6850 would still beat it @ 4ghz.

ADDED:

Im waiting to see the benches, honestly its a toss up in the air for me. I guess whatever comes available first :p Ide be happy with either or. Both great cpu's
 
Yep - however I'm actually mixed up now whether I would go for the Q6600 or the E6850 after following this thread... :D
 
The only true answer:

"You'll be equally (un)happy with whichever one you choose"

...a month from now:

- If you bought a E6850, you'll wish you'd bought the Q6600
- If you bought a Q6600, you'll wish you'd bought the E6850
- If you bought a non-G0-stepping Q6600, you'll be crying in your beer.

..the only real losers are the ones in the last category, above.
 
looking at all those cpu charts it surprised me that the e6850 was beating every cpu out there in some tests. I think i made a good choice with the e6850 because bassiacaly im just goin to game and i see its very good in gaming. Bassicaly its the best for me and sure the q6600 beats it in programs ive never heard of but that doesnt matter to me.
 
Am I correct in thinking that my Gigabyte P35-DQ6 mobo will support Peryn.



Think Im going E6850 with my Gaming / general computing maching
 
you can overclock either chip, as everyone keeps mentioning.

the E6850 should overclock higher since its only got "half" the heat output

but the Q6600 could be a great overclocker and hit something like 3.5Ghz, which is a NICE clockspeed.

You can't add cores to the E6850. YOu can't overclock it in to having 4 cores.

So thats the reason to get the Q6600. You can always overclock it to 3Ghz+. Which will give you baseline (pre-overclocked) E6850 performance. In non-threaded apps. And in multi-threaded apps like encoding, the newest games, etc.. you could get 40% to potentially near 100% more performance from the Q6600.
 
Koko56 said:
Yep - however I'm actually mixed up now whether I would go for the Q6600 or the E6850 after following this thread... :D
Click to expand...

Forthcoming software (including games) will be made to support multiple CPU cores not just two. Hence, if you are buying one CPU to last the next 2-3 years, then get a quad. If you swap out CPUs and motherboards each year, then get a dual core.
 
chrisf6969 said:
And in multi-threaded apps like encoding, the newest games, etc.. you could get 40% to potentially near 100% more performance from the Q6600.
Click to expand...

I thought Supreme Commander was multi-threaded? Doesn't look like anywhere near a 40% performance increase for quad vs. dual at the same clock speeds, let alone 100% which is impossible with the added overhead per additional core.

Like you said, you can OC both but the E6850 will probably OC higher due to less heat, so after OC you're still at the same dilemma: more cores or more MHz per core? Depends on what applications you use, but for me it's still looking like more MHz is the way to go.
 
Mons said:
Forthcoming software (including games) will be made to support multiple CPU cores not just two. Hence, if you are buying one CPU to last the next 2-3 years, then get a quad. If you swap out CPUs and motherboards each year, then get a dual core.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this, but nobody knows for sure how long it'll take until we see games that truly scale with the number of cores you have. Supreme Commander was touted as the first to really stretch your multiple cores, but then the benchmarks came out and it really doesn't. So what's to say that all these other titles that also supposedly use all 4 cores will actually demonstrate a tangible benefit from extra cores? I'm not saying that they won't; I'm just saying that we don't know if they really will. Still, it's hard to argue with the line of reasoning that one would rather give up the 10% performance advantage in current-gen games for the potential of 4 cores being utilized more efficiently in the near future. Despite the fact that I don't use any of the apps that benefit from quad-core in Anandtech's writeup except for Divx and Photoshop, I can see how the potential of quad core could be very appealing even in the short-to-medium term future.
 
But I don't think it will be the near future. Sure a few A+ titles will benefit from quad in the near future but I am betting it will be 2 -3 years before they are really being utilized in most new games. Even then some developers will say it just isn't worth the effort or cost to code for 4 cores and will take the easy route and code for one core. It's a lot more work to code for multiple cores than a single core. Sure console ports will support multiple cores but I don't like most console ports anyway.
 
ok, im getting more confused about which one to buy day by day... in the review by THW, e6850 pretty much owned the q6600 in 90% of the applications... and even in photoshop dual seems better than quad... I do movie editing but ZERO 3d rendering stuff... and i think its better off to get a e6850 instead...

err this has gotta be the hardest and most confusing decision i have to make on computers yet..
 
fe_918 said:
ok, im getting more confused about which one to buy day by day... in the review by THW, e6850 pretty much owned the q6600 in 90% of the applications... and even in photoshop dual seems better than quad... I do movie editing but ZERO 3d rendering stuff... and i think its better off to get a e6850 instead...

err this has gotta be the hardest and most confusing decision i have to make on computers yet..
Click to expand...

E6850.
 
fe_918 said:
ok, im getting more confused about which one to buy day by day... in the review by THW, e6850 pretty much owned the q6600 in 90% of the applications... and even in photoshop dual seems better than quad... I do movie editing but ZERO 3d rendering stuff... and i think its better off to get a e6850 instead...

err this has gotta be the hardest and most confusing decision i have to make on computers yet..
Click to expand...
Basically, the E6850 is faster not because of 1333bus (there is virtually ZERO improvement from that) but because it runs at a higher overall speed. Even w/ G0 stepping, it seems like you shouldn't count on anything above 3.2Ghz on the best air coolers w/ the Q6600, but w/ the E6850 you'll probably hit 3.7Ghz so it'll still be faster. So on older software, the E6850 is going to be faster, and on newer software the Q6600 will be. The Q6600 will also see good performance in windows as regardless of whether or not one app is multithreaded, if you're running more than one at a time (like most of us do) they'll be evenly split up.

Now my argument for the benefit of the quad is that its the exact same price and is more than fast enough for older software and games (its not going to bottleneck even a 8800GTX at stock speed, yet alone overclocked). Its the games that are coming out by the end of this year and beyond that will stress a now new Intel CPU, and those will surely all be multithreading optimized.

If it weren't for all the extra heat even the G0 Q6600's pump out, I think it'd be a no brainer for anyone considering games or just power-users in windows with lots of apps open at once. SFF PCs are becoming more and more popular though, and so those hot running quads are a cause for concern, and reason why I'm on the fence and will probably get the E6850.
 
i don't wanna start a thread just asking this...

how do u tell if a q6600 is a g0 stepping? i'm leaning this way and i'm sure they have them down at fry's so i could go pick one up but can you tell just by looking at the number codes on the outside of the retail box?
 
wasupdog said:
i don't wanna start a thread just asking this...

how do u tell if a q6600 is a g0 stepping? i'm leaning this way and i'm sure they have them down at fry's so i could go pick one up but can you tell just by looking at the number codes on the outside of the retail box?
Click to expand...

Scroll to the bottom of this page... I believe you can find the "Post Conversion S-Spec" ("SLACR" instead of "S L9UM") listed on the outside of the box.
 
I opted for the E6850 and an EVGA motherboard for a build for a friend.

Built it last night and got the OS installed.

This thing absolutely screams. Matched it with some Ballistix memory and a RAID0 set of Raptors and Vista rates it as 5.7's and 5.9 across the board.

Only other machine I've seen a Vista rating on was an AMD FX60 and that rated around 3.4 I think.

Pity this isnt my machine to keep, it's blazingly quick.

A quad next year will be a fine upgrade, just didn't see the need for it now.
 
I have a question about multi cores, game programming and the relationship of memory / vid card to system performance.

Now Ill be the first to admit that I don’t really know what I’m talking about, all of my knowledge has come from what I have read in the discussions about Q6600 vs. E6850. I’m asking this question to see if my understanding is at least mostly correct because that is what I’m basing my decision on. If I'm wrong please correct me, but don’t flame me because I’m not claiming to be any kind of expert.

From what I have read in an article about the UT3 engine, concerning multiple core game engines, the programmers utilize 2 “High performance cores” and the engine will put out small threads to utilize any other available cores it can. What I took away from this article was that even though the game had quad core support the vast majority of the game took place on 2 cores while smaller items such as physics took place on the other cores, and even then it was only on an as needed basis. This, to me, explains why Tom’s hardware showed the performance of the E6850 and Q6600 so close.

This also tells me that it is more important to have your cores running as fast as they can because even though a game might be “quad core supported” the work is not spread out evenly. It also makes since that most quad core supported games would do it the way UT3 does because most people do not own quad cores and if a game uses 4 “high performance” cores it would make game play poor on even the best dual core.

This is why an E6850 > Q6600 on a strictly gaming / general computing machine.

Another thing that I’m picking up is that unless you’re running the best video card and memory the processor is not going to be the slow part of the system so it’s going to make minimal difference anyway?
 
Gatticus said:
But you give no reason why. I care more about how my older games will run than I do about new games in the pipeline. I am interested to know why you think this as I am buying a new cpu soon. I might change my mind about the E6850 and go quad if you can give me a compelling reason to. I doubt you can give me a compelling reason though.
Click to expand...

This is a little late. But this is a bit of an ignorant reason to go E6850 in my opinion. There are a lot of reasons to go dual core or multi-core. But to rule out quad core for older game performance seems a bit odd. The difference in FPS is minimal in older games and the Q6600 will run older games plenty fast.

This is like saying you have a choice between two processors and saying one processor will run everything out there now more than adequate, but will be better future-proofed. Yet you'd rather spend the money on a different processor because it will play older games slightly better.
 
Ok well just made up my mind and told myself that I just need to buy what I though would be best.


Ordered E6850 form Erie computer / CostCentral
 
$316 Shipped 2 day air. I have Tuesday and Wednesday of next week off work and for $20 Ill go ahead and get it ordered so I can have it then.. or else it will just sit untill next weekend before I have time to sit down and build my PC.
 
tsonka said:
$316 Shipped 2 day air. I have Tuesday and Wednesday of next week off work and for $20 Ill go ahead and get it ordered so I can have it then.. or else it will just sit untill next weekend before I have time to sit down and build my PC.
Click to expand...

Well in 3 days it will be $266.
 
Just thought I'd mention in all of this discussion of E6850 vs Q6600, that the other new Duo Core cpus (E6750, E6550) are no slouches either... that new G0 stepping kicks some serious overclocking ass.

The difference (aside from a nice ~$80-$100 lower price) is of course the cpu multiplier...

E6850 - 9
E6750 - 8
E6550 - 7

...as you can see from that link, they didn't have much trouble overclocking the E6550 up to 3.8GHz - --->>> @1.36v <<<----. This means that it's not going to be putting out much (if any) more heat than say a current E6600 at it's stock voltage (a little above stock, actually) and whatever oc you can get at it's stock voltage. No need for a ~$100 heatsink.

So, if your mb can handle a high FSB, the E6550 would be a bargain. The E6750 and E6850 give you some more room to play, but there's a pretty big jump in price from E6750 up to E6850 (relatively speaking). I think the E6750 is the real sweet-spot (it replaces the E6400 in the lineup).
 
RoBo said:
A really good heatsink will cost $40.
Click to expand...

True, but a ~$20.00 one will likely get you well above 3GHz (on a G0 stepping C2D). Also, I was referring to a TR Ultra 120 eXtreme + misc hardware to fix it's mounting + a few bucks for sandpaper to lap it + ~$20 for a fan + shipping + an 'extra' syringe of TIM so you can test-mount it multiple times :).
 
RoBo said:
A really good heatsink will cost $40.
Click to expand...

Robo. They said yes.. $266 doesnt mean they will be $266. His cpu for $300ish is a great price regardless. If you think your gettign away with a cpu for exactly $266 =/ gfg.

Also a good heatsink will cost $40? My zalman 9700 is a really good heatsink it cost $79.99 + tax. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay :)
 
Never mind the now vs. later cost, the $316 shipped cost was acceptable to me right now and thats all that matters.


Back to my post about why I think the E6850 > Q6600 for Gaming / general usage... am I even 1/2 way correct?
 
michaLcoughliN said:
Robo. They said yes.. $266 doesnt mean they will be $266. His cpu for $300ish is a great price regardless. If you think your gettign away with a cpu for exactly $266 =/ gfg.

Also a good heatsink will cost $40? My zalman 9700 is a really good heatsink it cost $79.99 + tax. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay :)
Click to expand...

The Zalman 9700 is one of the better heatsinks, but it's also one of the more expensive ones. There are actually several "really good" heatsinks in the ~$40ish range.

The point I was trying to make though is the huge difference in temps you can expect from these new lower voltage cpus, compared to the current lineup. Hell, the stock Intel heatsink will likely get you up over 3GHz on G0 (that link I posted earlier got to 3GHz at only 1.056v and got up to 3.7GHz before reaching the 'current' 1.325v stock/norm of current cpus). No more need for crazy 1.5v or 1.6v settings to get a screaming system.
 
Depends on the game.

Supreme Commander? Nope. Takes advantage of all 4 cores.

Most stuff out right now, I think you'll be hard pressed to see much of a difference.

More and more stuff coming out will be able to use all 4 cores, any of the PhysX games will use as much processor as you can throw at them.
 
tsonka said:
Never mind the now vs. later cost, the $316 shipped cost was acceptable to me right now and thats all that matters.


Back to my post about why I think the E6850 > Q6600 for Gaming / general usage... am I even 1/2 way correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think most of what you said is right on the money (IMO). For strickly gaming, we're not going to see this mad rush to requiring a quad that some folks are predicting. There will be more and more support - over time - but as you mentioned, it's not any sort of automatic 100% speedup just because you have twice as many cores. There are exceptions to everything, of course and some games will make exceptionally good use of more than 2 cores (Alan Wake comes to mind as potentially fitting into this niche), but most game developers have to target hardware that the majority of users have - and that's Duo Core.

The other point that shouldn't be overlooked though is as several people have pointed out - a Q6600 is going to run current/old and future games plenty fast, so if you have other apps or usage patterns that could benefit from a quad (3D rendering, folding, encoding, or any other heavy multi-tasking), then a quad makes sense.

Of course many games are more GPU-bound than CPU-bound, so if you're running on a lower-end Gfx card, you'd be better off upgrading that first if you are primarily a gamer.
 
[RCKY] Thor;1031285184 said:
Depends on the game.

Supreme Commander? Nope. Takes advantage of all 4 cores.

Most stuff out right now, I think you'll be hard pressed to see much of a difference.

More and more stuff coming out will be able to use all 4 cores, any of the PhysX games will use as much processor as you can throw at them.
Click to expand...

See this link - the E6850 (with it's higher clock) out-performed the Q6600. You can of course clock the Q6600 up to higher speeds, but you'd always be able to clock the C2D higher (according to all previous cpus, at least).

But again, it's not like the Q6600 was 'unplayable' :)... it's just that "takes advantage of all 4 cores" doesn't (always) mean what it might sound like it means.
 
^
i was just about to say that.I was looking at those cpu charts i see supreme cammander and what do u know the e6850 beats the q6600. From what i was seeing the q6600 is bassicaly the same as the e6600 unless ur doin some hardcore mulitasking.
 
Take a good hard look at the chart, and not just which bar is shorter. The q6600 is a second slower at 600mhz less clock speed, against a proc that is more expensive. I personally don't believe that 30 minutes is enough time to see the highest loads in SC either, in games that drag on for an hour or more the load gets higher and higher as you approach unit cap.
 
[RCKY] Thor;1031285823 said:
Take a good hard look at the chart, and not just which bar is shorter. The q6600 is a second slower at 600mhz less clock speed, against a proc that is more expensive. I personally don't believe that 30 minutes is enough time to see the highest loads in SC either, in games that drag on for an hour or more the load gets higher and higher as you approach unit cap.
Click to expand...

The 2 cpus in question (E6850 and Q6600) are scheduled to cost the same. But I'm not trying to argue about 1 second or 5 seconds or 2fps or 15fps (heck, the E6550, running a few Mhz less than the Q6600 comes within a few seconds of it and costs ~$100 less.. and btw the other comparison is 5 minutes vs 5 minutes 36 seconds, so that's 36 seconds, not 1 second) - the only point I was trying to make was that there's a general misconception related to "app X makes use of all 4 cores"... there's a big difference in "makes use of" and "fully utilizes".

I don't own SC (or the cpus in question), so I can't (and don't really care to) say/see which one's faster for all possible scenerios... but in many cases where some app/game "makes use of" additional cores, it might also perform better/faster just by increasing the cpu speed instead of adding those cores - as shown in that chart.

If it turns out that you can overclock a quad up near C2D overclocks, then that's a win-win for quads, but that has not historically been the case (not only just due to the extra cooling required).
 
I just thought I would mention that I run Core2Duo or better only matches of Supreme Commander, and I screen for CPUs before launching games. My Core2Duo E6600 is at 3.4Ghz and consistently runs better (no bottlenecking) than my quad teammates and opponents. (There is a console command that shows network and CPU bottlenecking). FOr example, often, my CPU will be at +0 game speed while a teammates quad will be at -2. And this is a game that claims to utilize 3 cores.

Does anyone believe that any game launching this year is going to push a CPU harder than Supreme Commander in a 4v4 match, an hour in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top