I know the 6600 has great overclocking capabilities and i'm trying to built a beastly rig. Vs's wise which should I choose? Money is not a matter..I just would rather stick to dual core rather than quad. I'm trying to get a quick order in today otherwise I would have done some thread searching..!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
6600 vs 6800 Quick Question
- Thread starter tbo
- Start date
Darth Bobo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,057
Go for the E6600 and some beasty cooling, no need to pay for 533MHz that you can get for free with relative ease...
Really just depends on the luck of the draw, maybe you'd get an amazing e6600 stepping and get a 4ghz'r, who knows! If money isn't an option I'd go for the X6800 it would have to go through abit more stability testing @ intel to be "binned" higher, so it might give you a better change to get a higher overclock. Can you justify the extra 700ish dollars for the X6800 over the much cheaper e6600 
Mansize_tissue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,501
The price premium on the X6800 really isn't worth it. Why would you rather get a dual core CPU over a quad core?
Couple of reasons for myself as why I'd rather get a dual core over a quad right now.
1)Not many games/applications that I run are optimized for 4 cores. In fact the only game that really takes advantage of more than 2 cores right now is Sup Com. The higher overclocks attainable from the dual cores right now will yield better preformance in todays games.
2) By the time the games that do take advantage of the quad core cpus come out (Crysis/Unreal Tournament 3/etc.) come out, we'll have 45nm quad cores that run cooler and have more benifit than todays quad cores. AMD hasn't even released their Barcelona yet!
3) Price - Dual core e6600 for 230 bucks imo is better than 500ish for a q6600 and a lower OC.
4) Temps - Even on water I hear the temps for a quad core are higher than normal. When summer comes around that might mean instability, and that's not good
Thought there are people who benifit from the quad core cpu's power, Folding@Home, Audio & Video Encodes, Sup Com
. It's just not worth it imho. I'd personally go for the e6600. if money is of no concern, then I'd probably try one out. If it doesn't overclock well. Buy another and sell the current one. Repeat until you get a golden cpu. x6800 has unlocked multiplier, but that doesn't mean much since you'd want high fsb to get performance anyway, although that'd mean either 400fsb or 500+ and nothing in between. There was a series of weaker batches in the e6600 line so you might get unlucky with the first e6600. x6800 probably would be a better bin, but not worth the money, since you could easily get a few e6600's and sell the ones you don't like.
4) Temps - Even on water I hear the temps for a quad core are higher than normal. When summer comes around that might mean instability, and that's not good
I don't agree with this, I got a quad core myself and it isn't THAT bad during summer, only peaks at 65c when oc'ed and 100% load. (Ok, I am using water but I think good air cooling won't be that bad either
)Well I mean, currently, the speeds of these conroes are real good for general windows tasks, and games. The only time I'd need as fast as possible would be media encoding. But with penryn and sse4, that'll be miles ahead, so I'm not really bothered by quad's much at all currently.