OK,it's time to updade from my old 939 system, A couple of months agao I got a 8800GT and now I find that my old Opty 170 just doesn't have that edge anymore. I play the standard games including Crysis, and I know that a dual core performs better. I don't really do any video editing. My dilemna is this, Microcenter has the Q6600, and the E8400 for the same price, $199.99 What would you buy?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
CoreT 2 Quad Processor Q6600 or Intel® Boxed Core 2 Duo Processor E8400?
- Thread starter LRD
- Start date
Seekeroftruth
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 163
Personally, I would go with the 8400. If your not doing any editing then the extra cores of the quad will just sit there. The E8400 is also cooler, and can overclock pretty good.(from what I hear 
)
)If they're both the same price I'd hit up the Q6600. If you get a G0 you can get it to about 3.6GHz. I know you can get a E8400 to over 4GHz, but you won't really notice the difference between the two with clocks like that imo. The Q6600 is by far a better investment, at that price its a steal.
Seekeroftruth
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 163
Just seems like it would be overkill with more heat, but it is a good price on the quad.
I'm having to make the same decision BUT waiting for the 45nm quads is also thrown in. I have a feeling the new quads will initially have the same quirks of the the E8400 on current mobos but should be fine soon after. But having a cooler thus quieter PC is a lot more enticing for my comp since it's gonna be in my bedroom.
My setup consists of a Asus p5k-e mobo, 2x2GB G. Skill DDR2 1000Mhz ram, and a 8800 GT and all its waiting for is a damn chip. This is my first socket 775 system.
My setup consists of a Asus p5k-e mobo, 2x2GB G. Skill DDR2 1000Mhz ram, and a 8800 GT and all its waiting for is a damn chip. This is my first socket 775 system.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
See the other thread on the front page about this SAME exact question.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1275565
Come on people use the search, and try to keep the same EXACT subject in the same thread.
That said, I'll quickly answer your question.
Depends on how long you keep your processors. If you keep them for a long time, go with the q6600
it will last longer, b/c it is the more powerful processor, though most apps now don't take advantage of the extra cores YET.
IF you upgrade a lot, get the e8400 as it runs cooler, clocks higher, and will give you more performance NOW. Then by the time you
upgrade again you can either get a mainstream 45nm quad, or Nehalem will be out.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1275565
Come on people use the search, and try to keep the same EXACT subject in the same thread.
That said, I'll quickly answer your question.
Depends on how long you keep your processors. If you keep them for a long time, go with the q6600
it will last longer, b/c it is the more powerful processor, though most apps now don't take advantage of the extra cores YET.
IF you upgrade a lot, get the e8400 as it runs cooler, clocks higher, and will give you more performance NOW. Then by the time you
upgrade again you can either get a mainstream 45nm quad, or Nehalem will be out.
I appreciate everybody's input, and the concensus seems to be that the Q6600 at that price is the better deal. I just called the Fairfax Va. store and they only had 3 left. One's got my name. I figure if it isn't what I want, I could always get rid of it. Thanks again
I actually would have gotten the E8400. The E8400 beats the Q6600 in almost every single game out there right now: both at stock the E8400 obliterates the Q6600. Once max overclocks are reached (Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, E8400 @ 4.0GHz), the gap shrinks but the E8400 still generally beats it by 5%-15% (depending on the game). Would've picked up the E8400 for best performance now and just have waited for the 45nm Quads to become cheap and buy those once quad-core is beneficial to gaming.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0
Can't go wrong with the Q6600 either but I just think the E8400 would've been the better choice for gaming.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0
Can't go wrong with the Q6600 either but I just think the E8400 would've been the better choice for gaming.
HardwareGuru
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,772
Either choice he goes he will benefit as a result.
They usually test at 1024x768 at low detail settings so that the game is CPU-limited, though. Play at high resolutions with everything turned up and beyond a certain level the CPU speed matters very little. I'm surprised that we don't see many reviews which test CPUs in games with the graphics set to a more normal level - sure, you get more difference if you do it at low resolutions, but it's only of academic interest if you don't play games at anywhere near the settings they tested. A 50fps advantage at 1024x768 could collapse to 5fps at 1920x1200 if that hit the point where the GPU was limiting.
officermartinez
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,012
I was at Microcenter a few hours ago and bought the Q6600.
Exactly, so that means that once you upgrade your CPU so you are not limited by it anymore then you could see a large difference at those settings too.
I still think that the E8400 is the better CPU for now and the next 12-18 months. After those months are up you can probably Q9450 for a lot cheaper and that CPU is better than the Q6600 and E8400 easily. Dual-core gaming just became the now and Quad-core gaming will probably follow it in a year or two; until then, unless you are rendering or editting, there is no real point to get a quad-core.
lol, they don't run THAT hot guy
aShrubbery!
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,029
Get the 8400... IF You can find it at a reasonable price. Heck, GET ANYTHING you can lay you hands on.
Right now, I have all my new PC components neatly stored in wait for a processor.
I wanted to get an E8400 just like everybody else. I guess I missed out on the opportunities I had.
As of today the E8400 is a ghost, or you have to shell out more than a reasonable amount of cash to get it.
It's a sad state of affairs when Intel has nobody to compete with, and so they kind of rest under their laurels.
I was told by someone at avadirect that the processors would be available on 2/25.
I really hope so, or else I will have to get me an E6750 and overclock the sucker.
Right now, I have all my new PC components neatly stored in wait for a processor.
I wanted to get an E8400 just like everybody else. I guess I missed out on the opportunities I had.
As of today the E8400 is a ghost, or you have to shell out more than a reasonable amount of cash to get it.
It's a sad state of affairs when Intel has nobody to compete with, and so they kind of rest under their laurels.
I was told by someone at avadirect that the processors would be available on 2/25.
I really hope so, or else I will have to get me an E6750 and overclock the sucker.
You say that like the overclocks are guarantied, there not. Give a realistic range, Q6600 3.2 - 3-6GHz, E8400, 3.6 - 4GHz.
Now whether users agree or not quite a few games do take advantage of quad core and future ones definitely will so there should only be one option, the Q6600.
NiViK
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2000
- Messages
- 283
Personally I went with the Q6600...if you are a folding or boink junkie like me...run them with 2 cores constantly and play games with the other 2 cores. you cant do that with a E8400.
q6600 all the way for everything = encoding + gaming + whatever else. I got to play with an e8400 for couple days and I put it through some heavy super pi, prime95. In my opinion and user experience e8400 = little overrated.
There is alot of feedback on several forums (xtremesystems) about some mediocore batches of the wolfdale duo chips have been reported. Many need around 1.37-1.40 voltage just to run 24-7 stable at 4ghz and not to mention a confirmed degradation issue with voltage above that. (uhhh no thanks).There's currently a shortage of 45nm chips which is the only reason why these are in such high demand (either legit or marketing ploy by intel who knows).
There is alot of feedback on several forums (xtremesystems) about some mediocore batches of the wolfdale duo chips have been reported. Many need around 1.37-1.40 voltage just to run 24-7 stable at 4ghz and not to mention a confirmed degradation issue with voltage above that. (uhhh no thanks).There's currently a shortage of 45nm chips which is the only reason why these are in such high demand (either legit or marketing ploy by intel who knows).
PanzerKrieg13
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 982
Maybe not, but from what I can recall from just memory, the Q6600 puts out about 95-105watts of heat, while the E8400 only produces about 65watts. That is a significant difference, though how it actually effects real life performance and heat concerns, I don't personally know.
- Joey
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
The e8400 might put out 65W if you're at 9x400 = 3.6Ghz... maybe!
Its WELL under that at stock speeds, probably close to 45W uner 100% load! The rest of the line, like the 8500/8600, etc will all be under 65W, they just rate a whole series of processors with one Wattage, which in this case is grossly overstated.
Have you looked at this?
Dual-Core Xeon E3110 / 3 GHz processor
You may have better luck finding it then the e8400 but its basically the same chip.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1276003
PanzerKrieg13
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 982
2 cores vs 4 cores is pretty significant too
It is indeed. Just a hard decision for most of us to make. You can get a Q6600 with slower clock speeds, more heat but overall double the processing power. Or, you can get an E8400 with higher clock speeds, less heat but also half the processing power of a Q6600.
I also think price plays a role. My local Fry's had the E8400 for about $225 when I checked over the weekend, and that's a damn good price compared to what you can find online at the few retailers that actually carry it. But on the same note, the Q6600 has gone down about $20 on NewEgg in the last few weeks and it seems to keep going down. Right now at about $255. Not a bad price for quad core.
That all said, I'm personally going to wait a while and see what happens with the new line of processors. I'm hoping the E8400 will become readily available again and go down to about $200, with the quad core Q6600 also going down. But there is also the new 45nm quads going to be released soon and other 45nm dual cores like the E8500.
If you're going for a processor right now, it's a hard choice to make with prices being what they are. But once all the newer items are released, the choice may become even tougher having the 45nm line available, in addition to the existing processor market.
- Joey
Well I just finished putting together two Q6600 rigs, one for my friend and one for myself. I got the shorter end of the stick with one that did not OC quite as well as his did. 3.2GHz is my max where as he can hit 3.6GHz, though we settled on 3.4GHz to keep the heat down. I settled for 3GHz just becuase I don't like running my processors at their absolute limit.
I must say I am VERY happy I went with the quad core, vista is very snappy if you can believe it. Gaming has improved dramatically in some games. Where I was getting 40-45fps before on my X2 im UT3 I'm now getting 80-90fps. Virtual PC runs extremely well and the whole computer is very nice to work with.
Time to update the sig!
I must say I am VERY happy I went with the quad core, vista is very snappy if you can believe it. Gaming has improved dramatically in some games. Where I was getting 40-45fps before on my X2 im UT3 I'm now getting 80-90fps. Virtual PC runs extremely well and the whole computer is very nice to work with.
Time to update the sig!
Its so funny how people talk about all the heat and the wasted cores of the Q6600. Here are my experiences with the chip:
1. Heat: This argument is rediculous. I use a $17 HSF from newegg (Rosewill) and the thing idles around 28 and typically doesn't even get near 40c under heavy load. When I overlcock it, it doesnt touch 50c. Considering cpus can handle upwards of 100c before having issues (just look at the 8800gt which hits 91c on stock cooling), I think you are fine.
2. Wasted cores: Ever play a game and your computer starts doing something else (virus scan, updates, etc)? On a Core 2 Duo, you are maxed out. God forbid you were already doing 2 things when you started playing, such as video converting, you're high and dry. On the Q6600, I can encode video, play UT3 maxed out, and still have 2 extra cores waiting to be used. Sometimes I want to put my movies on my ipod, and there is nothing cooler than converting 4 at once with no degradation in performance.
You can always benefit from more cores. Its like getting a free Core 2 Duo with purchase of a Core 2 Duo when you buy a quad.
1. Heat: This argument is rediculous. I use a $17 HSF from newegg (Rosewill) and the thing idles around 28 and typically doesn't even get near 40c under heavy load. When I overlcock it, it doesnt touch 50c. Considering cpus can handle upwards of 100c before having issues (just look at the 8800gt which hits 91c on stock cooling), I think you are fine.
2. Wasted cores: Ever play a game and your computer starts doing something else (virus scan, updates, etc)? On a Core 2 Duo, you are maxed out. God forbid you were already doing 2 things when you started playing, such as video converting, you're high and dry. On the Q6600, I can encode video, play UT3 maxed out, and still have 2 extra cores waiting to be used. Sometimes I want to put my movies on my ipod, and there is nothing cooler than converting 4 at once with no degradation in performance.
You can always benefit from more cores. Its like getting a free Core 2 Duo with purchase of a Core 2 Duo when you buy a quad.
I mostly agree with you except for hte last part of #1... CPU's and GPU's are different, there is no way you will be able to run a CPU at 100c, the chip will fry WELL before then and get unstable at anything approacthing 70C
Exactly.
By the time 4 cores are used in games you'll be able to pick up a quad core dirt cheap.
I guess lucky for the OP that it's the year 2008 and games do use quad cores and you can pick them up dirt cheap. It's $200, how much cheaper do you want it? Just becuase not ALL games use quad cores doesn't mean that NO games use them. Not to mention we are talking about a computer, which is used for much more than gaming.
farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
Pretty much just Flight Sim X and the game Intel is using to highlight quad-core gaming. Theoretically Crysis, but I have yet to see a real benchmark where quad-cores have an advantage over a similarly-clocked dual-core, much less a higher-clocked dual-core (which is a far more likely scenario). Even Supreme Commander, which is a poster-child for processor-intensive games, doesn't really use cores 3 and 4 for very much. I believe just sound and some other non-intensive task. Fact is, games are far more likely to be bottlenecked by the graphics card than the CPU, and even when it is, adding cores is an exercise in diminishing returns. Will that change in the future? Perhaps. It's not the case by any means in early 2008 though.
I won't argue that quad-cores are getting cheap. Especially once the cooler and more efficient 45nm quads are out in earnest, there won't be really any reason not to get a quad over a dual once overclocking is factored in. Most people won't get any benefit whatsoever from the third and fourth cores for now though:
Jeff Atwood said:
From his blog, complete with test data
Like to encode movies, play with 3D ray-tracing, or do scientific simulations? Want to get stellar 3DMark scores? Want bragging rights? Then quad-core is for you today. Otherwise, it's for tomorrow and only tomorrow.