• 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.

Do I need a Quad-Core?

M

mis3

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2000
Messages
827
I am planning to build a PC after the Intel price cut and deciding between a Q6600 and E6850. I use my PC for browsing, office applications, burning CD/DVD, and only little gaming. I know these CPUs are overkill for my requirements but since I will keep this PC for a few years, we never know what I will need later.

With my current P4-2.4 Ghz PC, it is unworkable when I am making a DVD backup of a movie.

I want my PC to be fast. So, even if I have only 2 browsers opened, when I open up the Windows Task Manager, I can see 30-40 processes running. Would Windows-XP be smart enough to distribute the processes to run in different CPUs? if so, will the PC be faster?

I will eventually upgrade to Vista next year.
 
I'd personally go with the Q6600. Both processors seem to be more than fast enough for what you want to do, but as time goes on, more and more programs are going to be able to take advantage of multiple cores. So you'd probably get a bigger benefit now from the E6850, but down the road your Q6600 will probably be able to handle multitasking and other applications a lot better.
 
need it? no but then again sounds like you don't need a 6850 either for what you are doing. But if you are going to keep it for a couple of years and since they will be the same price I would go with the Q6600.
 
mis3 said:
I am planning to build a PC after the Intel price cut and deciding between a Q6600 and E6850. I use my PC for browsing, office applications, burning CD/DVD, and only little gaming. I know these CPUs are overkill for my requirements but since I will keep this PC for a few years, we never know what I will need later.

With my current P4-2.4 Ghz PC, it is unworkable when I am making a DVD backup of a movie.

I want my PC to be fast. So, even if I have only 2 browsers opened, when I open up the Windows Task Manager, I can see 30-40 processes running. Would Windows-XP be smart enough to distribute the processes to run in different CPUs? if so, will the PC be faster?

I will eventually upgrade to Vista next year.
Click to expand...

under the scenario you describe in the last port of your post, any dual core cpu will be fast enough to not make you wait on anything (provided you have enough memory to stop windows from paging to disk)

in the DVD transcoding scenario, the Q6600 will whoop the 6850's ass

id say Q6600, it has a lot more power available if your software is multi-threaded, and single core performance is still about 80% of the e6850, while true multi threaded performance might be all the way up to 180% of the e6850
 
Given you want to work with dvd's,I'd go Quad hands down.I encode and re encode a lot of dvd's and will be going Q6600 + P5K Deluxe + 4Gb DDR2 on the 22nd.
 
As my thread in the Mobo section, I do not plan on using Wi-Fi, 2nd Lan, Raid.

Not sure if P5K-Deluxe is my best choice. According the some reviews, P5K is only a OK Mobo but the Deluxe is excellent.
 
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R

I'm considering that board for my next build. I'm fairly certain I'm getting a Q6600 at the price drop as well (I initially decided against it, but I just can't let myself pass it up since it will only be $80 more than the E6420 that I was going to buy now...). The main reason for me (other than the price ;) ) is the 8 sata ports, which you may or may not find a use for. The only concern I have is if the Zalman 9500 will fit with the mobo :confused:

Just another option for you to consider :D
 
hmmmm the Q6600 and E6850 will be at the same price (rumored) @$266. The choice is now whether you will be overclocking it or not. Because the quad core will need a good heat sink solution as it will generate more heat than dual core especially when overclocked.

Whether you need it or not, other users already point it up for you and I'll choose Q6600 over E6850.

I suggest the P35 type motherboard, if you want to upgrade to new Intel proc Wolfdale or Yorkfield later on, too bad they don't have PCIE with 2 16x speed. I'm using 680i evga mobo and I love it, hopefully they will develop the required chipset to use new Intel proc.
 
Im actually overclocking my old E6300..I went up from 2.8 ghz to 3.1 just buy changing RAM..

Im testing to 3.3 ghz.. If I can get upto 3.5ghz. I dont think I will upgrade.. we will see.hahaha.. I probably will still upgrade but. We will see :p :p hehehe
 
i recently went with the q6600 for the same reason you thinking of too. I plan to have the pc for a few years and by then i expect apps to be taking advantage of quad cores, weather it be workstation or gameing, i do both.
 
Q6600 ftw!!!

Now if Intel can only churn them out fast enough for the coming mid-July selling blitz... screw the iPhone, it's QUAD DAMAGE TIME KIDS!!! :D
 
The stock HSF (if you get the retail boxed processor) works just fine, but obviously if you intend to overclock by any significant amount - or even just make the attempt - then something better would be in order. My personal preference always has been for Zalman hardware. It works, it's incredibly quiet, and... well... what else needs to be said? :)

I'm sure others have their own preferences, but that's mine.
 
Will games such as Crysis and Alan Quake see real perfomance gains using quadcore?
 
mito said:
Will games such as Crysis and Alan Quake see real perfomance gains using quadcore?
Click to expand...

I don't know if either of those games have announced multi-threaded support, but games are just now coming out with support for muti-core processors. Supreme commander is an example. So games are just now beginning to be multi-threaded, so I would assume these games would be.
 
If they don't immediately have support for multithreading and multi-core support (and they should dammit), there's always the possibility of an update later on that adds such support. So again, if it's a choice between a dual or a quad, it's a no-brainer most of the time if the price is the same or damned close to the same: get the quad and never look back. :)
 
I am also interested in buying a Q6600 on July 22nd but I don't know which cooling system to buy! Please post some suggestions here.

I will be OC'ing in the future, not right away, so I want a good cooling system. My computer case is fairly small for a ATX Midtower so I would like a relatively small one.

----
These are the specs for my new system

Lian-Li PC-V600B Computer Case

ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI-AP LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 675 (PC2 5400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X2048-5400C4PT

Antec NeoHE 500 ATX12V 500W Power Supply

EVGA 320-P2-N811-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card

Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate for System Builders Single Pack - OEM

DVD Burner - haven't decided

Hard Drive - haven't decided
 
First suggestion: get Vista x64, move on man, move on up to 64 bit and don't look back. Everything on that list of specs is fully supported now with 64 bit drivers, there's simply no reason to build a "Godbox" or the best PC you can nowadays and hamstring it to a 32 bit OS, even if you've just got 2GB of RAM to start.

That's my suggestion...
 
I read elsewhere that applications not specifically coded for the quads may be somewhat slower than dual cores due to memory bus limitations. Is there any truth to this?

I'm in agreement with ZacharyS - the $80 difference is minimal.
 
turnip said:
I read elsewhere that applications not specifically coded for the quads may be somewhat slower than dual cores due to memory bus limitations. Is there any truth to this?
Click to expand...

I was about to ask the same question: overhead for apps not written specifically for quadcore.
 
mito said:
Will games such as Crysis and Alan Quake see real perfomance gains using quadcore?
Click to expand...

Crytek has officially announced that Crysis will fully support dual and quad core cpus. they haven't said if it take advantage of upcoming 8core setups.
They have however gone as far as saying that you can't get the full experience without a quad as they have to dial back the physics. They have it set up that when there is a a quad core, 1 core is completely dedicated to physics, 1 is completely dedicated to AI. not sure what the others do.


turnip said:
I read elsewhere that applications not specifically coded for the quads may be somewhat slower than dual cores due to memory bus limitations. Is there any truth to this?

I'm in agreement with ZacharyS - the $80 difference is minimal.
Click to expand...

I have heard this first hand from a friend of mine who works at a computer parts store. he said that they built 2 identical systems. one with a q6600 and one with an e6600. the E will outperform the q in single core apps.
on the other hand, he also said that AMDs top chip will outperform any of the c2ds in memory intensive apps (also tested first hand at the store).


That being said, i still have full intentions of switching from my 3800+ to a q6600 in the next month or 2.
 
I have heard this first hand from a friend of mine who works at a computer parts store. he said that they built 2 identical systems. one with a q6600 and one with an e6600. the E will outperform the q in single core apps.
on the other hand, he also said that AMDs top chip will outperform any of the c2ds in memory intensive apps (also tested first hand at the store).
Click to expand...

could be true but I would want some more details as to what and how he tested, but anywho now tell him to OC the same systems and see what happens. AMDs have better memory bandwidth which is nice if you are running a database with a lot of transactions/lookups, if the machine has a decent amount of memory, 2GB+ with the stuff we normally run, pffffft AMD gets smoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top