• 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.

DUO versus QUAD thread #1237892137

E

Empirion

n00b
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
34
Hi can you guys help me decide between the E8500 and Q6600 based on my personal application...

1) I have to use my existing 430 watt PSU. So it has to handle cpu in addition to a single Radeon 4850, SATA hardrive and DVD burner.

2) It's a gaming rig. Multi tasking will usually not go beyond winamp and firefox running on Vista 64.

3) The computer case will be inside a desk cabinet with minimal almost borderline inadequate cooling.

4) overclocking might be pursued after the overall upgrade proves itself stable for a while.

:confused:
 
1] What PSU is it? Brand etc? 12v rating?
2 & 3 & 4] Are you budget restricted? What mobo do you have?

Bottom Line is there is no right answer for a case like yours. Better yet, neither is the wrong choice
 
If not multitasking, two faster cores is better than four slower ones.. But both / either of those will be fine.
 
A 4850 only needs a single 6 pin.

Aside from that the power supply should be able to power a Quad with no problems. You may have to be conservative with voltages when OCing though.

I'd say go for the Dual if you plan on OC'ing and not doing any multithreaded applications (video encoding) since it'll use less power.
 
Multi tasking will usually not go beyond winamp and firefox running on Vista 64.
+
The computer case will be inside a desk cabinet with minimal almost borderline inadequate cooling.
(45nm coolness!)

sounds like a duo to me! :D
 
The Q6600 will be on sale this week. :S

I really dont want a hot box but I want as much CPU power as I can get without overloading heat and PSU.
 
Empirion said:
The Q6600 will be on sale this week. :S

I really dont want a hot box but I want as much CPU power as I can get without overloading heat and PSU.
Click to expand...

The E8500 will still be faster for what you plan to use your computer for.
 
even the E8400 and invest the rest on a good hsf , or at least better than stock !!
 
Then I'd go for the Q6600, based on the assumption more and more apps will be optimized to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. Though, everyone else telling you to get the dual core is right -- it'll give you the most performance for your current needs/budget.
 
Honestly I am really surprised people are still considering dual cores any more. While I am not trying to flame the rest, I can tell you duals will be outdated for sure in the time period you are looking at, even in the next 2 years on desktop or sooner. Take a look at Core i7 (not saying you should buy one) but those are quad only. There is a reason for that. Sure, you could O/C your dual to say 4 ghz, but in reality I don't think it would make a difference in any reasonable test. Quad, however, would be a great buy because they are reasonable in price and it will do significantly more multitasking and in the future an increasing amount of applications will use the additional 4 cores. My 2 cents.
BTW I have had a Q9450 quad since summer @ 3.2 ghz and it is great, never owned an intel dual core).
 
for me personally, it just makes more sense to go with a 70 buck pentium DC right now, which is more than enough for anything clocked at 3.5ghz (what im running now), and then in a year or two, if i really need it, i can slap in a quad core down the road and overall end up paying much less in the end for both processors...

but yea, i gotta say, its personal preference really....
 
enginurd said:
Then I'd go for the Q6600, based on the assumption more and more apps will be optimized to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. Though, everyone else telling you to get the dual core is right -- it'll give you the most performance for your current needs/budget.
Click to expand...
an 8500 will beat a Q6600 in gaming every time. any game that takes advantage of quad core can be easily made up for with a faster dual core. also to overclock the Q6600 would mean a shit load more power usage and a mandatory aftermarket cooler. even at stock speeds a Q6600 uses 40-50 watts more than an E8500. oc that Q6600 to 3.0 and you are looking at 100 watts more power usage than an E8500. I would personally recommend an E8400 or an E7300 if things are tight. go quad core in a couple years when they offer more bang for buck. if money was not an issue then yes a good quad core like a Q9550 would be nice.
 
You could wait if you have a Fry's nearby to see if they gonna have more deals on the higher end quads. Got my Q9550 for 185, technically 195 since you had to uby a 40 dollar mobo, but sold that for 30 dollars.
 
I prefer my E8400 to my Q6600. Less heat so there's less fan noise and less power consumption. It also overclocks like a beast. I've seen some of the new E0 E8x00 CPUs hitting 4.5 GHz at reasonable core voltage. You might be able to run 'em at that speed for 24/7 use.

People have been talking for years about multi threaded apps that are really going to take advantage of a Quad but the fact is that there are very few apps that really take advantage of a Dual Core. Even the few games out there that can take advantage of a Quad, are limited at higher resolutions and higher AA/AF settings by your graphics card so a Dual Core or a Quad doesn't make any difference.

Flip a coin. The price is about the same and you'll be happy with either. With inadequate air flow, I'd go with the Dual Core.
 
Back when I was deciding between a dual core and single core, when Athlon 64 X2's came out, I'm sure glad I chose the dual core because it lasted me longer than a single core would have (I'm a heavy multi-tasker). My quadcore system now (Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz) is much smoother than my dual core was (E6750 @ 3.8Ghz), as far as multi-tasking goes.

Nobody can predict the future. You can OC either CPU, but you can't add cores to a dual core. If all you do is play games, then, like I said before, a dual core will serve you better than a quad, right now. If you do any multi-tasking or heavy computing, then a quadcore will perform nearly the same in games, and give you more power for those other things -- and it will be better fit for future use.
 
enginurd said:
Back when I was deciding between a dual core and single core, when Athlon 64 X2's came out, I'm sure glad I chose the dual core because it lasted me longer than a single core would have (I'm a heavy multi-tasker). My quadcore system now (Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz) is much smoother than my dual core was (E6750 @ 3.8Ghz), as far as multi-tasking goes.

Nobody can predict the future. You can OC either CPU, but you can't add cores to a dual core. If all you do is play games, then, like I said before, a dual core will serve you better than a quad, right now. If you do any multi-tasking or heavy computing, then a quadcore will perform nearly the same in games, and give you more power for those other things -- and it will be better fit for future use.
Click to expand...
as for as gaming and general usage the Q6600 will do nothing better than the E8500. when it comes to overclocking you can overclock the E8500 much easier and farther than the Q6600. no matter how you cut it the E8500 is better, faster, and uses way less power at stock or overclocked speeds for most tasks. now if he actually did things that needed 4 cores then yeah but for gaming and general usage no. what few games take advantage of quad cores can be made up for by higher clocks on the dual core.
 
I've got dual monitors and always have things running in the background. There are plenty of games out there today that have no problems maxing out a dual core CPU, not so much with a quad. I've got more threads and cpu cycles to spare with a quad to keep everything running without affecting my game play. So no, an E8500 is not better than a Q6600 "no matter how you cut it" There are plenty of scenario's where having mroe than two cores will come in handy. You don't have to have a quad core optomized game to take advantage of a quad core.
 
cannondale06 said:
as for as gaming and general usage the Q6600 will do nothing better than the E8500. ...
Click to expand...

I already said that, did you not read? :rolleyes: I swear, people can't read on this forum. I am already telling him his best current option is a dual core. I am also telling him why a quadcore would be good. Why do we keep repeating ourselves? No wonder people hate these threads -- because people keep repeating themselves five billion times over.
 
RamonGTP said:
I've got dual monitors and always have things running in the background. There are plenty of games out there today that have no problems maxing out a dual core CPU, not so much with a quad. I've got more threads and cpu cycles to spare with a quad to keep everything running without affecting my game play. So no, an E8500 is not better than a Q6600 "no matter how you cut it"
Click to expand...
in the instances I am talking about then yes thew E8500 is better. most people "think" their pc run better because it has a quad in it. again for games the E8500 will beat the Q6600 EVERY TIME at resolutions and settings that people actually games at.
 
enginurd said:
I already said that, did you not read? :rolleyes: I swear, people can't read on this forum. I am already telling him his best current option is a dual core. I am also telling him why a quadcore would be good. Why do we keep repeating ourselves? No wonder people hate these threads -- because people keep repeating themselves five billion times over.
Click to expand...
well I was agreeing with you on some points and then simply saying that overclocking the Q6600 wont mean much because the E8500 will overclock even better. perhaps instead of being an asshole, YOU should read more closely next time.
 
cannondale06 said:
well jerk I was agreeing with you on some points and then simply saying that overclocking the Q6600 want mean much because the E8500 will overclock even better. perhaps instead of being an asshole, YOU should read more closely next time.
Click to expand...

Did I call you a jerk? I thought not. Did I disagree with what you said? I thought not. And you call me an asshole?!?! and you said I need to read more closely?!?

I simply stated that people are repeating shit five billion times over. :rolleyes:
 
enginurd said:
Did I call you a jerk? I thought not. Did I disagree with what you said? I thought not. And you call me an asshole?!?!

I simply stated that people are repeating shit five billion times over. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I took out the jerk comment. I still left the asshole one in though because there was no need to quote me and roll your eyes for what I said. of course stuff is going to get repeated and thats what always happens in these types of threads.
 
enginurd said:
Did I call you a jerk? I thought not. Did I disagree with what you said? I thought not. And you call me an asshole?!?! and you said I need to read more closely?!?

I simply stated that people are repeating shit five billion times over. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You have an ignore function...use it...I have ignored him long time ago...
 
Atech said:
You have an ignore function...use it...I have ignored him long time ago...
Click to expand...
its nice when you guys can roll your eyes or make rude comments but it sucks when someone turns it around on you. I have NEVER called anyone a name or said one mean thing to someone on here that didnt act like an ass first. ;)
 
cannondale06 said:
in the instances I am talking about then yes thew E8500 is better. most people "think" their pc run better because it has a quad in it. again for games the E8500 will beat the Q6600 EVERY TIME at resolutions and settings that people actually games at.
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously if you only talk about the stuff higher clocked duals are better at, then the E8500 would be better. Let's try and be more objective. The E8500 is no where near as superiour as you make it out to be. The argument can be made, and often times is, that it isnt' superior at all. The E8500 may be marginally better at certain tasks, but I'm willing to bet that that margin is wider when we start talking about the things the quad does better. I for one have no problem sacraficing a small amount of performance in certain areas to gain a lot more performance in others.
 
RamonGTP said:
Yes, obviously if you only talk about the stuff higher clocked duals are better at, then the E8500 would be better. Let's try and be more objective. The E8500 is no where near as superiour as you make it out to be. The argument can be made, and often times is, that it isnt' superior at all. The E8500 may be marginally better certain tasks, but I'm willing to bet that that margin is wider when we start talking about the things the quad does better. I for one have no problem sacraficing a small amount of performance in certain areas to gain a lot more performance in others.
Click to expand...
well Im not knocking quad cores and certainly Im not covering all scenarios. Im specifically talking about the Q6600 and E8500 in gaming and every day general usage. if those thing were all I cared about and was on a budget then an E8400 or E8500 would seem like the better choice over the Q6600.
 
An uber overclocked e8 isn't going to do anything in performance versus a moderately overclocked q66 or e8 for that matter. A 5GHz e8x00 isn't going to improve much over a 4GHz e8. As for a quad, it'll do better than a dual core with scaling when you slap 3 GPUs or 2 4870X2s, Guru3D said so.

And if the OP knows this is thread #578923483424 of this topic, why the hell don't you just look over the rest of the 578923483423 other threads that talk about this?
 
Fair enough, though one thing that may be of interest. The latest game I bought, Left 4 Dead, had no problems pushing my quad to over 70%, which is effectively 3 out of 4 cores.
 
lol, so its another dual vs quad fight now....

weird how you have such high CPU usage on your quad for L4D tho.... on my dual core, I run media center for television viewing on a 2nd monitor all the time (the timeshifting means its constantly encoding video), and yet i can run L4D on the other monitor no problem, butter smooth for both...

besides, you said there are plently of games that take advantage of QCs... like? Other than SupCom (which my dual handles perfectly), I doubt there are many games that use 4 cores much, if at all....

but like i said, its personal preference.... if you like your quad, its all good.... like i said, i would get a quad if i could... but with the pentium dual cores so cheap right now, i went with one of them..... 70 bucks cant be beat... and in a year or so i'll buy a 2nd hand quad on this forum when i want the extra juice....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top