E6750 or Q6600

B

belmicah

Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
853
I just purchased a Q6600 from Newegg, but I had a problem with my credit card (put in wrong exp. date), so the order didn't go through. I fixed it then I did a little research and decided on an E6750.

Well, long story short, they are BOTH on their way to my house for my new build. So, which one should I keep? I was thinking the E6750 for overclocking, price, and heat issues, but the Q6600 seems to OC well and should be more future proof.

What do you guys think? SHould I keep the Quad or the cheaper Duo?
 
Couple of months ago I would have said the quad. With everything becoming obsolete in a year with the next Intel "tic" now I would say that is it very hard to really use all 4 cores to their max potential in the next year unless you run some very special applications, encoding would be one. If you are a gamer mainly, keep the dual, if you intend to keep the machine for 5 years keep the quad. /shrug really you cant go wrong either way.
 
Look around a little and you'll see this has been asked many times.

I was trying to get the most for my money with my build so I went the way of th E6750 and spend the $70 price difference on the best air cooler on the market.

Works for me and as stated above, new quad cores will be out later so if you decide you need one down the road, sell the 6750 for whatever they're going for and be happy you didn't break the bank when you originally purchased it.
 
If you have a motherboard that can handle overclocking the Quad (p35 or late p965's) I would go with the quad. If you have an older chipset I would stick with the dual core
 
My brain said E6750. My pocket said, stay with the E4300. My heart said Q6600. So I went with the Q6600 :p

I tend to take a break from work and play a quick game, or two, and with the Q6600 I just leave all my apps running, and dont notice any difference. Would the E6750 be the same, probably, they are both great CPU, so if you have something else to spend the diff in cost, then E6750, if not, still the E6750, unless your heart still says Q6600.
 
Well, if your PC is a "dedicated" games machine, then maybe the C2D.

If you're not using your PC as a glorified playstation, and you have things like anti-virus, indexing, bittorrent, firewalls, downloads running in the background, then the quad. If you like to switch between tasks, the quad. If you don't like doing nothing while performing mundane tasks like installing software, then the quad. If you like to surf message boards while gaming, then the quad. Heck, even if you play games, if you use real time messaging software and live chat to coordinate with your teammates, then the quad.

As for not using the quads to their potential, that's not a good enough reason to reject the quad. Unless you're on a tight budget, there's little reason to get a C2D nowdays as the cost savings is minimal.
 
e6750 all the way! I was also in this dilemma, but I went with the e6750 and couldn't be happier, especially now that I know the new quads coming in January-ish will be something very special.
 
I have a quad..if I had it to do again, Id grab the E6750....
 
I was thinking about a quad but then i relized by the time quad cores will be nessescary the q6600 would be like a pent 4 now, so i got a e6850 and it blazes running at 4ghz and idleing at 30C is nice to.
 
I just bought a e6750, was a bit strapped on cash...but I can't see myself going wrong with my choice.
 
echn111 said:
Well, if your PC is a "dedicated" games machine, then maybe the C2D.

If you're not using your PC as a glorified playstation, and you have things like anti-virus, indexing, bittorrent, firewalls, downloads running in the background, then the quad. If you like to switch between tasks, the quad. If you don't like doing nothing while performing mundane tasks like installing software, then the quad. If you like to surf message boards while gaming, then the quad. Heck, even if you play games, if you use real time messaging software and live chat to coordinate with your teammates, then the quad.

As for not using the quads to their potential, that's not a good enough reason to reject the quad. Unless you're on a tight budget, there's little reason to get a C2D nowdays as the cost savings is minimal.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly decent answer, but to boil it down without as much hyperbole, basically this:

If all you do is gaming, the dual will do fine. If you're a dedicated gamer that loves do to multiple shit at once, including while gaming, get the quad. Just note that you may be replacing that quad eventually by the time you truly take advantage of all those cores.
 
I just upgraded from an E6750 to a Q6600. so you know what my answer is ! :D

Quad baby ! Once you go quad you'll never go back ......:p
 
echn111 said:
Well, if your PC is a "dedicated" games machine, then maybe the C2D.

If you're not using your PC as a glorified playstation, and you have things like anti-virus, indexing, bittorrent, firewalls, downloads running in the background, then the quad. If you like to switch between tasks, the quad. If you don't like doing nothing while performing mundane tasks like installing software, then the quad. If you like to surf message boards while gaming, then the quad. Heck, even if you play games, if you use real time messaging software and live chat to coordinate with your teammates, then the quad.

As for not using the quads to their potential, that's not a good enough reason to reject the quad. Unless you're on a tight budget, there's little reason to get a C2D nowdays as the cost savings is minimal.
Click to expand...

Half of the things you talk about don't take much processing power, and barely even justify dual cores. The only thing that should make you decide dual core or quad core is how much you expect to future proof, how much multithreaded encoding you do, and how much how many math-intensive multithreaded algorithms you intend to run.

Edit: Actually, more than half of the things you talk about don't take much processing power. Stuff like indexing is I/O intensive, which will bottleneck you in a totally different way than the CPU.
 
Nick_Leo said:
whats the point in folding as u dont get any benifit. ur bassicaly just wasteing power and cpu usage and getting nothing out of it.
Click to expand...

You may not get any imediate benifit but protien folding simulations are ran and the results are sent to Stanford Univercity to help them find cures for cancer. Improper protien folding is the root cause of all cancers and old age and I think I would like to do all I can to get rid of both
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top