![[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.
E6850 or Q6600???
- Thread starter INYNN
- Start date
For the money E6850 will easily beat quad core in all games out now and for most games in the future. There will only be a few games in the near future that can even use quad core. I bought single core AMD64 because I knew that would give me the most bang for the buck. It's only now I am ready to buy dual core and even that doesn't bring much to the table. 2 cores doesn't equal twice as fast even in games and apps that can use dual core. Some dual core enabled games it makes only a few percent difference. Quad core is certainly nothing to get excited about.
What most of you guys miss is that the Q6600 as well as the E6850 in games right now will make next to NO difference in performance if you look besides the multiple cores. In essence, no game right now is as CPU dependent to make an impact between the two one side or another. If you then count in that a couple games come out that support multiple cores, the Quad has a distinct advantage.
What i mean is that sure, in a resolution of 640x480, the E6850 would smoke the quad in single core games, but most games we play is not 640x480 but 1280x1024 or 1600x1280 or 1680x1050 or higher. There you have a videocard limitation and not a processor limitation. Both CPUs will perform very close to each other in these resolutions or it doesn't make an impact (because the FPS are so high in first place).
What i mean is that sure, in a resolution of 640x480, the E6850 would smoke the quad in single core games, but most games we play is not 640x480 but 1280x1024 or 1600x1280 or 1680x1050 or higher. There you have a videocard limitation and not a processor limitation. Both CPUs will perform very close to each other in these resolutions or it doesn't make an impact (because the FPS are so high in first place).
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,881
I find that hard to believe with 1200 threads asking the same question..
Im all over the Q6600...but I have no good reason other than I want the quad...sorry I cant help more....
if you use your computer solely for gaming then you are right sir.
but if you do anything else, you are very wrong. More cores = More symultaneous tasks.
I for one usually have about 10 IE windows, 5 - 10 MSN windows, Bittorent, Widows media player or winamp, convertX to convert divx movies to DVD, and various other things.
I like to be able to drop what im doing and load up a game without closing any of those windows and programs. A quad core will do this.
I made the jump to dual core very early and never regretted it. it was just as fast as my single core was in games, but much faster in desktop applications.
Everyone is always trumpeting about the lack of software that is quad core capable, but they always overlook the advantages that a quad brings without the software.
You don't need a single piece of software to use the whole CPU. thats not what multicores are for. They are for doing multiple tasks symultaneously as fast as possible.
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
The one concern I have from reading the various threads on this is the question of overclocking and heat.Many have given the impression the quad cores run hotter and would require water cooling for any significant overclocking,an additional expense I'd rather not get into.I'm not planning on any extreme overclocking,but a boost in the future to extend the time between upgrades.
Honestly, If i'd not go quad core right now (various reasons; heat, price, whatever), I would certainly not buy the 6850 but a lower clocked one as the 6550 and o/c the crap out of it and THEN buy quad. 6850 is, imho not a good price/performance ratio, just as the E6700 or X6800 were not.
Yes, but I can get a much faster raw speed dual core for the price of a quad core and for my current library of games that is far more important than a few games in the pipeline that may not even be worth buying. For me, E6850 makes far more sense and I will get quad core when I deem it the right time. Over a year ago someone said to me the dual core is the smart buy. He was wrong because the faster single core ate the equivalent priced dual core for breakfast when it came to games. I speak from a gamers perspective. For me I don't care if it takes an hour longer to render a video or something like that. Maybe for you that is important though if it is your business.
S[H]ady;1031266249 said:
OK, but I am looking at it from a gamers perspective and best bang for buck. I don't multitask when I game. You are just asking for trouble if you do. And your dual core was not as fast in games as a single core that cost the same as the dual core. No way.
The OP never did say what are his uses for the cpu so it's hard to say which is the best way to go until he gives us more info. If you are on a budget and a gamer then the E6850 makes more sense, if you have money to burn and are a gamer and do video rendering etc. then the quad core makes more sense. I only keep a cpu for a year or two. Buying a faster quad core than I can afford now at a lower price in a year or so makes more sense to me.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
from a gamer's perspective i would still get the quad core.
Is this really true. I specifically am looking at both chips but 95% for gaming. When I looked at the benchmarks I was quite surpised to see that quad core on one websight was not doing as well as the 6850. Why? It was actually getting less fps. I'm so split on this that I want maximum framerates but also want crysis to run as fast as possible but not if quad is only going to bump it up and average of 5 fps on the minimums.
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
I have this feeling that Crysis will run faster at high res on a Q6600/X3220 then a E6850 everything else being equal of course.[H]ardOCP should do a article on this.Maybe then get Crytek to help with a late build of the game.
Like Anandtech did with UT2004 years ago...
Like Anandtech did with UT2004 years ago...
Wow, some good discussion in here. You guys have shed some light into the topic for me. Thanks!
Heres the deal, I'm not happy with the preformance of my rig ATM. I play alot of games, in fact if I had to divide my on computer time up it would be:
70% - Games
20% - Net surfing
10% - Dvd watching/riping/burning etc.
Take a look at my sig, thats my current spec. I just want to increase framerate. I just got a Samsung 226BW monitor... I was running a monitor with 1440x900 before. But now with the new monitor im running @ 1680x1050. I have noticed a drop in framrate a fair bit.
Also running Vista x86 Ultimate... thats a bit of a hog also... but has its perks as well. (we're not getting into that tho.)
I do plan to move to Ultimate x64 when I do my upgrade tho.
My ram is the corsair value select, its served me well this far but might be my biggest bottleneck, you tell me.
Heres the deal, I'm not happy with the preformance of my rig ATM. I play alot of games, in fact if I had to divide my on computer time up it would be:
70% - Games
20% - Net surfing
10% - Dvd watching/riping/burning etc.
Take a look at my sig, thats my current spec. I just want to increase framerate. I just got a Samsung 226BW monitor... I was running a monitor with 1440x900 before. But now with the new monitor im running @ 1680x1050. I have noticed a drop in framrate a fair bit.
Also running Vista x86 Ultimate... thats a bit of a hog also... but has its perks as well. (we're not getting into that tho.)
I do plan to move to Ultimate x64 when I do my upgrade tho.
My ram is the corsair value select, its served me well this far but might be my biggest bottleneck, you tell me.
Yep, pretty much.
Yes.
quad core is much faster in the vast majority of video editing software.
Cad will also likely take advantage of quads as well.
3D modeling software certainly does.
But you give no reason why. I care more about how my older games will run than I do about new games in the pipeline. I am interested to know why you think this as I am buying a new cpu soon. I might change my mind about the E6850 and go quad if you can give me a compelling reason to. I doubt you can give me a compelling reason though.
But both cpu's must cost the same to make it a fair comparison. Comparing an E6850 to an equivalent priced quad the E6850 will beat it most of the time just because the E6850 will have more processor speed.
Yep, that's one of the main reasons I hate LCD's, not to mention piss poor black levels and really noticable tearing if you run with vsync off.
The best thing you could do to run at a much better frame rate is lower your resolution but on LCD doing that degrades image quality, CRT's don't have that issue. But if you try all the resolutions you should find one that is acceptable. I have a friend who just got a new widescreen LCD and we found a lower res that looks quite good still. You want to try and find a res that is close to a mathematical even division of your native resolution then it should look fine.
An upgrade to a video card with more ram on it will help you more than a new cpu but I see you already have the top tier video card already. There are new ATI cards that have 1gb of ram but they are slower than your 8800GTX so you will need to wait until next gen to get a real benefit from a new video card.
The framerate drop is the graphics card, at lower resoloutions the CPU is used more than the GPU and at higher it is the other way around.
If you try lowering your OC and the framerates go down then you CPU is the bottleneck, if they don't then your GPU is the bottleneck.
Try to OC your graphics card before you buy anything new.
Well the indervidual cores on the Quad are slower and therfore if a game only utilises one or two cores the Quad will appear to be slower than the Dual.
CoW]8(0);1031267467 said:
I'll use WOW for an example.
Max settings, I mean everything...
90 - 110fps on the high end ( /w vsync on: avg. about 40-60 fps)
18 - 25fps on the low end
But I run into the low end often and when alot of shit is going on at once on the screen I need the performance most of all and thats when it drops. I'm not trying to be uber picky but it bugs me when it bogs down.
BF2142 about 45-70fps. avrage.
I have never tried OCing the 8800gtx i have now, I tried it with my BFG7900GTXOC - That dident go well. It just dident overclock well at all.
What is the best software for OCing the Asus EN8800GTX I have?
Thanks again guys, this is all very helpful.
Well quads will get better, but nothing has been better.
are the current quads a lot hotter and harder to overclock than the e6750/6850s?
Yep, buy a long way.
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
n0pe
hmm, i have just been searching up the forum all day today about quads vs dual cores, seems like no one have a definite answer on either go to for a e6850 or q6600 lol
but i believe i read some where that the new q6600 released after july 22 are gonna be G0 stepping, which means they SHOULD run much cooler than the previous ones? if thats the case i would really reconsider and maybe get a q6600 instead, because i do a lot of video editing and photoshop etc
G0 stepping will mean they run cooler, just not as cool as the duals.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=15
scroll to the bottom to the Lost Planet results, the quad cores mop the floor with the duals, it's not even close. I gotta hand it to microsoft for making the 360 cpu run 6 hardware threads, it is forcing developers to properly code their games and we will benefit on the PC. We can expect this trend to continue IMO as more big games are developed simultaneously for 360 and PC (or ported over). Lets put this issue to rest once and for all.
scroll to the bottom to the Lost Planet results, the quad cores mop the floor with the duals, it's not even close. I gotta hand it to microsoft for making the 360 cpu run 6 hardware threads, it is forcing developers to properly code their games and we will benefit on the PC. We can expect this trend to continue IMO as more big games are developed simultaneously for 360 and PC (or ported over). Lets put this issue to rest once and for all.