Siriusmuzik
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,446
Don't believe the low heat bs they feed you though.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
E8400 or Q6600...
- Thread starter Cmustang87
- Start date
Don't believe the low heat bs they feed you though.
I don't dispute it's faster in some cases. I said that's not the only thing that matters. For instance, an E8400 uses a hell of a lot less electricity than a Q6600, and generates less heat, even at idle with speedstep. silent-circuit was wrong about that.
I thought that everyone learned the "do not buy for the future" lesson after the Doom3 fiasco.
I highly doubt your beloved q6600 or the e8400 with be worth a shit in 2 yrs. Look 2 to 3 years back at the CPU's that were the rage at that time, those CPU's aren't squat now.
I would rather have 4 crappy cores, than 2 crappy cores two years from now.
But then again, 2 years from now an 8 core system will be your new "Q6600", naw mean son!
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
I've directly experienced the difference between a Core2Duo at 65nm vs 45nm and the 45nm runs cooler even when its clocked 1Ghz higher. Granted both were low voltage overclocks. Now if I was pumping 1.5v in to both cores, and higher clocked the 45nm it might put off some serious heat. But my e8400 runs very cool even at 3.9Ghz. (doesn't quite want to do 4Ghz
)I didn't say the quad was "future proof" as everyone likes to throw that term around. I just said it MAY hold up better. Nothing is future proof, as there may very well be the next great "killer app" that needs tons of power a year or 2 from now. Its definitely not my "beloved" q6600 as I have an e8400, and won't upgrade to a quad until I can get a reasonably priced full fledge (cached) 45nm quad or I may just hold out for Nehalem.
If Windows 7 (approx 2 years out) ups the bar like Vista did from XP, we may well need 8 cores and 8Gb of ram.
compuguy1088
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 317
I'm not seeing it.
Where exactly am I off-base?
Looks like 125 vs 150 fps.
And 70 fps vs 90 fps.
Hmm?
And you're saying the opposite because you run a dual.
Enjoy that number in CPUZ.
Link again for convenience
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0
WTH, are you seeing impaired or just trying to be ignorant?!?! <<<
did you even look at the benchmarks?
How on God's green earth can you keep saying that a Quad is better? It's hotter, it's more expensive and not as efficient as a Dual
and
Quake 4, World in Conflict, HL2, and Crysis all show the superiority of a highly clocked Dual core! <<<<<<<<< This is exactly where you are off base, you quad lover.
all you guys defending the Quads run them, so no wonder
and who in the #*$#& will be running the same CPU 3 years from now?!
sheez that's not Hard at all...
I know I won't and I feel sorry for you poor Quad users if you are still running some wimp 3.6 quad in 2011, more sorry that I feel for you right now.
I know that at 4.3Ghz. this dual is 49C under load, with silent air cooling, and only costs me $175 from another forum, and I know that a quad equivelant can't do that
so please quit trying cloud the facts that "YES" for gaming a high clocked dual IS the BETTER CHOICE
This is a little ridiculous now.
I'm not going to bother repeating what's already been said in this thread on that issue. It's already been stated, re-stated, and recycled over and over. I trust you can read the entire thread on your own, and get the full response to pretty much everything you just said.
No point in me regurgitating all of that information.
It still shows that in those games, the higher clocked dual out performs the lower clocked quad.
You just read my post, but then say you
so what are you saying, more misinformation?
and 2-3 frames is 2-3 frames, at least here at HardOCP it is.
Even after pointing it out yourself you won't agree that yes in fact the dual is faster.
Why? becuase you have some obsession with saying peen or what?
Check my sig, you see I have been here almost 7 years.
If a quad was faster than dual I'd run one, but it's not.
It's hotter, slower, more expensive, tougher to run alot of memory with(4-8gigs),
the list goes on, but I'm sure facts and figures don't matter to you so...anyway
like you said...
so what are you saying, more misinformation?
and 2-3 frames is 2-3 frames, at least here at HardOCP it is.
Even after pointing it out yourself you won't agree that yes in fact the dual is faster.
Why? becuase you have some obsession with saying peen or what?
Check my sig, you see I have been here almost 7 years.
If a quad was faster than dual I'd run one, but it's not.
It's hotter, slower, more expensive, tougher to run alot of memory with(4-8gigs),
the list goes on, but I'm sure facts and figures don't matter to you so...anyway
like you said...
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
$10 says someone is gonna post the same question in a few more days.
...and a few days after that, and a few days after that...
you got that right anyway, regurgitating is just what it would be, like some puking baby.
at least lay the facts out and see them for what they are
the benches don't lie, and they don't try to swing their beliefs on the hinges of esoteric feelings, like some users do, and maybe that could be the quad users in this case.
All I pointed out was a cooler more effecient and faster CPU is what I like to run.
and if others want to run quads and they think they are somehow the "better" cpu, great! get after it, some people eat bugs or peirce their nipples, doesn't make them right for doing it though.
It's like this,
4 cores or 4+ghz. at the end of the day it's still just #'s on a screen,
our "computing experience" is not different enough to even tell in a side by side test.
Here's what it truly comes down to;
does it really, in the big picture of things, even matter at all?
no...............it doesn't
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
I still stick by my perfect answer to his question as the 7th response in this dumb ass redundant thread!
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032533526&postcount=8
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032533526&postcount=8
Quad lover? Really? You say it like it's a derogatory term, I can't believe it. You realize we're talking about computer processors here, right? Take a couple advil and give that bulging vein on your forehead a break.
You linked to benchmarks running games at 1024x768, nobody overclocking anything is going to be running a game at 1024x768. Even if they were, they would not notice a difference between 100 fps and 120 fps. You talk of 'computing experience' yet you quote meaningless numbers yourself. At higher resolutions games become GPU limited. That means that everything is now being held up by the video card. Your 8400 at 4ghz is not going to matter against a 6600 at 3.6ghz as the system is GPU limited.
Does that make sense to you? I can break it down further if you'd like.
I'm probably going to end up getting an E8400 myself, because my usage, upgrade pattern, and budget make it a logical choice. Your arguments are really terrible though, you need to work on that.
EDIT: Aaaand I'm sorry to everyone for bringing this thread back to the main page, should've left it where it was. I didn't realize I was on page 4
mista ting
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 742
Here's a question: What about those of us that don't overclock? Would the E8400 outperform the Q6600 due to the increased clocks...I know 3Ghz is kind of a wall, but there is almost 600mhz frequency between them up to the 3Ghz mark where the E8400 stands. The increased frequency, larger cache per core and lower power consumption would seem to make the difference to me, but I'm hoping someone could elaborate this idea for me.
-
That has got to be the best collage/image/response to the whole Q6600 vs E8400 Debate. Props to Mista Thing.
The numbers just do not lie. Simply put, if you are PRIMARILY gaming go with the E8400. If you like to do a bit of everything all at the same time consider the Quad.
'Nuff said.
I know tomshardware isn't universally liked on this forum but I find their CPU charts are quite handy.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...,1271,1270,1272,1273,1274,1257,1230,1231,1256
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
If you're gaming and playing at a resolution less than 1280x1024, yes the E8400 will outperform the Q6600. Once you start cranking up the resolution, you become more and more GPU limited. Around 1920x1200, no difference whatsoever between the E8400 and Q6600. Multitasking, video editing, etc will benefit from multiple cores.
Depending on how things pan out over the next couple of weeks I will using either a 1280x1024 or 1680x1050 res, so I assume there would be a minimal difference based on your post, but that the E8400 might have a small advantage.
Also, I'm on Winxp, which from what I've seen on these boards doesn't necessarily utilize four cores as well as 64, so that's a consideration as well I would assume.
hockeypro889
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 557
That collage is awesome!
rickyman123
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 872
i am looking to upgrade a new cpu.i have now e4300. i am looking to buy like e8xxx or q6600. i am basically use for htpc stuff.
i say q6600 over e8400 for all the reasons people have stated. but if you like numbers and want to show off to your little buddies that you've overclocked a card to 4ghz and beyond on air?
e8400 for sure. the card is a monster as far as overclocking and requires lot less voltage to get there. it definitely runs way cooler as the HSF is barely warm to the touch even at full load. if you're not a multitasking freak and don't do any video editing, i really don't see the novelty of running a quad.
you could wait for the next set intel offerings but that waiting game for the next gen is a vicious cycle in itself. i'm very happy i jumped from e6600 to e8400. it suits my needs just fine.
e8400 for sure. the card is a monster as far as overclocking and requires lot less voltage to get there. it definitely runs way cooler as the HSF is barely warm to the touch even at full load. if you're not a multitasking freak and don't do any video editing, i really don't see the novelty of running a quad.
you could wait for the next set intel offerings but that waiting game for the next gen is a vicious cycle in itself. i'm very happy i jumped from e6600 to e8400. it suits my needs just fine.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
overclock your e4300 and that should be all you need for an HTPC.
a q6600 will probably put off to much heat (too loud) if you're using the PC for a purely HTPC.
the e8400 could run a little cooler and clock higher than the e4300, but not really enough of a reason to upgrade to it.
rickyman123
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 872
how do you overclock my e4300 to get at least 3.0 ghz or 2.8ghz . does the stock hsf works?
should i buy ddr2-800 or ddr2-1000? it is $10 more than ddr2-1000?
should i buy ddr2-800 or ddr2-1000? it is $10 more than ddr2-1000?
Nickyglarge
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 18
After having read over the last four pages of this thread,I have come to this conclusion of which I would like compare to cars( which is a shame as i dont know shit about cars!)
If you are are hot rod fan(anything with a Chevy big block etc), then the Q6600 is for you.
if you prefer Skylines, Impreza, Mitso Evos, then the E8XXX is for you.
If you are are hot rod fan(anything with a Chevy big block etc), then the Q6600 is for you.
if you prefer Skylines, Impreza, Mitso Evos, then the E8XXX is for you.
I was thinking about getting one the Q6600, but I came across this thread and I was wondering http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1314852, in that image, it seems like it's saying that the Q6600 would not work with all these new Intel boards that are coming out, is that true? It shows the E8400 as being compatible there.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
Intel lists it like this due to the bus speed. Officially, the new chipsets support 1333 and 1600 ("quad pumped"). Q6600 defaults to 1066, which happens to be one of the reasons its a great overclocking chip.
Now I have not tried it myself, though I will say I will be completely and utterly shocked to the point of passing out if a Q6600 failed to work in the new P45 boards available for sale right now.
ivandurago
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,307
This should be stickied, I think this question gets asked once a day
This should be stickied, I think this question gets asked once a day
Stickies should be based on fact and not on opinion though.
I went with a retail E8400 for $190 from newegg versus $200 for an OEM Q6600 for use in a Shuttle. I would actually use the extra processing power for use in STATA/MP 10, but their 4-core MP version is just WAY to much money for me to spend. For now I'll just be using one-core of this E8400. For most users, a two-core chip will be faster for the next few years. If quad-core support finally becomes the mainstream it will be easy to resell the chip and purchase a new quad-core CPU that is the same socket type for about the same price (eg. Q6600) or slightly more expensive.
Flintblade
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 122
Here's a question. Clock for clock. A Q6600 is just as good at gaming as a E8400 correct?
I have a Q6700 at 3.6ghz and if you were too compare this with a 3.6ghz E8400 they would be the same correct?
If clock for clock a e8400 is better, than I'm totally switching too a dual core. I don't really care about the fact that a e8400 can hit 4ghz, I'm satisfied with 3.6ghz.
I have a Q6700 at 3.6ghz and if you were too compare this with a 3.6ghz E8400 they would be the same correct?
If clock for clock a e8400 is better, than I'm totally switching too a dual core. I don't really care about the fact that a e8400 can hit 4ghz, I'm satisfied with 3.6ghz.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
Partially answered here:
Clock for clock the E8400 will beat the Q6600. But like I said in that quoted post, start playing at higher resolutions and you'll hardly see any difference between a 3.6Ghz Q6600 and a 3.6Ghz E8400.
rickyman123
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 872
how long does e8xxx last?
Flintblade
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 122
How much better is a E8400 clock for clock. So like a 3.4ghz E8400 would be equivalent too a 3.6ghz Q6600 if the resolutions are small?
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
IIRC, about 7 to 10% faster clock for clock.