• 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.

E8400 or Q6600?

Z

Zake202

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
559
I was already going to go for the Q6600, mainly for future use but, with the price of the E8400 at $140, should I get that or drop the extra $ on the Q6600?

I plan to OC either way, but not by much.
 
obviously it depends on what you plan to do, and how long you plan to do it.
 
vsboxerboy said:
What kind of ram do you have?
Click to expand...

This will be a new rig used for gaming and possibly other things in the future.

I am purchasing 4gigs of G.Skill 800

And most likely getting the P5Q Pro, everyone says its a solid mobo and will be good for OCing.
 
 
This topic has been beaten to death, however you can not go wrong with either choice. If you want to heavily multitask, typically the Q6600 will be better. Also presuming more games and apps use multiple cores, the Q6600 is likely to pull ahead in future content. For strictly gaming purposes the E8400 will be better, however normally you are GPU limited and not CPU limited anyway.

Anyway unless you see yourself opening up a game, couple of virtual machines, and encoding movies or something all at the same time, the E8400 is likely the better choice. If you want to keep the PC around for a long time (~2+ years), the Q6600 would likely work out better as more apps and games will be multi threaded (particularly since the new Intel i7 will be able to run 8 threads at the same time...)

You really gotta just read through the threads until you find information that suits your intended purpose. Personally I went with the Q6600 though I am one of those people who is always running some VMs, playing multiple instances of Warcraft, or encoding FRAPS videos (usually all at the same time).
 
Go with the E8400, in a few years both your processors will be obsolete and they will have processors with more than 4 cores for the same price as the Q6600 you would pay today.
 
E8400 for sure. If you were the type of person who would benefit from the quad-core, you'd know it.

I wish I would've gotten the E8400 over Q6600 for my brother's system.

For most people I think the higher clocked dual-core is better than lower speed quad.
 
I got the Q6600 not just for future-proofing (I usually migrate my older tech into my media computer box once I upgrade my gaming system) but also for folding. I know, there's mad points to be had with nvidia cards now but the q6600 @ 3.4GHz still does decently.
 
For me the main reason NOT to pick up any current Intel quadcore is because they are not true quads, they are duals on the same pcb... Personally, I don't like this engineering decision, although I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for it
 
guisar said:
I guess for me the question is not which of these to buy but why anyone would buy anything other than one of these. Can't believe the value of these processors.
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree. You can't beat the amount of performance of either the Q6600 or the E8400 for the money they cost.
 
I guess for me the question is not which of these to buy but why anyone would buy anything other than one of these. Can't believe the value of these processors.
 
guisar said:
I guess for me the question is not which of these to buy but why anyone would buy anything other than one of these. Can't believe the value of these processors.
Click to expand...

uhm, how about a great deal on another processor? ;) Value is a very subjective measure, everyone has different perspectives on what's important to them, so don't presume to know what everyone's preferences are :p
 
Still not sure where to go with this.

$50 less for the E8400.

I doubt I'd do a lot of multitasking.

is the E8500 or E8600 any faster than the E8400?
 
Zake202 said:
Still not sure where to go with this.

$50 less for the E8400.

I doubt I'd do a lot of multitasking.

is the E8500 or E8600 any faster than the E8400?
Click to expand...

You do not need 10+ people to confirm your ideas before you go with them like in your other threads. Seriously just get the E8400.
 
IF there E8400 weren't sold out at Fry's I'd probably go with that.

Still trying to decide which to get.
 
It seems iffy if newegg has G0 stepping on them or B3.

Anyone ordered one recently and know?

Or can anyone confirm a place that does have G0 Q6600's?
 
Zake202 said:
It seems iffy if newegg has G0 stepping on them or B3.

Anyone ordered one recently and know?

Or can anyone confirm a place that does have G0 Q6600's?
Click to expand...

I'll be getting a Q6600 tomorrow afternoon (UPS sucks btw but that's another thread). From the latest reader comments it seems that they are G0.
 
guisar said:
I guess for me the question is not which of these to buy but why anyone would buy anything other than one of these. Can't believe the value of these processors.
Click to expand...

I just got a retail E7200 and a cheapo motherboard for $100 (for both). Better value than both of those. During that time Fry's also had a Q6600 with the same motherboard for $150



Zake202 said:
IF there E8400 weren't sold out at Fry's I'd probably go with that.
Click to expand...


If money is a concern, Fry's has lots of sales so expect similar prices soon
 
Zake202 said:
It seems iffy if newegg has G0 stepping on them or B3.

Anyone ordered one recently and know?

Or can anyone confirm a place that does have G0 Q6600's?
Click to expand...
I got my q6600 a month ago and it was g0, I'm pretty sure g0 is the only one left by now.
 
TehQuick said:
For me the main reason NOT to pick up any current Intel quadcore is because they are not true quads, they are duals on the same pcb... Personally, I don't like this engineering decision, although I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for it
Click to expand...

Ok, but by your logic then you shouldn’t like their Dual-Core chips either. After all a Core2 Duo is just two cores on the same die that shares the same block of cache, etc. It’s not as if it is two independent cores with two independent blocks of cache, etc.

A Core2 Quad, being more or less two C2Ds on one chip actually suffers less from this issue if you think about it. While the two cores on a C2D have to share a single block of cache, a Quad has two blocks of cache among the 4 cores to work with. If you were running something that only took advantage of two cores, each core that is being used might potentially have access to it’s very own block of cache on a quad. So while a Core2 Quad might not be a “true quad”, it’s certainly more of a “true dual” than a Core2 Duo!
 
GotNoRice said:
Ok, but by your logic then you shouldn’t like their Dual-Core chips either. After all a Core2 Duo is just two cores on the same die that shares the same block of cache, etc. It’s not as if it is two independent cores with two independent blocks of cache, etc.

A Core2 Quad, being more or less two C2Ds on one chip actually suffers less from this issue if you think about it. While the two cores on a C2D have to share a single block of cache, a Quad has two blocks of cache among the 4 cores to work with. If you were running something that only took advantage of two cores, each core that is being used might potentially have access to it’s very own block of cache on a quad. So while a Core2 Quad might not be a “true quad”, it’s certainly more of a “true dual” than a Core2 Duo!
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not my logic, it's yours. I think I was clear enough - I don't dispute that current Intel quad-cores are made that way for a good reason and it's only my PERSONAL opinion that multi-die solution sucks, end of story.
 
TehQuick said:
I don't dispute that current Intel quad-cores are made that way for a good reason and it's only my PERSONAL opinion that multi-die solution sucks, end of story.
Click to expand...

maybe Intel can hire you to design their cpus. Show them how to do it...
 
TehQuick said:
Actually, it's not my logic, it's yours. I think I was clear enough - I don't dispute that current Intel quad-cores are made that way for a good reason and it's only my PERSONAL opinion that multi-die solution sucks, end of story.
Click to expand...

Why does it suck? No reason in particular, just felt like throwing that out there? I guess it's possible to have opinions with no basis in fact but I don't know how that would be helpful to the OP or anyone in this thread. If there is anything specific about the Core2 Quad design which you don't like feel free to enlighten us. I'd love to hear what about the C2Q not being a "true quad" makes it less desirable than a C2D (which if you've forgotten, is the topic of this thread).
 
needmorecarnitine said:
maybe Intel can hire you to design their cpus. Show them how to do it...
Click to expand...

Not interested

GotNoRice said:
Why does it suck? No reason in particular, just felt like throwing that out there? I guess it's possible to have opinions with no basis in fact but I don't know how that would be helpful to the OP or anyone in this thread. If there is anything specific about the Core2 Quad design which you don't like feel free to enlighten us. I'd love to hear what about the C2Q not being a "true quad" makes it less desirable than a C2D (which if you've forgotten, is the topic of this thread).
Click to expand...

Pretty simple, quads are hard to cool properly compared to duals, imho :) I don't like that there's that empty space that introduces variance into the cooling b/n different cores, and that's it :) Like I said, simple personal peeve
 
KILLER_K said:
Man i wished i had a dollar for everytime someone post this same question. Wonders if anyone even uses the search function anymore.

Simple logic stands in the question.....

Q6600 if you do encoding , big rar files, music etc.

E8400 if you just do regular things on your pc.

Good Day
Click to expand...

No kidding, obviously he just needs to get a C2D and be done with this. lol.
 
Man i wished i had a dollar for everytime someone post this same question. Wonders if anyone even uses the search function anymore.

Simple logic stands in the question.....

Q6600 if you do encoding , big rar files, music etc.

E8400 if you just do regular things on your pc.

Good Day
 
Is there any reason I will regret buying a Q6600?

I don't usually upgrade my PC every year.

I upgraded the CPU is this once since I've had it in the last 5years. from a 2.4Ghz P4 to a 3.0Ghz with HT.

Any suggestions where to buy the Q6600? Any place guarantee G0 for under $200?
 
Zake202 said:
Is there any reason I will regret buying a Q6600?

I don't usually upgrade my PC every year.

I upgraded the CPU is this once since I've had it in the last 5years. from a 2.4Ghz P4 to a 3.0Ghz with HT.

Any suggestions where to buy the Q6600? Any place guarantee G0 for under $200?
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't see the Q6600 lasting near as long as an E8400 would if you aren't going to be doing major multithreaded apps, or running multiple process intensive apps at once. It is a slower clock rate, slower fsb, and less cache available per thread.

That said, regret would depend on your point of view. If you buy the Q6600 and never get a chance to see how much faster the E8400 would be in your application then no, you would not regret it. However, if hypothetically you were able to test drive an E8400 in your rig playing the same games you always do, then yes, you would regret the fact that the E8400 would do a better job in games such as WoW, for less money then the Q6600.
 
I'm so clueless with what to go with right now.

I understand the arguments, and that e8400 is better for gaming.

what I don't understand is which will last me longer.

Btw G0 is best stepping for Q6600 and E0 is best for E8400 correct?

Also, Fry's is out of stock on their E8400, so really only a $20 difference with these procs?
 
Zake202 said:
I'm so clueless with what to go with right now.

I understand the arguments, and that e8400 is better for gaming.

what I don't understand is which will last me longer.

Btw G0 is best stepping for Q6600 and E0 is best for E8400 correct?

Also, Fry's is out of stock on their E8400, so really only a $20 difference with these procs?
Click to expand...

Ok well it seems were making progress now lol. Tell me this, what do you see your self using this computer for in the future, anything besides games and regular office apps/ web browsing? And yes E0 is definetly what you want for the E8400, and I doubt you would be able to find a B3 stepping Q6600 if you tried, other then ebay haha. G0 stepping came out well over a year ago and I'm sure that there aren't any retail B3's left.
 
If you want your computer to last longer get a quad. the Q6600 is a good price. Plus you can o/c from 2.66 to 3.0 easy on stock voltage. or to 3.2 or 3.6 if you really want. some games use the quad-core some dont. i mean if you think the E8400 will work for what you need get it. but since your talking about making your computer last longer get a Q6600
 
Zake202 said:
I'm so clueless with what to go with right now.

I understand the arguments, and that e8400 is better for gaming.

what I don't understand is which will last me longer.

Btw G0 is best stepping for Q6600 and E0 is best for E8400 correct?

Also, Fry's is out of stock on their E8400, so really only a $20 difference with these procs?
Click to expand...

You need to make a decision >>>on your own<<<

There is no correct answer in the 8400/6600 debate, both chips are great. People have been going back and forth on this for months now, there is no clear winner, you need to figure out what you want since you are the one making the purchase. Try reading some of the links posted earlier.
 
the Q6600 has a high multiplier (than the Q9450, for example), which allows you to overclock it to 3ghz and beyond without stressing the rest of your components as much as you would if you had a CPU with a lower multiplier.

It has 4 cores. You could unrar a huge file, watch a moive, game, compile a program, enocode a movie, browse the web, etc, and do a lot of those things all at once.

get a bunch of ram too, so you can do all this stuff, play a game, and alt-tab out of it without slowing everything down.

quad core ftw. I hate how people go against quads, when this is the [H]!!! I mean, 4 cores ftw people....

hell, even if you don't use it to its potential- this is the [H] damnit, just get it. what's $20? a dinner? you can't skip a nice dinner to have 2 more cores? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top