• 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 vs q6600

1) Don't trust Tom's Hardware for benchmarks
2) Don't trust "timedemos" for benchmarks
3) Are you also intending on using 1280x1024 res? Crysis aside, that's a more CPU-bound res these days and clockspeed wins. At higher res, the difference shrinks if not completely disappears, especially if you're intending on overclocking.
4) Q6600 is generally more useful overall if you account for other programs instead of just games

If you're going to upgrade soon after (Nehalem) then get whatever's cheaper. If you plan on sticking with the system for a couple years more, Q6600 is definitely the way to go.
 
There are tons of these threads out there. If you ONLY use your rig for gaming then the 8400 prolly is better. But I doubt anyone on this forum does that.

If you use your PC for multiple things then the quad is amazingly better.

The OS will respond a lot "snappier" and the computer "feel" faster with the slower quad even though your benchmarks on a game may be faster with the 8400.

The quad core can run a game with two cores and you still have two left to run the OS, when alt-tabbed out and browsing or video encoding, or basically doing anything. With a quad core your computer never ever feels like it slows down. With a dual core, just alt-tabbing out of a game makes them hiccup(explorer navigates slower, opening new apps is slower -etc)

I have a Q6600 and I can't recommend it to you highly enough.

To me, going to a quad core was like the difference in going from a single core to a my first dual core.
 
I will go to the other end and say the E8400 kicks ass. My OS IS snappier, and everything in general is faster..

Bottom line, quite happy with my Dual Core. :D
 
OK thanks for advice. Ya, sometimes I do question TomsHardware. I guess a quad would probably be better because I do alot of cad, 3dmax, that sort of thing. I think I'll get a quad then.

Also, isn't the Nehalem gonna be for servers, as a replacement for xeon?
 
jordan12 said:
I will go to the other end and say the E8400 kicks ass. My OS IS snappier, and everything in general is faster..

Bottom line, quite happy with my Dual Core. :D
Click to expand...

Feels snappier In comparison to what? Your old dual core? I'd believe that!, but in comparison to a quad core?????

Have you compared your E8400 to a Q6600 or some other quad core?
 
adamvk said:
Also, isn't the Nehalem gonna be for servers, as a replacement for xeon?
Click to expand...

The Nehalem microarchitecture is for everything from mainstream mobile to servers. As with all new Intel CPUs, the first release will be of the extreme edition and server types, coming in the fourth quarter of 2008. The lower end (i.e. mainstream and mobile) chips will be rolled out over the course of the first and second quarters of 2009.
 
After using a 4.2Ghz E3110, some games like Assassin's Creed, UT3, GOW, were alot smoother with the quad. Namely because these games are scaling to all 4 cores. After experiencing that first hand I went back to the quad. The E3110 was great for benching but honestly in game @ 1680 there is no difference except those that support quad core.

CPU utilization was alot higher with a dual core, this was during AC.

Dual core E3110 2 4.1Ghz
dualcore.jpg


Quad Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz
quadcore.jpg
 
I think I will get a quad core then, thanks everyone for input. It should be a huge upgrade from my pentium d 3.2GHZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top