• 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.

For gaming: E8500 or Q6600?

S

Spare-Flair

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
7,471
I have the opportunity to get one of these CPUs, which would you recommend for gaming? I'm slightly swayed toward the Q6600 because of this old thread that said GTA IV would be better with a quad.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1370956

However, I've read that the E8500 would probably be better in most other gaming. I will be overclocking whatever I get as much as I possibly can with a Thermalright 120 TrueBlack.
 
If the Q6600 is a G0 then I would say get that, overclock it to 3.0-3.2ghz, then call it good.
 
I'd get the Q6600. You'll get more miles out of the extra cores and cache in the long run. OC it to 3.2 and be done with it.
 
Killing2Live said:
If the Q6600 is a G0 then I would say get that, overclock it to 3.0-3.2ghz, then call it good.
Click to expand...

HydroBudz said:
I'd get the Q6600. You'll get more miles out of the extra cores and cache in the long run. OC it to 3.2 and be done with it.
Click to expand...

There you are. I'm not particularly convinced by the various "Two faster cores are better than four slightly slower cores."
 
I feel like I traveled back in time 2 years ago.

Q6600 for quad core. If overclocking.

If not, E8500. But, q6600 oc to 3.2
 
AMDXP said:
I feel like I traveled back in time 2 years ago.

Q6600 for quad core. If overclocking.

If not, E8500. But, q6600 oc to 3.2
Click to expand...

Haha, sorry I can't buy new. I'm on a budget and I'm getting leftovers basically. That will already be a quantum leap for me as I'm currently living about 4-5 years ago on an Athlon 64 X2. Alright, going for the Q6600, I hope it's the 95w stepping.
 
Definitely the Q6600.. but you already said you were getting it.... see sig for possibilities with a G0
Q6600.
 
I'd vote for the faster 2 cores with 3MB cache v.s 2MB cache for gaming. You will see better performance with the dual for gaming by far.
 
Well basically the guy I'm getting them from has both of these processors in his basement and I can have them for cheap. I just don't know which to take. Now we have maleficarus telling me to go for the faster 2 cores and larger cache.

I will definetely be wanting to overclock but would an overclocked Q6600 be better than an overclocked E8500? How many games and programs are optimized for 4 cores anyway? I hear GTA 4 and Dragon Age recommend quads.
 
Don't listen to Mal. Just read some of his more recent postings in other threads about quad-cores. He's essentially a troll, and not a credible source.

I use a Q6600. OC'd to 3.4ghz. It does me well. If you OC it up to 3.2+, I don't think there's much that'll slow it down that a faster dual-core would handle better. At that point, it'd be time to go i7.

Count me in as another vote for the Q6600.

And, again, don't listen to Mal. He's already demonstrated his credibility.
 
Sure, the dual core might overclock to a slightly higher level than the quad, but the difference in real life will be fairly mild. Now, you won't always be doing things that will benefit from a quad, *but when you are it makes a big difference to have all four cores.*

So go for the Q6600. They overclock pretty well, and you'll have four cores there backing you up when you need them.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Well basically the guy I'm getting them from has both of these processors in his basement and I can have them for cheap. I just don't know which to take. Now we have maleficarus telling me to go for the faster 2 cores and larger cache.

I will definetely be wanting to overclock but would an overclocked Q6600 be better than an overclocked E8500? How many games and programs are optimized for 4 cores anyway? I hear GTA 4 and Dragon Age recommend quads.
Click to expand...

They call me a troll but the truth is the truth my friend. For gaming 2 faster cores with more cache is the way to go. 98% of todays games are only using a max of 2 cores and NOT 4 cores. The larger cache size with the E8500 makes a big difference in a lot of things not just gaming. If you don't beleive me do a google search of how many retail games use all 4 cores vs. how many use 2 cores. Go see for yourself because guys here that fell for the 4 core hype are totatly biased and you'll never get a unbiased response from them ever....
 
Pyroja said:
Don't listen to Mal. Just read some of his more recent postings in other threads about quad-cores. He's essentially a troll, and not a credible source.

I use a Q6600. OC'd to 3.4ghz. It does me well. If you OC it up to 3.2+, I don't think there's much that'll slow it down that a faster dual-core would handle better. At that point, it'd be time to go i7.

Count me in as another vote for the Q6600.

And, again, don't listen to Mal. He's already demonstrated his credibility.
Click to expand...

My credibility? Your basing your recomendation on the idea that the guy can OC a 2.4GHz chip well above safe specs of 800+ MHz with volt OC'g LOL Talk about credibility....
 
Spare-Flair said:
How many games and programs are optimized for 4 cores anyway? I hear GTA 4 and Dragon Age recommend quads.
Click to expand...

The list I found from google is the following:

dvd shrink
adobe premiere
windows media encoder
F@H SMP client
adobe after effects

There you go...notice how few and lame this list is? As for games even more lame then the above list....out of the dozens and dozens of games on the market you'd be hard pressed to find more then 1 or 2 tops.....
 
maleficarus said:
My credibility? Your basing your recomendation on the idea that the guy can OC a 2.4GHz chip well above safe specs of 800+ MHz with volt OC'g LOL Talk about credibility....
Click to expand...

This is [H]ardOCP, in case you forgot. That whole OCing thing? We do that here. In fact, the OP explicitly states:
Spare-Flair said:
I will be overclocking whatever I get as much as I possibly can with a Thermalright 120 TrueBlack.
Click to expand...

So to try to discredit me by claiming OCing is ridiculous only serves to discredit yourself. Again.

I see your argument that dual-core is all the you need today and raise you the argument that some of us like to build our machines to continue being capable tomorrow. OC the Q6600 and I doubt you'll see any real difference between it and a dual-core with the games of yesterday. Every game that gets released takes advantage of the advances in hardware at that time. Quad-cores are the current high-end. New games will take advantage of that. We're not talking about a $500 chip vs. a $200 chip. We're talking about two cheap chips. It's a fairly straight-forward choice. Quad-cores have been shown to help in many games. Not in all games, true. However, I'd rather have the extra cores when I can use them.

And yes, your credibility is shot. Your identity as a troll is pretty much assured. There's a closed thread in this very sub-forum that does more than enough to show that. Stop spreading bad advice and mis-information.
 
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Bioshock
Company of Heroes
Left 4 Dead
GTAV
Unreal Tournament 3
Supreme Commander
Supreme Command - Forged Alliance
MOH - Airborne
COD 4
COD - WaW
Oblivion
Crysis
Lost Planet
Flight Simulator x
World in Conflict
Armed Assault 2

The list is longer than that, and any game coming out will take FULL advantage of quad-core CPU's. And besides, Windows Vista/7 has EXCELLENT load balancing. The more cores you have the better things run.

Troll be gone, you know nothing. Stop spreading FUD. 6mb total cache versus 8mb total cache and 2 more cores, there's no comparison.
 
I'd get the Q6600. Both are good CPU's, but I think long term, you'd be better off with the quad.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Eh, Q6600 will scale better with future games and obviously does better in heavily threaded situations. E8500 is better for current games 75% of the time.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=53&p2=55
Click to expand...

The problem with those benchmarks is that the chips are at stock speed. The Q6600 has an exceptionally low stock clock speed of 2.4Ghz. No one in their right mind runs a Q6600 at stock speed...
 
I went from a Q6600 @3.6 to an E8600 @4.0 a while back after reading about how "great" the fast dual cores were......needless to say, a few weeks later I went right back to the Q6600...I saw absolutely no improvement in anything, especialy in gaming where I was expecting it...........and I lost the ability to rip and encode DVD's quickly

Get the quad, you wont be sorry you did.
 
HydroBudz said:
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Bioshock
Company of Heroes
Left 4 Dead
GTAV
Unreal Tournament 3
Supreme Commander
Supreme Command - Forged Alliance
MOH - Airborne
COD 4
COD - WaW
Oblivion
Crysis
Lost Planet
Flight Simulator x
World in Conflict
Armed Assault 2

The list is longer than that, and any game coming out will take FULL advantage of quad-core CPU's. And besides, Windows Vista/7 has EXCELLENT load balancing. The more cores you have the better things run.

Troll be gone, you know nothing. Stop spreading FUD. 6mb total cache versus 8mb total cache and 2 more cores, there's no comparison.
Click to expand...

Your list is bogus!

L4D utilizes 2 cores not 4. Airborne same thing. I said 4 cores full. Crysis and SC and GTA (who cares anyways) are perhaps the only ones on your so called list that is true so again stop trying to hype a bogus list that dosen't play true...
 
Pyroja said:
This is [H]ardOCP, in case you forgot. That whole OCing thing? We do that here. In fact, the OP explicitly states:


So to try to discredit me by claiming OCing is ridiculous only serves to discredit yourself. Again.

I see your argument that dual-core is all the you need today and raise you the argument that some of us like to build our machines to continue being capable tomorrow.

And yes, your credibility is shot. Your identity as a troll is pretty much assured. There's a closed thread in this very sub-forum that does more than enough to show that. Stop spreading bad advice and mis-information.
Click to expand...

LIsten, your argument of building to be capable tomorow is bullocks and here is why: By the time "tomorow" comes you would have most likely upgraded again anyways so that argument is silly at best. You say this is hardocp...ok fine, so having said that the majority here upgrade there systems 1 or 2 times per year and I think this is a fair statement. So why buy a chip with lack luster software support when chances are by the time the support is on the market in force most would have upgraded to a faster 4 core chip anyways? Can you seriously answer this question? So my argument is this: Why not buy a chip that is fully supported in software now that comes out of the box running stock at the speed you hope your quad can OC to? AKA E8400 vs. Q6600
 
"6mb total cache versus 8mb total cache and 2 more cores, there's no comparison."

I see your math skilz are at a grade 9 level....

What your NOT considering is this is shared cache dude. So 8MB total shared between 4 cores is in fact 2MB per core vs. 6MB total cache shared between 2 cores is in fact 3MB per core which means more cache per core and seeing as there is 2 cores being utilized in 98% of todays games having 6MB is better geez...
 
Blahbidy blah blah blah......that's all I hear.

There's no reason, what so ever, so buy a dual over a quad right now if you intend on overclocking it
 
maleficarus said:
LIsten, your argument of building to be capable tomorow is bullocks and here is why: By the time "tomorow" comes you would have most likely upgraded again anyways so that argument is silly at best. You say this is hardocp...ok fine, so having said that the majority here upgrade there systems 1 or 2 times per year and I think this is a fair statement.
Click to expand...

Did you read the OP at all or do you just hop into any thread about quads and start spreading misinformation? Here, let me point it out to you:

Spare-Flair said:
I'm on a budget and I'm getting leftovers basically.
Click to expand...

OP mentioned he's on a budget. Thus, he's NOT going to be upgrading his sytem every 6-12 months. If he did, he wouldn't be running an Athlon X2 system, and he wouldn't be asking about Core 2 chips, would he?

maleficarus said:
So why buy a chip with lack luster software support when chances are by the time the support is on the market in force most would have upgraded to a faster 4 core chip anyways? Can you seriously answer this question? So my argument is this: Why not buy a chip that is fully supported in software now that comes out of the box running stock at the speed you hope your quad can OC to? AKA E8400 vs. Q6600
Click to expand...

You seem to be under some impression that a quad-core will ever give you worse performance than a similarly spec'd dual core. If you have four core, and some app only makes use of two, having those other two cores there doesn't slow you down in any way. In fact, you likely have OTHER things running in the back ground that can use the other two cores, thus giving you more resources and faster processing all around.

OP has specifically stated he will OC whatever chip he gets. OP has specifically stated he is on a budget and this is his first upgrade in some time. If you're on a budget, and you don't upgrade your system often, why would you NOT do all you could to make your system as future-proof as your budget allows? Why would you NOT go for the quad, which will enjoy an ever broadening advantage over dual core chips as time goes by?

It's exactly the route I chose. I bought the Q6600, strapped a TRUE120 to it, and am sitting pretty at 3.4ghz. Faster than the E8500 by any metric, and I have two other cores doing the same thing. For that matter, I'm at 3.4ghz running mostly auto settings. I've yet to have the time to REALLY push what I can out of the chip. I've seen several folks with 3.8ghz Q6600's in their rigs, but honestly at 3.2ghz and beyond the differences start getting insignificant.

My recommendation stays the same: Get the Q6600. OC it. Enjoy a blazing fast system. Oh, and don't listen to Mal.
 
If you're going to be upgrading soon, then E8500. If you're stuck with what you get for a while, Q6600. End of story.

Yes, a lot of games don't fully utilize more than 2 cores. However, whatever he gets will have to be future-proof. And you have to admit, that more cores are being used. Remember when people said that there was no reason for people to get dual-core CPUs because most games only had single threads? That day has come and faded over the horizon. I expect the 2/4 core argument to be resolved in a similar way. And seeing as the OP isn't upgrading for a while, I expect that will be before he has the chance to get another CPU.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
If you're going to be upgrading soon, then E8500. If you're stuck with what you get for a while, Q6600. End of story.

Yes, a lot of games don't fully utilize more than 2 cores. However, whatever he gets will have to be future-proof. And you have to admit, that more cores are being used. Remember when people said that there was no reason for people to get dual-core CPUs because most games only had single threads? That day has come and faded over the horizon. I expect the 2/4 core argument to be resolved in a similar way. And seeing as the OP isn't upgrading for a while, I expect that will be before he has the chance to get another CPU.
Click to expand...

I agree, at some point in the future 4 cores will be used in every game. But if you can recall it took the better part 2 years for dual cores to be fully used in games after the dual core chips were released. The reason why I jump in the 2 v.s 4 core argument all the time is because right now 2009 there not really being fully used.
 
Pyroja said:
Did you read the OP at all or do you just hop into any thread about quads and start spreading misinformation? Here, let me point it out to you:



OP mentioned he's on a budget. Thus, he's NOT going to be upgrading his sytem every 6-12 months. If he did, he wouldn't be running an Athlon X2 system, and he wouldn't be asking about Core 2 chips, would he?



You seem to be under some impression that a quad-core will ever give you worse performance than a similarly spec'd dual core. If you have four core, and some app only makes use of two, having those other two cores there doesn't slow you down in any way. In fact, you likely have OTHER things running in the back ground that can use the other two cores, thus giving you more resources and faster processing all around.

OP has specifically stated he will OC whatever chip he gets. OP has specifically stated he is on a budget and this is his first upgrade in some time. If you're on a budget, and you don't upgrade your system often, why would you NOT do all you could to make your system as future-proof as your budget allows? Why would you NOT go for the quad, which will enjoy an ever broadening advantage over dual core chips as time goes by?

It's exactly the route I chose. I bought the Q6600, strapped a TRUE120 to it, and am sitting pretty at 3.4ghz. Faster than the E8500 by any metric, and I have two other cores doing the same thing. For that matter, I'm at 3.4ghz running mostly auto settings. I've yet to have the time to REALLY push what I can out of the chip. I've seen several folks with 3.8ghz Q6600's in their rigs, but honestly at 3.2ghz and beyond the differences start getting insignificant.

My recommendation stays the same: Get the Q6600. OC it. Enjoy a blazing fast system. Oh, and don't listen to Mal.
Click to expand...

This brings up another point. Here is a pic of youe true120:

75229d1213128992-how-install-true120-dsc04607.jpg


Seriously look at the size of this thing! Who wants that big @ss bulky thing in there case that not only looks like crap but forces you to never have a chance at using anything less then a full tower. I can only amagine how loud that POS is as well. Now compare this to a nice and simple stock air cooler from Intel that dosen't need a football field of real esate and dosen't sound like a 747 in your living room.You get the idea...
 
maleficarus said:
This brings up another point. Here is a pic of youe true120:

75229d1213128992-how-install-true120-dsc04607.jpg


Seriously look at the size of this thing! Who wants that big @ss bulky thing in there case that not only looks like crap but forces you to never have a chance at using anything less then a full tower. I can only amagine how loud that POS is as well. Now compare this to a nice and simple stock air cooler from Intel that dosen't need a football field of real esate and dosen't sound like a 747 in your living room.You get the idea...
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
troll_detected.png
 
maleficarus said:
This brings up another point. Here is a pic of youe true120:

-image snipped-

Seriously look at the size of this thing! Who wants that big @ss bulky thing in there case that not only looks like crap but forces you to never have a chance at using anything less then a full tower. I can only amagine how loud that POS is as well. Now compare this to a nice and simple stock air cooler from Intel that dosen't need a football field of real esate and dosen't sound like a 747 in your living room.You get the idea...
Click to expand...

...are you high?

You're actually suggesting that an Intel stock cooler is better in any way apart from pure volume of case real-estate used than a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme or any similarly specced 120mm fan compatible tower cooler?

The Intel stock cooler uses an 84mm fan that, while PWM, is gale-force wind loud at high speeds. It chokes on anything above a mild to moderate OC of a dual core, and even less for a quad... though we all know how you feel about quads, so I'll set them aside for the moment.

Even with a dual core you're severely limited in your OC with the stock cooler, and temps are likely to be as high if not higher at stock with the stock cooler as they would be with a moderate to heavy OC and a quality aftermarket HSF. An aftermarket HSF also allows you to run a moderate to low RPM quiet 120mm fan (or two, sometimes more) in place of the would-be 84mm screamer that will be quiet all the time, even when your CPU is under heavy load and at its hottest.

If you like, you could even use a PWM fan on the aftermarket HSF and get near zero dB quiet at idle, something the smaller fan will never allow, along with stupid amounts of CFM when its needed most. That, or a non-PWM fan and a fan controller.

Limited to a full tower? I know plenty of people running a large tower style cooler in a mid tower and smaller. You can even get them in some mini-towers. Most ATX-capable cases, and a few mATX cases, can fit them without too much trouble. I've seen a Gemini-II, which even by my standards is insanely large, fit inside a uATX case. Your statement is completely baseless.

You're also about the only person I know of around here that doesn't actually prefer the look of a big tower or other style HSF in their case, apart from the HTPC guys who would kill for that kind of cooling power but just don't have the space. That's pure opinion, obviously, but given the overwhelming preference for the very style HSFs you feel are "big ass" and "look like crap" around here, it's not a very compelling basis for an argument.
 
Last edited:
Seriously look at the size of this thing! Who wants that big @ss bulky thing in there case that not only looks like crap but forces you to never have a chance at using anything less then a full tower. I can only amagine how loud that POS is as well. Now compare this to a nice and simple stock air cooler from Intel that dosen't need a football field of real esate and dosen't sound like a 747 in your living room.You get the idea...
Click to expand...
...which also can't really dissipate heat very well from the CPU other than when it's at stock clocks and voltage...

Are you saying that you'd rather have the stock Intel heatsink if you were in the OP's situation, where he was about to buy himself a chip which he was seriously expecting to overclock to a reasonable extent and which would be expected to last him at least 2 years? Because I can tell you that I wouldn't.

I agree, at some point in the future 4 cores will be used in every game. But if you can recall it took the better part 2 years for dual cores to be fully used in games after the dual core chips were released. The reason why I jump in the 2 v.s 4 core argument all the time is because right now 2009 there not really being fully used.
Click to expand...
That obviously depends on what programs he is going to use and what games he is going to play; there are still a multitude of single-threaded apps and games.
 
maleficarus said:
This brings up another point. Here is a pic of youe true120:

75229d1213128992-how-install-true120-dsc04607.jpg


Seriously look at the size of this thing! Who wants that big @ss bulky thing in there case that not only looks like crap but forces you to never have a chance at using anything less then a full tower. I can only amagine how loud that POS is as well. Now compare this to a nice and simple stock air cooler from Intel that dosen't need a football field of real esate and dosen't sound like a 747 in your living room.You get the idea...
Click to expand...

This brings up exactly the same point I already brought up in my last post:

Pyroja said:
Did you read the OP at all or do you just hop into any thread about quads and start spreading misinformation?
Click to expand...

Again, let me point it out for you:

Spare-Flair said:
I will be overclocking whatever I get as much as I possibly can with a Thermalright 120 TrueBlack.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

The OP already has a TRUE. Thus, relating my experience with the same heatsink is relevant and helpful. You complaining about the TRUE and saying it's ugly is just you stating an opinion that is neither helpful nor applicable to the OP's question.

Also, as has already been stated, you're a troll. Complaining about the noise of a 120mm HSF and to state that an 84mm stock HSF is somehow quieter? You are either blatantly trolling, or high.

For what it's worth, I have two Scythe 3000rpm UltraKaze's on my TRUE120. They, like the three other 120mm fans and the one 200mm in my case, are hooked up to a fan controller. As everything is set now, it cannot be heard over ambient noise. It's effectively silent, which is a feat I never experienced during my days of using stock HSF's.
 
maleficarus said:
I'd vote for the faster 2 cores with 3MB cache v.s 2MB cache for gaming. You will see better performance with the dual for gaming by far.
Click to expand...

No you won't. 95% of recently released games are multicore optimized thus making 4 cores a better option than 2 and nearly all game in the future will be optimized for multicore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top