Intel Q6600 vs. E6850

[Seik]

Seems like the intel Q6600 blows away the E6850 on the CPU charts at Tomshardware.com, but they're the same price on Newegg.

1) Why is the Q6600 so much faster (because quad?)
2) Why are they still the same price when one performs so much better? Faster FSB on the E6850?

Thanks.

 

[GregP24]

1) Q6600 has twice the lvl 2 cache
2) Intels Core 2's are not bottlenecked on the FSB, FSB speed means nothing, really.

 

[Seik]

1) Q6600 has twice the lvl 2 cache
2) Intels Core 2's are not bottlenecked on the FSB, FSB speed means nothing, really.

Hm, were processors bottlenecked on the FSB in the past? I remember people mentioning that being important way back. And I now see the "2x" that I missed in the past - thanks for the heads up.

 

[firas]

ahhhhhhhhhh, I thought we’r done from this and the new question will be Q9450 vs E8500
Anyway…. Q6600 dude

 

[Seik]

ahhhhhhhhhh, I thought we’r done from this and the new question will be Q9450 vs E8500
Anyway…. Q6600 dude

I apologize if I'm asking ancient questions... my rank is still n00bie, right?

Thanks for the advice thus far.

 

[GregP24]

Hm, were processors bottlenecked on the FSB in the past? I remember people mentioning that being important way back. And I now see the "2x" that I missed in the past - thanks for the heads up.

IIRC once Intel went to the 800mhz FSB the CPUs were no longer bottlenecked. Back in the P4 days when we were on 400/533mhz FSBs, yes, FSB speed increases were needed.

If you look at old benchies, you'll see the P4 on the 400/533mhz bus would lose to Athlon XP. But when Intel increased the FSB to 800mhz, the P4 overtook the Athlon XP - even though CPU speeds were the same.