• 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.

Q6600 or E6850

A

aadosx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
389
Hey guys,

I'm sure you're all so damn tired of these "this one or that one" thread, so sorry for another! I will try to keep it simple, quick and painless though!

I am trying to decide between a Q6600 G0 and an E6850 G0. My computer's specs are listed in my sig. One important note is that neither of these will be overclocked (which I'm assuming decreases the Q6600's value to me). I currently have an E6600. I notice that the E6850 has a higher FSB at 1333 compared to the other's 1066. I'm assuming this is a good thing? The E6850 is a full 600 Mhz faster than the Q6600 but I don't know how much those extra core will help me.

The things I do on my computer are surf the web, copy and move files around, listen to a lot of music, play games such as COD4, CSS, and WoW. Also, while I love to upgrade my computer, I can hardly afford to, so future proofing is at least a little important to me.

I hope that's enough info for you to be able to help me out. Thanks!

« John
 
I would still get the 6600 and since the 680i handles 1333 just up the bios setting on your cpu to 1333 and leave the memory bus the stock speed. the multipler is 9 so the chip will run easily at 2.997 which is faster than the 1333 bus 2 coe chip- IMHO
 
Q6600 and set it at 9 * 334 = 3.0

:D

I did it on stock volts. Check my sig for settings.
 
The E6850 will make you feel smart, the Q6600 will make you feel good.

Does that make sense?

BTW I decided to feel good instead.
 
aadosx said:
Also, while I love to upgrade my computer, I can hardly afford to, so future proofing is at least a little important to me.
Click to expand...

For this reason alone I think the Quad is more of a better choice.

I also feel as OSes get more and more mature they have the ability to utilize the different cores in the Processor it is only going to make your life that much easier.

As a side note too you can easily overclock the Quad to 3.6 without even breaking a sweat. If you happen to have DDR2-800 memory all you would need to do is set the FSB to 400MHz and with the Quad multiplier at 9 you can hit 3.6GHz with the memory ratio at 1:1.

As a second side note, if you do decide to go with a Core 2 Duo, I would go with the E6750 instead. The price difference between the E6850 and the E6750 doesn't equate to the performance difference between the two.


Hope this helps.
 
Any version of Windows since Win2K, any version of Linux going back to maybe the 2.2 fork, or any OS for the IBM PC platform can and will use all the cores of a multicore processor as efficiently as you're going to see them used.

Sure, the E6850 might surpass the Q6600 in raw clockspeed out of the box, possibly even surpass it on overclocking performance by a small margin across the board as well, but in the long run, the sheer fact that your operating system is going to work better with the Q6600 than the E6850 simply because the OS itself will utilize all the cores you can throw at it, then the Quad is the best choice.

If all you care about is max clockspeed, bragging rights, gaming performance with older games that aren't fully optimized yet (read: properly multithreaded to start with), then grab the E6850.

Personally, I prefer having the smoother running OS overall with better multitasking because it's using 4 cores instead of 2, regardless of clockspeed - and of course, better gaming performance (read: smoother) because of the same thing for games that are properly multithreaded from the start.

But that's just me...

If you hit the CPU charts at *cough*Tom's Hardware*choke* you can plainly see the difference between the Q6600 and the E6850 - the Quad thoroughly trounces it pretty much in every category by a noticeable margin, and when it comes to properly multithreaded applications (Photoshop, Deep Fritz, 3DStudio, others...) you can really see it as plain as day.
 
If you already have an E6600, and you don't overclock, then why bother upgrading at all? The E6850 is hardly an upgrade from the E6600, so if you are burning to upgrade you'd need to get the Q6600 to make any significant difference.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Any version of Windows since Win2K, any version of Linux going back to maybe the 2.2 fork, or any OS for the IBM PC platform can and will use all the cores of a multicore processor as efficiently as you're going to see them used.

Sure, the E6850 might surpass the Q6600 in raw clockspeed out of the box, possibly even surpass it on overclocking performance by a small margin across the board as well, but in the long run, the sheer fact that your operating system is going to work better with the Q6600 than the E6850 simply because the OS itself will utilize all the cores you can throw at it, then the Quad is the best choice.
Click to expand...

But does it really matter if you are using 2 cores at 5% of utilization to run Firefox, or 4 cores at 2.5%? For what the OP uses his computer for, I'm not convinced that the quad is tha way to go - it is more future proof for sure, but how long will it be until you really need 4 cores for normal tasks (supreme commander aside). Even Intel doesn't think quads are that important, based on their production splits between quads and duallies.
 
What "matters" is for roughly the same price give or take a few bucks a PC owner would have the ability to crank out the numbers if they require it. People keep looking at this from the "oh I don't need 4 cores" perspective.

It reminds me of the people that go to a convenience store and choose to get a 16 oz fountain soda for $1.19 compared to the 32 oz 'motherload' or 44 oz 'kingzilla' monster sodas for $.69, nearly half the cost. The reason? "Oh, I'd never drink that much."

Who fuckin' cares how much you may or may not drink? You can pour out whatever you don't actually drink. I'd rather have more than I need at any given moment than not enough.

The point is saving money and getting your money's worth for the amount you did pay. I'd never buy a dual core CPU if I could get a quad core for roughly the same or nearly the same price. Sure, right now this second Newegg has the Q6600 boxed retail CPU for $279.99, and they have the E6850 boxed retail processor for (get this) $279.99 - the exact same price for the quad or the dual.

What part of the quad being a better deal and offering more potential returns on the money spent to buy it isn't quite clear? I wish someone could explain it to me like I'm a 6 year old, because for nearly a year now I've been hearing this debate about "Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad" basically. It's almost as bad as the neverending "Vista vs XP" threads that keep appearing in the Operating Systems forum.

I can't for the life of me comprehend one logical, reasonable, seriously debatable point to buy a Core 2 Duo E6850 over a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for the exact same price when all the other factors remain the same (same mobo, same RAM, same everything). The quad is the better deal for the cost. What is so hard to grasp about that? Even for the slightly lowered clockspeed, in day to day operation it'll be a better experience, a smoother running OS, your tasks will complete more efficiently and probably noticeably faster, etc.

Bleh... I give up. It's quad or nothing at all for me, "and that's all I have to say about that."

For the same price, EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE, the quad is the better buy for the OP.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
I can't for the life of me comprehend one logical, reasonable, seriously debatable point to buy a Core 2 Duo E6850 over a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for the exact same price when all the other factors remain the same (same mobo, same RAM, same everything). The quad is the better deal for the cost. What is so hard to grasp about that? Even for the slightly lowered clockspeed, in day to day operation it'll be a better experience, a smoother running OS, your tasks will complete more efficiently and probably noticeably faster, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, how about 25% higher clock speed? On a faster FSB? With lower heat output?

Or you could go with the E6750 (still higher clock speed/fsb) for $189 and put the $90 towards a better video card that you will definately see a difference in (in games anyway).

My point is simply that not everyone needs to buy a quad just because they are available, or that 4 is necessarily better than 2 - for some people it makes sense, but not everyone.
 
Point taken, and the option for the lower class processor with the application of the extra funds to a better video card is a good idea as well.

I'll still say the Q6600 is the better option. It will give better overall performance in the long run because of Windows itself running better, albeit at the cost of a few more watts of power and a few more degrees of heat, and the future proofing that the OP specifically addressed as a "want" for the processor he does choose.

With more and more applications and software becoming properly multithreaded, over time the 2 cores will fall behind the performance of the 4 even accounting for the 25% higher clockspeed.

Since the OP also specifically noted overclocking will not be a factor, then performance is not a driving issue, or at least that's how I read it.

There are situations where either processor will fit into the situation. Based on what the OP pointed out specifically in his posting, my recommendation would still be the quad.
 
If you don't overclock you might as well wait for Nehalem. Neither the E6850 nor the Q6600 are going to be a major improvement over the E6600 during the next year.

If you must buy one, I'd say go with the Q6600. The E6850 will *never* be a major improvement over the E6600, and quite frankly I think it's a waste of money for you considering that. The Q6600 at least has the potential to be a major improvement once programs optimized for 4 or more cores become prevalent, however I don't see that happening before Nehalem is released late next year (with affordable versions presumably following in Q1 2009).

Summary: Wait for a cheaper faster more efficient quad Nehalem a year from now, or get a Q6600. Don't waste your money on an E6850.
 
aadosx said:
Hey guys,

I'm sure you're all so damn tired of these "this one or that one" thread, so sorry for another! I will try to keep it simple, quick and painless though!

I am trying to decide between a Q6600 G0 and an E6850 G0. My computer's specs are listed in my sig. One important note is that neither of these will be overclocked (which I'm assuming decreases the Q6600's value to me). I currently have an E6600. I notice that the E6850 has a higher FSB at 1333 compared to the other's 1066. I'm assuming this is a good thing? The E6850 is a full 600 Mhz faster than the Q6600 but I don't know how much those extra core will help me.

The things I do on my computer are surf the web, copy and move files around, listen to a lot of music, play games such as COD4, CSS, and WoW. Also, while I love to upgrade my computer, I can hardly afford to, so future proofing is at least a little important to me.

I hope that's enough info for you to be able to help me out. Thanks!

« John
Click to expand...

i asked myself the same question 3 months ago.......i ended up going with the 6850. personally all the reading i did suggested quad core computering just isnt 100% yet.......hence i went with the 6850 for faster clock speeds and oced to 3.8ghz and its fuckin smoking.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
If you don't overclock you might as well wait for Nehalem. Neither the E6850 nor the Q6600 are going to be a major improvement over the E6600 during the next year.

If you must buy one, I'd say go with the Q6600. The E6850 will *never* be a major improvement over the E6600, and quite frankly I think it's a waste of money for you considering that. The Q6600 at least has the potential to be a major improvement once programs optimized for 4 or more cores become prevalent, however I don't see that happening before Nehalem is released late next year (with affordable versions presumably following in Q1 2009).

Summary: Wait for a cheaper faster more efficient quad Nehalem a year from now, or get a Q6600. Don't waste your money on an E6850.
Click to expand...


it will be years till widespread quad+ core mainstream, most of us update every year. y get the q6600 now when u even said quad isnt optimized. the faster clock speed of the e6850 will help in real word computering today and when hes ready to upgrade again then upgrade to quadcore
 
Wow thanks so much for the replies so far. A few things I guess I should have mentioned earlier.

While future proofing is at least a little important to me, it's not a huge deal. I figure in about a year or so I will be able to pick up an extreme edition processor without selling a kidney, at which point I will finally be able to "overclock" a little. Which brings me to my next point...

Why I won't be overclocking:

I have a Dell. BIOS doesn't allow any changes like that except for on extreme edition procs in which I can change the multiplier. So that's why I won't be overclocking, because I can't. If I could OC, and trust me I wish I could, I'd def. go with the Q6600. But since I can't, I'm trying to figure out, stock for stock, head to head out of the box, which will be faster.

It seems like most of you think that the Q6600 is faster even w/out the oc. Ok.

Oh yeah and one more thing, I was wondering about that 1:1 ratio thing too. I have heard about that before but I wasn't sure exactly how important it was. I am very new to overclocking still so I'm still learning. I know that if I get the Q6600, I will definitely get some RAM that runs at 1066 so that I'll have the good ratio. And if I got the E6850 with a 1333 mhz FSB, I wasn't sure what I would do about RAM speed.

«John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top