QX6700 VS. X6800?

R

Ramificatio

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
150
I'm looking to build a Gaming PC with 8800GTX SLI to last me for 4 years. Will Quad Cores give any benefits in gaming over Dual Cores within the next 4 years? Help me make up my mind...
 
Highly debateable, but probably not much advantage going quad core for at least a few years.

You should consider rather than spending a "bomb" now and having it for 4 years, buying say a e6600 (a third of the price and can O/C past a X6800 anyway) and upgrade again in two year.

In two years you will no doubt get something a lot better than a QX6700 at a third of the price again.

I am never a fan of spending huge amounts of money to try and stay current for longer, better to buy a bit lower and upgrade more frequent.

But that's you call.
 
Im after a quad core, the cheaper version the 6300 or 6400 when they
come out?
 
w/e setup you buy now will not last 4 years, it will be an out of date piece of crap in 4 years your better off buying smart then upgrading every couple of years.
 
tisb0b said:
w/e setup you buy now will not last 4 years, it will be an out of date piece of crap in 4 years your better off buying smart then upgrading every couple of years.
Click to expand...

QFT.

If you need a quad core wait a couple month to drop to ~$500.
 
Ramificatio said:
I'm looking to build a Gaming PC with 8800GTX SLI to last me for 4 years. Will Quad Cores give any benefits in gaming over Dual Cores within the next 4 years? Help me make up my mind...
Click to expand...

a x6800 is a waste of money unless you are using phase cooling and go for extreme OCs. A e6600 can OC past the 6800 speeds no problem and is several hundred dollars cheaper. Wait for the quad cores to drop in price as they offer minimal performance increase. You can upgrade to a quad core later on when the games you play use their features.
8800 SLI is only useful if you have a large monitor. But it wont last 4 yrs. I would say maybe a year and a half if you want to maintain high visuals and your native resolution. A single GTX is a better option and using the left over money for upgrading at a later time.
 
I would go with the Quad core 6700 over the x6800. For the price minimal difference, at least your getting 4 cores instead of 2. If, and only if, the application supports quad core, then 4 cpus will rape a dual cores sideways.

For most applications, which support single or dual cores at best, the x6800 will be faster of course, but is a waste of $ in my opinion. The quad core will last you longer as everything is moving that way. That is if money is not an issue. Hope this answered your question. Some cheaper non-extreme edition quad cores were just released. probably a better bet.

I would go dual core in your place and simply swap the cpu to a quad core later. The true 45nm quad cores that are to be released in Q3 this year for example. If you want dual cores, I would recommend you wait a few days for the C2D E4300. That one should clock better than the E6300,etc due to its lower power usage and 800fsb (but higher multiplier). The cheap C2Ds will all go way past x6800 stock speeds. As for video cards, I would get 1 8800GTX now and a 2nd later when the price drops.

hope this helps
 
last me for 4 years.

If you game alot, then you will be doing upgrades within 2 years,
so building for a four year plan is unreal and don't spend extra money
to squeeze miniscule performance numbers. Go for 'bang for buck'
and save the coin for later.
 
I know that its a tough choice. As I see it, it simply comes down to how fast would quad core based CPU's be taken advantage of. I don't know to many apps or games that would take advantage of a quad core as of yet so I've been leaning towards the e6600 myself & going quad down the road. I have no doubt in my mind that a quad cpu would smack a dual core cpu in performance. It's just not the right time for it to truly shine yet.
 
I would suggest the QX6700 myself, it's only a minor clock bump down, and you still have great single threaded performance. Obviously money isn't an issue, so might as well have 4 Cores.
 
Look into water cooling or better if you are going Quad core and want to have a high OC. Personally I'd wait for the Q6600s price to fall and get it. If price isn't an issue then get the QX6700 for the unlocked multiplier which will give you greater flexibility.
 
The quadcore is better value for money... but the dualcore will be faster in current games, and probably also games in the near future.
If and when quadcore will be an advantage in games, nobody knows.
 
WarriorX said:
a x6800 is a waste of money unless you are using phase cooling and go for extreme OCs. A e6600 can OC past the 6800 speeds no problem and is several hundred dollars cheaper. Wait for the quad cores to drop in price as they offer minimal performance increase. You can upgrade to a quad core later on when the games you play use their features.
8800 SLI is only useful if you have a large monitor. But it wont last 4 yrs. I would say maybe a year and a half if you want to maintain high visuals and your native resolution. A single GTX is a better option and using the left over money for upgrading at a later time.
Click to expand...

He's right on. I got my E6600 at 3.4Ghz with an Arctic Freezer Pro..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top