Which one should I buy X6800 2.93 4mb or QX6700 2.66 8mb ?

[reflexus]

Hello,
Please help me out with the right choice. There are 2 cpu's for the same price 999$. Should i go for more L2 cache or speed in GHz and how is it different in perfomance ?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2573616

 

[swifty_morgan]

Hard to believe tiger direct is cheaper that newegg. I wouldn't buy either one right now. I think sometime in April the price is supposed to drop signifigantly.

 

[stemnin]

Use the CPU charts.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=694&chart=169

 

[nibenentt]

If you are set on one of those i would get the QX6700. The quad core has a point if you use programs typically run on dual processor work stations , i.e. ones that can utilise more than 2 cpu cores.

 

[Heyyou27]

save $500 and go with Athon X2 6000+ and OC it a few hundred Mhz and get near the same performance and in some cases better performance for half the money!

You're joking right? The 6000+ doesn't overclock nearly as well as ANY Core 2 chip.


To the original poster, if you're going to get the X6800 or the QX6700, I'd say go for the quad core as it's a little more future proof.

 

[zenmaster]

save $500 and go with Athon X2 6000+ and OC it a few hundred Mhz and get near the same performance and in some cases better performance for half the money!

You're joking right? The 6000+ doesn't overclock nearly as well as ANY Core 2 chip.


To the original poster, if you're going to get the X6800 or the QX6700, I'd say go for the quad core as it's a little more future proof.

I agree totally.

1) The AMD can't hold a candle to these chips even when they are fully over-clocked and the Intel is not. The 6000+ is about on par with the E6600 at $320 and is far cheaper.

2) I would go with the Quad-Core as well for better performance in the future as more programs are designed to run on multiple cores. It should also not be hard to OC the QX6700 to X6800 speeds if somehow it's not fast enough already.

 

[Talon]

Massive pricecuts are coming soon. If you need one now and these are the choices then go Q6700.

At stock speeds it might not beat the x6800 in all games but its negligible. On the other hand with the Q6700 you are even more futureproof as more games/apps start to use more and more cores the Q6700 will start to leave the x6800 in the dust at some point. At least two games this year are supposedly going to be very multi-thread friendly.

 

[enewmen]

save $500 and go with Athon X2 6000+ and OC it a few hundred Mhz and get near the same performance and in some cases better performance for half the money!

You're joking right? The 6000+ doesn't overclock nearly as well as ANY Core 2 chip.


To the original poster, if you're going to get the X6800 or the QX6700, I'd say go for the quad core as it's a little more future proof.

I agree totally.

1) The AMD can't hold a candle to these chips even when they are fully over-clocked and the Intel is not. The 6000+ is about on par with the E6600 at $320 and is far cheaper.

2) I would go with the Quad-Core as well for better performance in the future as more programs are designed to run on multiple cores. It should also not be hard to OC the QX6700 to X6800 speeds if somehow it's not fast enough already.

I agree also. But you can always get a E6400 and easily OC it to 3+ Ghz. That will blow the 6000+ away. Or if you got money to spend, get the quad-core, that can be OCed also and become a monster once software can start using it.

 

[BrockSampson]

If you had to get one of those two, get the quad core. But, please do not buy the X6800, its a waste of money when the e6600 over clocks so well. You can get a stable 3.6ghz out of the e6600. Thats a lot more performance for 1/3 of the price.

If you saved 600 bucks you could get an 8800GTX, more ram, a sound card, a better case.... if you look at the Maximum PC article where they tested a bunch of $2500 gaming rigs, all of them had the X6800 except one, which used the e6600. The rig with the e6600 was overclocked HIGHER then the X6800 on stock heatsink and fan and got higher benchmarks. That computer won the contest.

Goodluck with your decision, I say go with the quad core!

 

[knowsitall]

homie G go with the qx6700. it has 4 cores in it, alot more future proof the to x6800.. Deffintly go with the qx6700 cause a year from now it deffintly will crush the x6800 in apps.

 

[bruce555]

Quad

 

[ARM]

I find it kinda difficult to believe that you're even asking this. For the same price, of course you're gonna get the quad core. It will be a LOT more future proof and get more performance than the dual in July, when HL2:Ep3 comes out, which will use the extra cores for physics and AI. If you buy the dual core, you will kick yourself so hard, your children will inherit the bruises.

 

[horstmann]

You could buy 2 e6600's and overclock the one in your computer and mail the other to me and still have saved money.

 

[dragonsprayer]

I sold a system with a qx67, they ended up switching to x68 - there is very little reason at this time for 4 cores unless you encode video.



QX6700 is for the future or video encoding right now - if you are working with large data files and it can use the 4 cores then get it! if you your not going to go the extra mile to cool this heater - do not get it!

X6800 if you need a cooler running system or small pc, if you are a gamer and want best performance from the majority of games. in most apps this chip wins but soon the os and software makers will tune their ware for 4 cores.


Get the e6600 use a push pin cooler and swap chips next year - sell e6600 on ebay for $100 less!



ignor this is a super cooker - runs slower then the qx6700 with only 2 cores! this is "me too" chip - me too i can go 3.4ghz and fry eggs too!

save $500 and go with Athon X2 6000+ and OC it a few hundred Mhz and get near the same performance and in some cases better performance for half the money!

better? show me one shred of proof of better-ness ?? e6600 out runs and runs 10-20c cooler with stock cooler too!

amti is always #2

 

[harmattan]

This is a hard one, and a decision I almost made recently but decided to save money and get an e6700. On one hand you have far higher OC potential and a higher stock Mhz. On the other hand you have 4 cores which doesn't really matter now (unless you're running video editing, CAD), but will become more and more useful.

If you held a gun to my head, I'd personally go for the 6800 since your OC will take you far beyond what Q6700 would do in current games and most mainstream apps. Most Q6700 are only reaching 3.2-3.3mhz while you should be able to pull 3.7 - 3.8mhz with the 6800 on air. Right now and for the next year or so, the extra mhz will buy you more performance than the extra cores.

If anything, I'd save $500-700 and go with an e6600 or e6700, and spend it on better HDs, graphics, mobo... Even with an e6600 you should be able to OC higher than the quad-core.