Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6850 or Q6600 for the same price?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Would you buy a E6850 or a Q6600, at $266 each, in Q3?

Total: 239 votes (45 blank votes)

  • E6850
  • 26 %
  • Q6600
  • 59 %
  • An AMD CPU in the same price range
  • 6 %
  • Another Intel CPU in the same price range
  • 1 %
  • I want something better
  • 7 %
  • I want something cheaper
  • 4 %
March 14, 2007 3:13:13 PM

Hi,

I found a couple of interesting articles about Intel's Q3 offerings.

I've got a question for the experts: what kind of performance do you expect from the E6850? I would probably prefer a Q6600 for the same $266, but I may be wrong...

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=755282&starttime=...
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5873.html

Thanks!

More about : e6850 q6600 price

March 14, 2007 3:27:53 PM

The E6850 will offer great stock performace, but it's overclocking headroom is going to be pretty limited. At 500MHz FSB (a speed MBs are having a tough time cracking) the chip will "only" be running at 4GHz. That may seem like a lot, but many E6600s can get there today, for about the same price...so what's the point in waiting? :?

The Q6600 on the other hand has much more OCing potential! At 400MHz FSB, it's running at 3.6GHz, this speed is easy for most all motherboards to reach today. 8O

You seen where I'm going whith this?
March 14, 2007 3:29:17 PM

DSid,

I would take the quad over the Dual any day... There are many reasons behind it... Granted not everyone will agree. But those that understand the direction we are taking (multithreaded applications) in the industry will probably agree with me.

Read the linked to threads HERE! and draw your own conclusions.

also

Have a read HERE!!

Both are threads that I started trying to settle on an answer for this very question..
Related resources
March 14, 2007 4:08:47 PM

Q6600.
March 14, 2007 4:13:44 PM

I liked the "can't add cores" argument :p 
OK, quad is the way to go. Thanks!
March 14, 2007 4:35:06 PM

Im desperate for a quad , my dual core drives me mad when waiting for 3d renderings its so slow , yeah some people really need quad....or more.

smudgee
P820
2 GIG RAM
6800GT
830 GIG HD
March 14, 2007 4:56:46 PM

lol, thats because u have what we like to call a "pentium"

they are teh suck.

still though, u have a point.

if i were an encoding kinda guy, or a 3d artist id mos def get a c2d quad
March 14, 2007 5:24:01 PM

well... it realy depends on what/if anything, AMD releases...

but between a dual core and a quad core.. i would have to say go for the quad :p  not everything can use the extra cores, but it just makes me feel happy in the pants knowing that soon enough they will :p  then your dual core will be obsolete! :) 
March 14, 2007 5:27:06 PM

Quote:
not everything can use the extra cores, but it just makes me feel happy in the pants knowing that soon enough they will :p 


8O

Was that really necessary...
March 14, 2007 5:56:32 PM

Quote:
The E6850 will offer great stock performace, but it's overclocking headroom is going to be pretty limited. At 500MHz FSB (a speed MBs are having a tough time cracking) the chip will "only" be running at 4GHz. That may seem like a lot, but many E6600s can get there today, for about the same price...so what's the point in waiting? :?
?


uh, the E6600 is a dual the E6850 is a quad there is a big difference.

When you overclock Quads, theres a lot more circuitry that has to tolerate the added Mhz so the odds of it not OC'ing to the level of an E6600 is not equal. They may no OC as high but the two extra cores give you more performance in the long run as long as software developers take advantage.

Also thats why you invest in a high end board that can deal with uber high FSB. That $250 680i is looking a lot cheaper now.

I totaly plan to ditch my duals for some cheap quads cause its a no brainer. I am just glad I didn't buy them when they were $1,000
March 14, 2007 6:20:01 PM

Quote:


uh, the E6600 is a dual the E6850 is a quad there is a big difference.

When you overclock Quads, theres a lot more circuitry that has to tolerate the added Mhz so the odds of it not OC'ing to the level of an E6600 is not equal. They may no OC as high but the two extra cores give you more performance in the long run as long as software developers take advantage.

Also thats why you invest in a high end board that can deal with uber high FSB. That $250 680i is looking a lot cheaper now.

I totaly plan to ditch my duals for some cheap quads cause its a no brainer. I am just glad I didn't buy them when they were $1,000


OK, there's a bit of confusion here. E6850 is a dual core. Q6600 is a quad. E6600 is a beautiful thing from the past and let's not talk about it here.

I know there's a thread debating the merits of X6800 and QX6700, and most people voted for QX6700. By the way, that's a great thread.

Now between E6850 (slightly better than X6800 at stock) and Q6600 (a bit weaker than QX6700, again at stock) the race is closer IMO. Especially if O/C is not desired and we compare them at stock...

X6800 < E6850 < Q6600 < QX6700 < QX6800, is that how performance goes?

Edit: so I take it, E6850 is a rather pointless product because smart people would get a Q6600 instead? :D  :D  :D 
March 14, 2007 6:38:47 PM

warezme,

I hope you noticed the little tidbit about the 680i chipsets IO performance..

Since you offered your tidbits I thought I'd offer mine..

For instance why would you choose a 680i chipset that bottlenecks the enthusiast?

Linkage THG RAID ARTICLE

Quote:
We measured up to 350 MB/s using four 10,000 RPM WD Raptor drives and Intel's ICH7 or ICH8 chipset components. This is an excellent result, as it almost matches the added throughput of four single drives. At the same time, Nvidia's nForce 680 chipset somehow showed a 110 MB/s bottleneck, which we still couldn't overcome. It shows that not every integrated controller is suitable of hosting a high-performance RAID 0, despite technically supporting it.


Also the quads from Intel overclock quite nicely so you would be wrong there too..

Linkage again THG - Quad OC article.. With a mild 25% OC

Quote:
Kentsfield, which industry sources refer to as "Core 2 Quadro," arrived as a 2.67 GHz version with a 266 MHz/1066 MHz FSB. The test engineers were able to adjust the FSB to 1333 MHz - which is still supported by the 975X chipset - and overclock the CPU by about 25%. The benchmarks were conducted with clock speeds ranging from 2.0 GHz to 3.33 GHz.


Please keep in mind that article was one of the first written and they have since gotten better OCs out of the quad with newer steppings.
March 14, 2007 6:41:14 PM

Warezme,

What Dsid said...

We are NOT discussing the E6600 but rather the Q6600..

Thanks for playing though..
March 14, 2007 6:43:57 PM

One of my brothers works as a 3D Graphics Artist...he just got a 2-Socket workstation board with two quad core xeons and is having a blast. His workstation is as fast as 16 of their server farm computers.
March 14, 2007 11:48:02 PM

Quote:
X6800 < E6850 < Q6600 < QX6700 < QX6800, is that how performance goes?


Well it depends on the level of multithreading support in the software of course, it's not so black and white. Some 'multithreading capable' software only spawns 2 threads anyway, though hopefully that will change in future where software can accept 'n cores' to help performance grow as technology advances.
March 15, 2007 2:41:56 AM

I picked the "AMD" option simply because it's a poor decision to plan a Q3 purchase before seeing K10 benchmarks. Between the two options, Q6600, OCed.
March 15, 2007 3:08:16 AM

Epsilon,

A multithreaded app will often NOT spawn a thread per core available.

In fact many MT apps will spawn multiple threads per core..

Alot of people want to tie one thread per core but that is not really the way it is done.

Yeah an app could spawn 1 or maybe 2 threads..

But guess what? The OS MAY place both threads on the same core. Even if the other core has cycles are available. It is up to the OS (usually)...
March 15, 2007 3:21:09 AM

Quote:
Im desperate for a quad , my dual core drives me mad when waiting for 3d renderings its so slow , yeah some people really need quad....or more.

smudgee
P820
2 GIG RAM
6800GT
830 GIG HD

Seems like you are one of the few that can benifit from quad,
Well, even a E6400 will crush your p820
March 15, 2007 4:15:45 AM

Quote:


uh, the E6600 is a dual the E6850 is a quad there is a big difference.

When you overclock Quads, theres a lot more circuitry that has to tolerate the added Mhz so the odds of it not OC'ing to the level of an E6600 is not equal. They may no OC as high but the two extra cores give you more performance in the long run as long as software developers take advantage.

Also thats why you invest in a high end board that can deal with uber high FSB. That $250 680i is looking a lot cheaper now.

I totaly plan to ditch my duals for some cheap quads cause its a no brainer. I am just glad I didn't buy them when they were $1,000


OK, there's a bit of confusion here. E6850 is a dual core. Q6600 is a quad. E6600 is a beautiful thing from the past and let's not talk about it here.

I know there's a thread debating the merits of X6800 and QX6700, and most people voted for QX6700. By the way, that's a great thread.

Now between E6850 (slightly better than X6800 at stock) and Q6600 (a bit weaker than QX6700, again at stock) the race is closer IMO. Especially if O/C is not desired and we compare them at stock...

X6800 < E6850 < Q6600 < QX6700 < QX6800, is that how performance goes?

Edit: so I take it, E6850 is a rather pointless product because smart people would get a Q6600 instead? :D  :D  :D 
I think you're missing my point. I think some people would argue in favor or higher clock speeds, over more cores (not me). However, I was trying to point out that even in clock speed the E6850 probably doesn't have much of an advantage when you take into consideration OCing headroom.

My second point was to ask why the E6850 would cause anyone to anticipate it? I was trying to say that if the E6850 looks appealing to you, just buy the E6600 today, it's going for roughly similar price, and have the potential for roughly the same performance (many people are reaching 3.8-4.0GHz with it).

I was not arguing for the E6850, I was pointing out the flaws in it. I would buy the E6600 over the E6850 any day...hands down, no contest!
March 15, 2007 3:59:08 PM

Quote:
Im desperate for a quad , my dual core drives me mad when waiting for 3d renderings its so slow , yeah some people really need quad....or more.

smudgee
P820
2 GIG RAM
6800GT
830 GIG HD

Seems like you are one of the few that can benifit from quad,
Well, even a E6400 will crush your p820
Actually any programmer would go for a Quad!....if th eprice is logical of course.
March 15, 2007 4:33:50 PM

On the surface the quad might seem the way to go, its the way I personally would go. Its more futureproof. The 6850 will likely give better performance in todays games and most games for the next year. When multi-threading really makes it into more games then the quad will decimate the dual-core.

As for overclocking, the current quads have not been reaching the same frequencies that the dual-cores can attain so I don't believe its correct to say it might overclock more. Tests have proven a like-clocked dual-core will OC more every time compared to quad.

This however will mean little as thngs become more multi-threaded and the quad will squish a dual-core clocked even higher than itself.

In the end I think unless you upgrade very frequently compared to most people, at least every year roughly then you should go quad for the same price. I know I will.
March 16, 2007 3:33:09 AM

Quote:
As for over-clocking, the current quads have not been reaching the same frequencies that the dual-cores can attain so I don't believe its correct to say it might over clock more. Tests have proven a like-clocked dual-core will OC more every time compared to quad.

I guess what I was trying to say is if you take an E6850, or a Q6600 and OC each one to 400MHz FSB (a reasonable expectation with today's mobos), they will both be running at 3.6GHz (because they both have a x9 multiplier). I'm saying the E6850 is more limited for OCing because of it's high 333MHz FSB. I know it's easier to reach extreme OCs (say 500MHz FSB) with dual cores...but I think most people don't try to push their stuff that hard.
June 28, 2007 3:12:13 AM

I know that some people choose not to take the TH CPU graphs seriously, but by looking at them it is apparent that the Q6600 is only slightly faster (and sometimes slower) than an E6700, and since an E6600 can be overclocked faster than an E6700, would a dual core processor with more OC capability not be faster than a quadcore with unused potential? Then again I suppose that quadcore's are more futureproof.

Would quadcore's really have an advantage in gaming? If its up to the OS to decide which threads fall into which core, wouldn't that mean that the OS's themselves must be patched to effectively utilize the power of the cores?
a c 100 à CPUs
June 28, 2007 3:40:49 AM

Quote:
The E6850 will offer great stock performace, but it's overclocking headroom is going to be pretty limited. At 500MHz FSB (a speed MBs are having a tough time cracking) the chip will "only" be running at 4GHz. That may seem like a lot, but many E6600s can get there today, for about the same price...so what's the point in waiting? :?

The Q6600 on the other hand has much more OCing potential! At 400MHz FSB, it's running at 3.6GHz, this speed is easy for most all motherboards to reach today. 8O

You seen where I'm going whith this?


The Q6600 is *capable* of being a better overclocker due to its higher multiplier, but it won't hit the same speeds as the E6850 because of thermal issues. 3.6 GHz on a C2Q requires a pretty darn good cooler because that's 200+ watts of heat to dissipate. 4.0 GHz on a Core 2 Duo will be much less than that, probably about what the QX6800 throws off at stock.
a c 100 à CPUs
June 28, 2007 3:50:30 AM

Quote:
One of my brothers works as a 3D Graphics Artist...he just got a 2-Socket workstation board with two quad core xeons and is having a blast. His workstation is as fast as 16 of their server farm computers.


Server farms or clusters can be an odd sort- I've run code on them before. They are massively parallel but have not-so-hot interconnects compared to HyperTransport or an FSB and no shared memory pool between nodes. They also generally have lots of people running lots of jobs on them, so RAM is at a premium. If you have something that eats bunches of RAM, keep it off the cluster unless your cluster has astonishingly huge amounts of RAM per node- 4 GB/core or so. Few users helps a bunch, too. The cluster I use for data analysis is generally slower than my home workstation (X2 4200+, 4 GB DDR-400, 500 GB RAID 5) because my data has a 1 GB/thread working set. I'll run the frames two at a time until all 24 are done and generally beat the cluster working on all 24 at once if the cluster will even finish. Swapping really does hurt execution time and putting 4 threads that need 1 GB each on a server with 4 GB RAM leads to a ton of swapping and a bunch of "cannot allocate memory" errors and a SIGKILL as the swap gets used up too.
June 28, 2007 3:56:48 AM

Quote:
The E6850 will offer great stock performace, but it's overclocking headroom is going to be pretty limited. At 500MHz FSB (a speed MBs are having a tough time cracking) the chip will "only" be running at 4GHz. That may seem like a lot, but many E6600s can get there today, for about the same price...so what's the point in waiting? :?

The Q6600 on the other hand has much more OCing potential! At 400MHz FSB, it's running at 3.6GHz, this speed is easy for most all motherboards to reach today. 8O

You seen where I'm going whith this?


The Q6600 is *capable* of being a better overclocker due to its higher multiplier, but it won't hit the same speeds as the E6850 because of thermal issues. 3.6 GHz on a C2Q requires a pretty darn good cooler because that's 200+ watts of heat to dissipate. 4.0 GHz on a Core 2 Duo will be much less than that, probably about what the QX6800 throws off at stock.

:trophy:
And there is one of most important points regarding overclocking a Q6600.

The quads radiate significantly more heat than a dual core. A demonstrater at comptuex has to use cryo (liquid nitrogen) to get to 4.8GHz with the C2Q
June 28, 2007 4:13:45 AM

Sat,

You actually asked a good ?

It is good to see someone approach this question from a SYSTEM standpoint.

You see it is the SUM of the system that == Performance.

Have a read HERE!!

There is a lot of good information there. Although up front the dual core in a higher OC would seem the way to go after reading the info in that thread you might find that the optimizations you are talking about may already be on the way. ;) 
June 28, 2007 4:28:26 AM

Why should anyone consider an E6850 at $266 in the first place when the E6750 is $183 and provides 90% the performance? Overclocking potential should be almost identical between the two, with the latest G0 stepping yielding average overclocks in the 3.6 - 4GHz region on air cooling.

As for C2D vs C2Q, it all comes down to your particular usage patterns. Programs that take advantage of heavy multithreading will thrive on a C2Q, no amount of extra headroom on the C2D will make up for the missing 2 cores.

It is a given a Q6600 won't overclock as high as the E6x50 chips. From what I have seen, C2Qs usually get to 3.2 - 3.3GHz relatively easily. However, beyond this point, you often have to push the core voltages up which results in dramatically increased heat output.
July 1, 2007 10:32:28 PM

Quote:
Sat,

You actually asked a good ?

It is good to see someone approach this question from a SYSTEM standpoint.

You see it is the SUM of the system that == Performance.

Have a read HERE!!

There is a lot of good information there. Although up front the dual core in a higher OC would seem the way to go after reading the info in that thread you might find that the optimizations you are talking about may already be on the way. ;) 


Chess, I read this topic and the others you refer to but it's a lot of info for a N00b like me and I may be blind.... So, I just want to ask you: What do you mean with: "you might find that the optimizations you are talking about may already be on the way."? Can you give me some concrete examples?

Another question: I'm buying a new PC soon and one of my main reasons is the game "Age of Conan". Do you (or others here) have any recommendations about which of the two processors is best in this regard?

Thank you so much in advance!!
July 1, 2007 11:20:25 PM

Q6600 will also get the G0 steppings so we will likely see a little more mhz on it :b and less heat
July 1, 2007 11:24:16 PM

AOC does not support multi cores of what i know but i would go for the Q6600 with the G0 steppings :b Q6600 3.6 on air would be nice.

gonna play aoc myself.
July 2, 2007 12:34:29 AM

First of all, it's not my intention to make this topic wander off too far about Age of Conan. Don't get jumpy, anyone... :) 

Anyway, if AOC doesn't support multi cores (you mean quad core as well as dual core?), then one should go for the one with highest CPU speed, which is the E6850. So why then...would you go for the Quad???

Another question: Since this game will be improved continuously, with new patches being released over time, isn't there a good chance the developers will utilize the multiple cores in the future?
July 2, 2007 8:27:07 AM

E6850 got G0 steppings so thats why you see they clock 3.9 ghz on the stock cooler, Q6600 will also gonna get the steppings, a high clocked quadcore wouldnt be bad.

im going for the Quad because many of the games im gonna play is gonna support multicores and we will probably see many more games in the future supporting it, so thats why. Valve gonna support multicore soon, crysis, alan wake, cant remember if bioshock is gonna support it. and there is more games also.

yea could be, Quake4 didnt have multicore support from the start and oblivion got some multicore tweaks so it probably wouldnt be a bad idea to get a quad, just my point of view.
July 3, 2007 3:04:39 AM

Yep, guess I'll go for the quad. It just has a strange psychological factor to it:

Normally you would want to buy the processor with the best performance you can get for your money at this moment. So you just determine which one has best performance and buy it (E6850). You already know that in some while there'll be a processor which has better performance than yours and has the same price as yours had when you bought it. But you don't feel bad about this because you know that, at least for a while, you've used the processor with the best performance you could get for your money.

Now comes this situation:

You don't buy the processor with the best performance you can get for your money at this moment (E6850). Instead you buy the Q6600 because after some time, when software becomes focused on quads, the Q6600 has better performance than the E6850. But at that time there's probably already a new processor which has better performance than yours and has the same price as yours had when you bought it. Now here's the key difference compared to the first situation: You DO feel bad because you know that you've NEVER used the processor with the best performance you could get for your money!! See, at the moment you bought it, there was something better for a similar price....and at the moment your processor has better performance than that one, there's already another processor which has better performance than yours and has the same price as yours when you bought it....

People say I have a tendency to make life more difficult than it is because I think too much... Could this be an example? :lol: 
July 3, 2007 5:08:57 AM

Sot,

You are not making a decision for the future... For your "1" specific app you MAY get a little bit more from the E6850 at first. But you will be able to do other things as well. With the Quad although a little slower on the clock, you will also be able to do other things better. For instance do you run Xfire? Or any in game chat sessions/applications? If so then the quad may help you there. Do you play your own music while in a game? Again it may help there. Want to download while in game? Yup help there too.

You RIGHT NOW can make use of a Quad. Once more things go multi CPU/Core then you will see even more advantage (unless they really screw up in development :) )
July 3, 2007 8:53:09 AM

Quote:
Q6600 will also get the G0 steppings so we will likely see a little more mhz on it :b and less heat


just a little question

how can you know what stepping you buy?
is it on the box?

thx
July 3, 2007 11:11:25 AM

nice post, stirred up quite a debate amongst us.

I'm sorry, but all of you quad core people are delusional, and let me tell you why.

first and foremost, i don't care what people tell you, the truth is, c2d owns quads in MOST games.

next, who can remember parallel processing and smp? how they had huge protential but was never able to beat uniprocessors? the thing is, 99% of the software developers won't spent time and money just to somehow make their software quad-native. software developers has to take into account compatibility issues. and currently, the home/office computer market is still dominated by uniprocessors, except in very few localized regions.

developers are in it for the money. they have to worry about market share, compatibility, profitability, return on investment, margins etc. it simply doesn't make economic sense to do full implementation of quadcore optimizations. deverlopers' credo is, make it run, bug free and error free. to them, whether u got 1 core or 10 core isn't even relevant. and besides, multicore cpus are still evolving, before they could take full advantage of quadcore, octacore, hexicore will be out and rolling. what makes quadcore so special?

intel/amd went multicore because the current technology has reached its peak, until new innovations come along, we won't be able to sustain Moore's Law. they knew very well that 1 cpu at twice the speed > 2 cpus.
multicore cpus arn't meant as a shift in long term strategy, they are just a temporary, short term solution in the quest to replace silicon.
July 3, 2007 1:25:52 PM

Quote:
well you dont unless you can make em look and report back to you but if u wait some months it will probably be the new steppings, try giving em a call or buy at a store at ur place

or you can just order from this website and u will get G0 for $5 http://www.tankguys.biz/product_info.php?cPath=29_181&p...

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2300-view-Stepping-G0... here you can see the new stepping ID


thanks!
i'm planning to buy one by the end of august, and ofcourse i want the best :wink:
July 3, 2007 1:27:39 PM

Quad core fols are right on the money with such games as Crysis, Supreme Commander, etc. Also, saw a great article on the new valve graphics stuff and the quads blew the dual cores out of the water.

IF you want to play the top games coming out like the above-mentioned the quad cores will beat the dual cores. Too many threads out there supporting it.
The duals beat them now but not by enough where the average gamer would even notice in actual gameplay and only in a benchmark. Get the Q6600 for the same price and be ready to take advantage in 2008 :) 
July 4, 2007 12:27:33 AM

Ef,

I am sure you have some linkage to support your statements right?

Especially this one (my favorite):

Quote:
next, who can remember parallel processing and smp? how they had huge protential but was never able to beat uniprocessors?


I can produce numerous cases where the above statement is nullified.

Just curious as to where your info comes from. Make sure we are not missing anything.

Here is my info:

Thread 1

Thread 2

Please pay attention to the links in thread twos first post as they have quite a bit of info.
July 4, 2007 6:48:06 AM

sorry didn't read those posts, will do that later when i get some spare time.

but i think there's some misunderstanding, you took my statement in a different context than intended.

i was talking about the pre-multicore era, when smp only existed on platforms with more than 2 processors.

and i must point out that what i said only pertain to home/small office market, not the business server market.

5 or 6 years ago, as i could remember, hobbyists had systems with at least four p3 celerons, they were hoping for 'unmatched' level of performance, only to be disappointed later. not before long they went back to uniprocessor platforms with faster clockspeeds.

not going into great detail, but incentives for developers to take advantage of multithreading simply isn't there, and it all folded.

this hold true even in the later years. another case study was intel's hyperthreading, just look the precentage of software titles intended for the home/office market that actually implemented it. and later hyperthreading died. (rumor has that hypertheading will be revived in upcoming cpu's but don't hold your breath)

i hope this clarifies some of the things i've said, and please don't get sarcastic on me with "oh this is my favorite [insert quotation here]" and then come back and tell me how it is 'nullified'. i feel like you are mocking me. like i said in the first sentence of my first post, the nature of this topic is very controversial and debatable, you can argue however you want from any pov. my pov is one with retrospective examination of parallel computing in the home/small office market, there is really no right or wrong, because we won't know what the future holds. we can't predict the future, we can only navigate a course for the future and the greater market forces will sail us through.
July 5, 2007 3:37:47 PM

I'm going Quad on the 22nd! I say go for a Quad. Was anyone else paying attention back in the day when the Dual Cores first came out and everyone was saying a single core was going to stay on top? Opps, look how wrong they were. Also I was just reading an article in PC World Magazine about Intel's future release plan for their CPU's and from what it states we will be looking at 8 Cores by 2010.

So for the guy that said companies wont waste money making software compatible with Quads, thats wrong. That is exactally what they are doing in a sort. But its not like they are just making their software compatible with quads (like making xp software compatible with vista lol) they are making the software and games use all 4 cores.

"Clearly when it comes to gaming, there’s no real flagship application out there that really takes advantage of quad-processing cores, but that’s about to change. Over the coming months we’ll see the debut of a wealth of games that are capable of pushing all four cores. There’s Gas Powered Games upcoming RTS, Supreme Commander, as well as a slew of FPS shooters, including Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Unreal Tournament 2007, and Crysis, not to mention the shooter everyone’s been talking about lately, Alan Wake, although it’s doubtful that particular title will ship in 2007.

AMD and Intel have counted around 20 games that will ship in 2007 with quad-processing support."
-Firing Squad.com

Hope this helped! But even if you get a Quad and you dont like your extra two cores, just pretend they aren't there and you have an E6600!
July 5, 2007 4:37:01 PM

Even if a program does not make use of multiple cores, you still have the ability to run multiple programs and have their work load spread accross those multile cores. As stated earlier, it is quite common to have a game up on 1 monitor while running other programs like music, voice chat, web guides, ect. on another. That is where I see the biggest increase in performance today.
July 23, 2007 11:55:41 PM

I think when it is all said and done that yes the q6600 is more future proof and will be faster on programs that utilize multi cores, But until then the E6850 is going to be the faster, So like it was said before if you want somthing to last you a year or so till you upgrade again the E6850 is the choice for you. But then also by then penryn and nehalem will be out and will squash both so I choose the E 6850 for me. :sarcastic: 
!