Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

July 22nd - E6850 OR Q6600 for $266

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 27, 2007 11:50:20 PM

So we all know about the July 22nd price cuts by Intel. Both the E6850 (3.00 GHz, 333 FSB rating) and Q6600 (2.40 GHz, 266 FSB rating) will be at the same price of a very low $266. For gamers, is it better to get the E6850 or the Q6600? Which at its best overclocked state using only air cooling will give a better performance?

edit: sorry for the typo, the E6850 is 3.00 GHz and not 3.99 GHz
May 27, 2007 11:57:18 PM

I don't think E6850 is 3.99Ghz. I think it's suppose to be the same frequency as the X6800 but with 333FSB
May 27, 2007 11:59:41 PM

for gaming... depends on how well the game is optimize to take advantage on all the cores, dual or quad.

So quad core would be some what more future proof, while you should get similar performance on most of todays and past games, even considering any of the other E4xxx or E6xxx series with OC'ing them IMO.

I'd think the GPU/graphics would play more importance in gaming though.
Related resources
May 28, 2007 12:30:48 AM

Will the E6850 be multi-plyer unlocked?

If so that would be my preference since performance is more than ample, and I always wanted to tinker with an unlocked CPU... otherwise I would choose the Q6600...
May 28, 2007 12:41:02 AM

Quote:
Will the E6850 be multi-plyer unlocked?


I think/guessing its going to be locked. Only reference I found was:

"Conroe" Refresh Details Unveiled

Quote:
In addition to the refreshed Conroe Core 2 Duo lineup, Intel will release one more 1066 MHz front-side bus endowed Core 2 Duo product. The upcoming Core 2 Duo E6800 will arrive clocked at 2.93 GHz—similar to Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800. The processor is expected to be Intel’s flagship processor for mainstream segments. Aside from the locked multiplier, the Core 2 Duo E6800 is identical to the Core 2 Extreme X6800.


If the E6800 is identical with a locked multiplier, I'm assuming its the same for the others, unless they are labeled extreme, with a high price tag.
May 28, 2007 1:23:13 AM



According to this the e6850 will be 1333fsb while the q6600 will stay 1066. I think with the faster speed as well as the bump in fsb speed the e6850 should be a better choice. I've been going over the same in my head for a while and I think I've decided on the e6850. It might be worth it to wait for some benches to see how it OC's.
May 28, 2007 4:29:42 AM

Quote:


According to this the e6850 will be 1333fsb while the q6600 will stay 1066. I think with the faster speed as well as the bump in fsb speed the e6850 should be a better choice. I've been going over the same in my head for a while and I think I've decided on the e6850. It might be worth it to wait for some benches to see how it OC's.


yeah, i guess if i can wait until july to get a cpu, i can wait an additional week to see benches
May 28, 2007 5:04:54 AM

In that case I would definately opt for the Q6600 as you get 4 cores at 2.4GHz, which will easily operate at 3GHz using a 1:1 ratio and increasing RAM speed from 266MHz to 333MHz and at stock voltage... which it will even do on stock cooling and rock solid stablity...

If you get a top shelf aftermarket heatsink, you should be able to get close to 400MHz which would be then running at 3.6GHz...
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
May 28, 2007 5:21:53 AM

The Q6600 certainly does look enticing, but I'm not sure if I would buy it. For me the only application (actually it's a codec) that I use that may take advantage of all 4 cores is DivX 6.5.
May 28, 2007 5:35:04 AM

But in time more applications will support multi-threading, and quite a few do today some which I use... Like AutoCAD, WindowsXP, Adobe, GPS processing s/w, and a growing list of games...
Even if not overclocking, a $266 besides 2 E6600 CPU's running at 2.4GHz ain't bad even if part program only uses one core... You got 3 others for the O/S and multi-tasking...

And you can overclock those twin E6600 chips too hitting 3GHz at stock voltage making it a great deal IMO... makes it a much better deal than just a dual core single CPU at 3GHz... when you could of had twice the cores for the same money...
May 28, 2007 5:50:07 AM

I remember the old saying... you can never have too much ram.

I guess now its, you can never have too much ram or cores. :lol: 
May 28, 2007 7:50:51 AM

I think it's worth it to see how much headroom the new chips have. If they are already pushed near their limit the Q6600 would be the better option. But if I could push the 1333 close to 1600 it would run 1:1 with PC800 RAM and would be the better of the two. Match the E6850 with the IFX-14, that would be beautiful. Only time will tell.
May 28, 2007 8:46:20 AM

I'm getting a Q6600 on July 22nd. Pair it with a P35 mobo and set the FSB to 1333 in the Bios for a free 25% overclock. Thus, your Q6600 will now be running at 3Ghz! 8) The E6850 then gets raped..
May 28, 2007 1:42:51 PM

Quote:
I think it's worth it to see how much headroom the new chips have. If they are already pushed near their limit the Q6600 would be the better option. But if I could push the 1333 close to 1600 it would run 1:1 with PC800 RAM and would be the better of the two. Match the E6850 with the IFX-14, that would be beautiful. Only time will tell.

I'm sure you can push the E6850 to 1600FSB, but so what? I say that because chances are it's essentially an E6600 with a pinmod, and most E6600s can already hit FSB1600. The E6850 is a locked 9x multiplier chip just like the E6600. Look at the price, almost the same as the E6600. I'd get the quad myself, like someone once said you can OC to add clocks, but you can't do anything to add cores. With adequate cooling, the quads can hit FSB 1600 also.
May 28, 2007 7:14:50 PM

Quote:
With adequate cooling, the quads can hit FSB 1600 also.


Maybe with phase change, I have yet to see anyone get a quad that fast. As I wrote the quad might be the better option it all depends how much you can push the E6850. When you consider that at this point most apps still don't use two cores we are most likely still a couple of years away from getting full use out of quads.
May 28, 2007 7:44:00 PM

Quote:
it's essentially an E6600 with a pinmod


That may be true, I know I've seen E6600 at FSB1600 and higher on air but I think with silicon revisions and I'm sure the E6850 will be higher binned parts capable of achieving higher clocks at lower temps.
May 28, 2007 8:46:14 PM

Quote:
So we all know about the July 22nd price cuts by Intel. Both the E6850 (3.00 GHz, 333 FSB rating) and Q6600 (2.40 GHz, 266 FSB rating) will be at the same price of a very low $266. For gamers, is it better to get the E6850 or the Q6600? Which at its best overclocked state using only air cooling will give a better performance?

edit: sorry for the typo, the E6850 is 3.00 GHz and not 3.99 GHz


At first the E6850 will beat the slower per core Q6600 but as new games come out using all four cores the Q6600 will end up beat the E6850. That said with any reasonable CPU, for games, one is better off with the best GPU. I would suggest the Q6600 as you seem to want the best bang for the buck.
May 28, 2007 9:34:11 PM

Quote:
With adequate cooling, the quads can hit FSB 1600 also.


Maybe with phase change, I have yet to see anyone get a quad that fast.
Nah, you can do it with "only" water. Go read xtremesystems some.
May 29, 2007 6:58:24 AM

I thought about it and really there is little reason at all to get the E6850. If your goal is a dual core at say FSB1333 or FSB1600 the E6600 is more than capable of handling that right now and with the introduction of the new chips should be significantly cheaper so why pay more for the same thing. My only problem, which I hope is solved with the IFX-14, is the thermal load of the quad core CPU's. I to want to air cool and it seems as though currently the Q6600 puts out so much heat that you will be limited to around 3-3.4g. I have yet to see someone get it to 3.6 stable on air.
May 29, 2007 8:28:28 AM

Quote:
I thought about it and really there is little reason at all to get the E6850. If your goal is a dual core at say FSB1333 or FSB1600 the E6600 is more than capable of handling that right now and with the introduction of the new chips should be significantly cheaper so why pay more for the same thing. My only problem, which I hope is solved with the IFX-14, is the thermal load of the quad core CPU's. I to want to air cool and it seems as though currently the Q6600 puts out so much heat that you will be limited to around 3-3.4g. I have yet to see someone get it to 3.6 stable on air.


True, quads run hotter (theoretically up to 2x) than dual cores, so you will never get the same overclocking headroom out of them. Generally dual cores overclock a couple of hundred MHz higher due to the lower heat and also the lower chance of a 'dud' core in the count, as any overclock is limited by the lowest clocking core...

But if given option of say, a Q6600 @ 3.3GHz or an E6850 @ 3.6GHz at the same price, I think most people would agree it would be wiser to choose the quad core, especially as more applications and games are becoming multithreaded nowadays.
May 29, 2007 8:39:50 AM

Q6600+watter cooling+P35
May 29, 2007 9:00:12 AM

Quote:
Q6600+watter cooling+P35


The only two problems with that are that a entry level H2O system is no better and sometimes worse than a highend air cooler which leaves mid-highend watercooling which is no small chunk of change and even still the temps aren't too far off a top of the line air cooler. I have thought about watercooling which is why I'm still using the stock cooler, I want to see reviews on the IFX-14 before I decide which way to go. I'm really thinking about this it's just with the way my MOBO is designed I don't think the heat sinks will get enough air. Second I just bought a 680i board a month ago, so much for the P35.
May 29, 2007 9:25:13 AM

I was thinking to make a watter cooling by my self, but these months I have not enough time.
I was also thinking to buy CoolerMaster Aquagate, but when I saw the small radiator and the 12cm fan I became suspicious if it can cool down my CPU, GPU and northbridge.
My next upgrade will be somewhere in october, when Phenom and Yorkfield arrive. I will get the best bang for the buck OC-ed quadcore, Phenom & sAM2+ or Yorkfield & P35. Or if it is money wasting I'll just get Kentsfeild Q6600 with my old mainboard. Anyway I want a watter cooling for my new OC-ed toy, but I never had any WC before and I don't know much about it. Any suggestions or ideas?
May 29, 2007 9:44:48 AM

Quote:
The Q6600 certainly does look enticing, but I'm not sure if I would buy it. For me the only application (actually it's a codec) that I use that may take advantage of all 4 cores is DivX 6.5.


Even if you don't have multi threaded applications to run, Windows can still make use of all cores running more applications in parallel, so basically if you run more than one single threaded app at once you will see benefits from more cores, even the OS itself has more resources to be more responsive.

And all future applications will be multi threaded in the future. Windows Vista uses multiple threads even form simple window refresh/drawing operations and that's just an example.

Even though most games atm, which are single threaded games run faster on higher clocked CPU's, it's the the games that will be the first consumer applications to make full use of all cores on a system in the very near future.

So if you're buying for the present and future applications my opinion is to buy quad core. If you're buying for present and past applications then buy a dual core, it's more that today's or past applications need.
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
May 30, 2007 5:32:07 AM

Quote:
The Q6600 certainly does look enticing, but I'm not sure if I would buy it. For me the only application (actually it's a codec) that I use that may take advantage of all 4 cores is DivX 6.5.


.
.
.

So if you're buying for the present and future applications my opinion is to buy quad core. If you're buying for present and past applications then buy a dual core, it's more that today's or past applications need.

I think when I'm ready to start encoding with H.264 I'll get a quad core since that takes a lot of processing power. But I'll wait for the Penryn core first. A 65nm quad core is a bit too power hungry for my taste. In any case, I'm not sure when I'll start using H.264.
May 30, 2007 5:42:35 AM

Any news on a Skulltrail or other platform that will take two Kentsfields without FB-DIMMs? I'm absolutely dyin' for it!
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
May 30, 2007 5:52:06 AM

Quote:
Any news on a Skulltrail or other platform that will take two Kentsfields without FB-DIMMs? I'm absolutely dyin' for it!


Sorry.

To be honest, I haven't really kept up with CPUs since the introduction of Conroe. I figure I won't really start looking at CPUs again until Penryn rolls out.

I know more about V8 the drink, than V8 the platform at this moment.
June 5, 2007 10:58:29 PM

Where is the E6800 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: ? Wasnt an E6800 anounced with 1066fsb, 11x multi (locked), 4mb cache? Is it canceled? If not, what is its expected price?
June 5, 2007 11:56:47 PM

Q6600 with vista it uses all 4 cores most of the time
June 6, 2007 12:26:07 AM

AU,

You seem to be thinking along the lines that once a program is multi-threaded it is somehow locked to a specific number of cores.

Statements like:

Quote:
When you consider that at this point most apps still don't use two cores we are most likely still a couple of years away from getting full use out of quads.


are at best misleading to folks...

In fact most programmers WILL make use of ALL available resources. If four cores are available then they will likely use them. It is trivial to allow the OS to manage where those threads go. It is NOT trivial to LOCK an app to use ONLY two cores.

Just my two cents ;) 
June 6, 2007 12:38:01 AM

Op,

Have a read here:

THG Forum Link

You will find info which will help you to make your decision.

I think you would likely make yourself "as future proof as possible" by getting the Quad.

Think of it this way.

What happens a year from now when you get that killer app that you really love that could be nearly twice as fast had you purchased a quad?

Game, Codec, Rendering, Folding, ....
June 6, 2007 12:55:29 AM

Quote:
It is NOT trivial to LOCK an app to use ONLY two cores.

Unless you write it with exactly two threads. (not suggesting that anybody SHOULD do that mind you)
June 6, 2007 1:04:27 AM

Ahhh,

But Senor,

There are NO guarantees that TWO THREADS will be distributed on two different cores.

The OS for the most part decides. The Dev could decide and actually force to cpu0 or cpu1 but then you lose the optimization that the OS is supposed to supply.

You see the OS may decide that it has too much going on with the other CPU/core and run BOTH threads on the same CPU/core. This is not only possible but DOES happen.
June 6, 2007 1:09:09 AM

People tend to think of threads as "one thread per cpu or core".

This is NOT really how things work.

In fact I have an application that uses a thread pool of ~20 threads (is configurable for performance tuning). We run this app on a two processor/SMP (in essence the same thing as dual core but with two diff slots) linux box.

If we look at thread distribution we may find that those threads are being serviced 10 and 10 or 15/5. All depends on what is going on at the time.
June 6, 2007 2:38:07 AM

Quote:
There are NO guarantees that TWO THREADS will be distributed on two different cores.

The OS for the most part decides. The Dev could decide and actually force to cpu0 or cpu1 but then you lose the optimization that the OS is supposed to supply.

You see the OS may decide that it has too much going on with the other CPU/core and run BOTH threads on the same CPU/core. This is not only possible but DOES happen.

Yeah I agree with your points 100%, I was just saying that writing with exactly two threads is a way to limit the application to at most two cores, I didn't mean to imply that the OS was obligated to put them on separate (exactly two) cores. [lawyer/semantics mode]I guess it depends on you you define "LOCK an app to use ONLY two cores" - meaning "limit to at most two cores", or meaning "always execute on exactly two cores"[/lawyer]. I interpreted it as the former (in the context of comparing dual to quad cores), but can easily see how you read (or wrote as the case may be) it to mean the latter.

Or you could do what I once had to deal with in a past project - a cluster of quad core DSPs with no OS, where we had to manually figure out what to execute where and how to move all the data around without tearing. But you were guaranteed to know where each thread lived... it was a nightmare (especially since I'm not a software guy by choice, but this stuff was controlling my equipment, so I ended up more involved than I wanted to be). I wouldn't wish that mess on my worst enemy. (it did finally work though)
September 2, 2007 8:30:45 PM

Sorry for bringing up an old thread but I just built up my new E6850 based machine and find that the multiplier is apparently unlocked.

I can change it to any value between 6 and 9. For example I just booted it up at 6x200 for a E6850@ 1200MHz.

I'm using a GA-P35-DS3R.

Everything I've read on the net said the multiplier was locked. Is my mobo fooling me or is it really unlocked?
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2007 8:52:54 PM

bliq said:
Sorry for bringing up an old thread but I just built up my new E6850 based machine and find that the multiplier is apparently unlocked.

I can change it to any value between 6 and 9. For example I just booted it up at 6x200 for a E6850@ 1200MHz.

I'm using a GA-P35-DS3R.

Everything I've read on the net said the multiplier was locked. Is my mobo fooling me or is it really unlocked?

TBH mate I'm not sure, but shortly after the Abit IP35 was released a new BIOS turned up that, and I quote 'Fixed the CPU multiplier adjusting function' so maybe the E6850 is unlocked as it is a 1333 FSB CPU.
September 2, 2007 9:01:13 PM

It will allow you to decrease the multi not increase it. All C2D & C2Q allow you to adjust the multi down to 6x but only the Extreme CPU's allow you to increase it over it's stock setting.
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2007 9:08:24 PM

@AUsch30 Ta for clearing that up, I had been wondering what the Abit update referred to.
!