Any point to getting a q6600 on july 22nd??

[shooter124]

What I mean by this is if I lay down 260$ or however much for this or the e6850 will it be worth it? Would it make more sense to buy something cheaper (~160) like the e6420 or equivalent after the price drops and save the extra money for an upgrade? Will these e6850s and q6600 still be useful for the latest apps/games 2-3 years down the line?

 

[o1die]

It's hard to say at this point. Intel has promised a 50w quad core, which should overclock like crazy. But the price make it out of reach for most people on a budget. The current quad core runs at about 95 watts, and much higher when overclocked. I wouldn't overclock them without special cooling.

 

[shooter124]

i ask because since i heard about the price cuts i changed my plans from getting an e6420 and arctic cooling 7 pro to the q6600 and a more expensive hsf like the enzotech or the tuniq tower. Now I'm reconsidering this because I know they probably will both not be the best for running new games in a few years so maybe I should save 100-200$ now, go with a midrange chip like the e6750 when it comes out. I'm not quite sure what is the best, to go for price/performance now or get something that will last me as long as possible. I have an athlon 64 3200 and Ive had it for 3 years now but since then I've gotten into computers more so I may or may not want to upgrade sooner this time around... any thoughts?

 

[morerevs]

If anything i would say the quad(and more) cores will be more and more exploited over the coming years as far as programming for multitasking is concerned. However, this round of quads, much like the DX10 cards out now, might not be strong enough to actually fight the next round with convincing numbers. So 2 to 3 years is a long time with all this new tech coming out, but for the next year you should be comfortable with a current quadcore. As for the 6850, that seems more like a 'right here right now'kinda thing, whereas it will take some advantage from upcoming chipsets and it's excellent for current apps without even OCíng the thing. So this would be the way to go for people not looking too far ahead and just getting what's fast and available now. It's like the x6800 for noobs

 

[shooter124]

This is true, which is why I'm looking either at the q6600 and hoping I can be on top of things for three years, OR scaling back and getting something like e6420/e6650 and then not feeling as bad for upgrading in 2 years

 

[T8RR8R]

I'd go with the e6420 for now, as you said you won't feel so bad in a few years and really is still a pretty good processor. It's not a quad core or anything extreme but it's still pretty good, and you can always OC too.

 

[NaDa]

The first thing you should ask yourself... what do I use my computer for? Then it should be obvious how much money you should invest in it.

I am considering a q6600 cos it will improve my render times a lot.

If you are just gameing then buy an e4300 and overclock.

 

[anticupidon]

quad core =multitasking
dual core = gaming
of course you can have a dual core for multitasking and vice versa but ..i read an article where quaddies are not so good in games ,STALKER and a couple of titles..i read it at legion hardware or anandtech i can't remember exactly
my point is ...buy a computer for your needs and enjoy it!

 

[bryan1995]

I wrestled with with the e6850 vs Q6600 problem myself. To understand where to go, I think that first it is important to understand what intel is up to. Let's face it, there are not very many e6600 that won't do 333 fsb x9. In fact, I challenge anybody to post saying that they bought an e6600 that WON'T do that. Huh, that's funny, 333 x9 ....that's a 6850! The Q6600 is 266 x 9. I know that quads are more difficult to OC, but you should still be able to get 3-3.3 ghz on a 965 or p35 mobo very easily. So, I decided that I was likely to get at least as much OC on the quad core, and quite possibly even more. I have a zalman 9700 led and a case with very nice airflow, so lets assume that I can get to 3.3 on the q6600 and 3.8 on the e6850. Either one of those speeds will kill anything out today that is not gpu-limited. In a couple of years, crysis 2 and halo VIII will almost definitely take advantage of those extra cores, too, so you'll have a little bit more "future-proofing".

If you are comparing the q6600 to an e4300 then I can't help you. I personally would spend the extra $150 but I don't know your budget.

 

[bryan1995]

besides, you can do so much better on DC with a quad core!

 

[shooter124]

well its not so much the q6600 vs the e6850, i've considered that for a while too and realized if im going to spend that much the point would be the possibility of utilizing 4 cores in the next few years. So its either spend the extra money and hope some games and applications will give a distinct advantage over dual cores in the near future, or just get a e6650 or e6750 for about 100$ less and not worry about quad core until another 3 years down the line and i will have saved 100$ today.

question about quad cores:

if im running 4 different single threaded prorams at once will they all run faster than if i was using dual core? for example if i was using firefox, downloading ssomtehing, using winamp, running photoshop, ripping a dvd, would that all run faster using quad core even if the programs aren't made to utilize more than one core or would it be the same because they are all taxing one core??

side question: 2gb or 4gb of ram??

another side question: 1950xt for $160 now and upgrade to the next 8800 style card in a year or 8800320 now and no upgrades for a few years?

 

[bLAKEpERKINS]

but ..i read an article where quaddies are not so good in games

that is kinda true... lets say compare core for core in an amd 3000+ and the 3000 + x2: the cores in the x2 are slightly weaker but there are two of them. now i understand that that is like what has happend in these later cpus (DON'T take my word for it i mabye wrong).

another point is that if games where multi-threaded better then the 4 cores would own the dual, for example you will notice the difference in surpreme comander, as it was made with the ability to utilise all four cores.

 

[karlb]

you've got to be retarded if you would buy a e6850 over a q6600

you can overclock the q6600 to match the e6850, but you can't just go adding cores to the e6850.

 

[anticupidon]

Second dot key-breaking game of this review is Stalker, and this game proved to be quite an interesting one. To much of our surprise, quad-core CPUs were slightly behind dual-core ones, and higher performance of E6700 vs. QX6700 was something we did not expect. We ran the tests several times and every time quaddies would have a slight disadvantage over dual-core parts. We considered a possibility that graphics cards are maxed out, but overclocking the QX6800 and X6800 to 3.19 GHz ended up with same difference. We can conclude that either Stalker is maxing out the front side bus or the FSB is saturated that other two cores cannot work, or this game is tightly threaded and does not care for number of cores on the Socket.

link

 

[shooter124]

yeah anyone getting a q6600 knows that the e6850 will beat the pants off of it right now.

but how about the questions i posed above?

 

[jedi940]

if your going to go with vista, definitely 4GB but be aware that it will only show as just over 3 GB unless you get the 64 bit version. Of course then you might have compatability issues.

As for the Graphics Card, you will have to make up your mind on that. Personally I have the 8800 gts 320 and it rocks. Absolute max settings at 1280 X 1024 with 8x AA on BF and NO LAG!! WOO HOO

 

[fatcat]

I am in the same situation as you, come July 22 and I don't know what processor I'll be buying. I agree the q6600 is tempting but so is the 6850. If it takes the same time for application to take advantage of 4 cores as it did 2 cores, there is a good change that you might be in need of changing your processor again when it's a reality. I mean, dual core has been around a while and still, there is not so many applications taking advantage of it.

Karlb

you can overclock the q6600 to match the e6850, but you can't just go adding cores to the e6850.

I always feel funny when someone brings up this argument. It's like comparing one CPU over clocked to one that is not over clocked which is completely ridiculous since both can be over clocked. Even worst in this case since from what I have seen the 6850 is a very good OC'er. In one article I have read they got it to 3.9 Mhz on the stock HSF.

 

[shooter124]

the real question for me then seems to be the deal breaker:

if im running 6 applications at once like a bit torrent app, firefox, winamp, photoshop, aim etc and then i want to run another application, will it open faster and run faster because i have a quadcore, or not? Does each application you open get set to a different core or is everything running on one core until you open a program that specifically supports multi threaded operations.

 

[korsen]

Well here's my two cents, since i'm in the same boat, except i know what i'm getting to some point.

I'm getting the Q6600 to play games on, but i'm also getting it to deal with all the threads my pc runs, including the anti-everything that wants to run all the time. It will fit me, since i'm somewhat of a mega-tasker. I don't know what your budget is (probably didn't read it) but mine should be around 1500, maybe more, but i'll explain later.

I plan on getting the Asus P5K Deluxe since i'm going to overclock the FSB from 1066 to 2000, and i'm not sure if i should get the DDR3 board because i have to wait for DDR3 chips to launch and see how expensive they are. Otherwise i've got a nice pair of G.Skill DDR2-800 that i've seen get overclocked to 1100 - So it's either 1:1 with the DDR2, or it's extreme bandwidth with DDR3.

Anyway, that should leave the Q6600 somewhere around 3.5ghz but i also plan on getting a nice 300$ watercooling set to cool that, the NB/SB, and maybe a 2900XT that i'll overclock too. I might also add in an extra two radiators on my loop. And this doesn't quite matter but i'll be getting probably a 750w modular PSU.

The only problem is that this board can only have 1 gfx card running on 16x. The X38 boards have up to 2 16x lanes and an extra 8x lane, or one board i think had 4 8x lanes. Anyway, you could either look into my build which will only be good for single card graphics, or wait for X38 like i might be and find out which board takes the Q6600 as high as the P5K Deluxe. (Because i want to XFire my board, i have a 21" CRT, so max res for me).

As far as longevity, i know you'll understand this because you're on a single core +3200. I'm running an Athlon XP +3000 @ 2.1ghz, and it's run all my games pretty well for the graphics cards i've had in this box, it's just multitasking that it sucks at. And i've been on dual-cores... I don't find them all too special, and since they've been around for quite some time now, quad-cores are the chips to keep you into the future for a while before intel releases it's hyperthreaded chips (i'm so excited for that).

Anyway, my point is, i've had this athlon for a good two years (i bought this cause it was cheaper, even when the 939 socket was fairly mature) and it's ran me fine. You can only think that a quad-core at this point would last me many many more years - and since i/we are overclocking everything, my box should last me a good 4 years or more till i need to replace the gfx card, and then maybe 7 years before i buy a new box.

Should you go for my build, you'll have a high-end rig for quite some time, even with the release of new chips. Unless intel makes the new arch over 1.5x better clock for clock, nothing is going to really compete with a quad-core in terms of overall performance. What could touch a 3.5ghz quad except a better quad? And even if intel is making native quads, as well as AMD, they're reducing cache, and to really drive my argument home, how can you say no to a quad-core that costs you $266? So a new one comes out, low-end dual-cores were freaking $266 just a short while ago. Pair a Q6600 with a P35 board and you have a free overclock from 1066 to 1333 (i.e. no voltage increases on anything. Just ramp the fsb!)

Hope this helps.

EDIT: I'll be running 2x1GB dual channel, but if i was willing to tolerate Vista64 driver issues i'd go for 4GB+ for sure. But i'm not.

EDIT2: The next quads will be running at 1333FSB stock and have 6MB of cache, so you can't buy those if you want to overclock. It's the 1066FSB quads you want to buy (they have 8MB of cache too).

 

[shooter124]

I think that is all true but if I can make a chip run 3.5 ghz for 100 less than that quad that will only be running at 3.0ghz AND the quad has no real advantage over the duo, its not really worth it. I still want to know if a lot of programs are open do they get helped by the quad core or are they all running on a single core unless they're designed specifically to utilize multiple cores.

 

[turpit]

VT 6?

 

[korsen]

i've never used them before, but i've read all you have to do is set core affinity, and viola, you're running things on separate cores which means your applications open and run faster. And who cares if there aren't any programs to take advantage of a quad besides all types of editing and backup software? You are NOT running one process on your computer at a time. You will never be able to run anything less than 14 (maybe you can, but nothing under 10 afaik is possible on XP). So if you're ever going to multitask, you WILL be using more than two cores. It's all about knowing how to use your hardware. Just open task manager and tell me how many threads are there, and then tell me you cant possibly make any use of an extra two cores, and if you can do all of that, call me an idiot.

EDIT: And to be honest, processors are one of the few things that almost never need upgrading unless it's to overhaul your PC. You should be worried about getting a quad to futureproof your pc instead of worrying about a gfx card that is going to be obsolete in a year and a half. If i bought a 939 dual core when they were like 430$ for the cheapest one, i'd still have no need at this time to upgrade my pc for another year or two.

And afaik you can get a quad to hit 4ghz+ on water.

 

[elbert]

In supreme commander the Q6600 doubles your FPS over the E6600. The X6800 OC'ed can only up your FPS by half what the E6600 does. If you have programs which can use quad core then it will beat any dual core hands down.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/660-3/supreme-commander-benchmark.html

 

[minty]

..i read an article where quaddies are not so good in games

But unfortunately it seems my current Dual will be good for running the INSTALLER of Alan Wake (I hope at least it installs).
That game can use up to 5 threads (physics, sound and else).

So I guess once the first DX10 games start shipping Quads will be the thing to have in that realm

Will these e6850s and q6600 still be useful for the latest apps/games 2-3 years down the line?

I think in 2009 we will have a descent bunch of games making full use of as much cores available you have (and I dont mean 2, I mean more like the games expecting 4 and the engines getting ready for 8).
I dont know when octo cores are to be shipped (maybe 2009?)... but Im guessing maybe 3 years as high end is too much hope? (Likely I think my dual will hold up for some months and Quads can make it up to 1 year and a half from now, considering you upgrade to one of the DX10 videocards born in 2008).

In any case I think the question remains. Do you totally need this computer now or not?
If you dont, wait.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

The question is... if the q6600 is $260 in July... how much cheaper would a quad set-up be in 6-9 months??? $150 for the Q6X00s??