Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6700, E6850, or QX6700, Your Suggestions!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 19, 2007 1:02:36 PM

Okay, looking for input from everyone’s recent experiences.

Any thoughts, I am going to build my new PC in July when the price drop hits and I am floating between either the Q6700, or the E6850, I was almost considering the QX6700 but now sure if it was worth it at the moment. Anyway, the system will be mainly for gaming and I am open right now to comments and suggestions, along with other things I should consider during my CPU selection.

Thanks
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2007 1:58:49 PM

The QX6700 is not worth it, not with Q6700 available for $400 less in a month.

For now Supreme Commander is the only game using quad cores properly, but that will improve. I'd say go for a quad, especially if you don't plan to upgrade again soon.

Why the Q6700 and not the Q6600, actually? With the Q6600 you'd pay half the price of the Q6700 and get 90% of the performance. If you're interested in bragging rights at least get the QX6850.
June 19, 2007 3:37:30 PM

Any quad core thats not the q6600 is totally not worth it after july.
Related resources
June 19, 2007 4:38:42 PM

After considering the situation I think I will have to seriously consider going with the Q6600, my whole problem, and maybe it isn’t a problem, but what I am trying to figure it is what the real benefit is between the Q6700 and the QX6700, I guess that really applies to any of the extreme models, is it worth it. I know it depends on the use, but really, lay it out for me, why would I, or anyone else, pick one over of the other.

Thanks!
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2007 4:48:25 PM

The QX6700 has three advantages:

1. It has an "X" in the name, which sounds great when you say "EXTREME".
2. Unlocked multiplier helps when overclocking.
3. It's available today, you don't have to wait another month.
June 19, 2007 4:56:44 PM

Okay, I can live without 2 of the 3 you mentioned, but, and I have never done any overclocking so this may seem stupid, if I want to experiment with OCing how important is it for the multiplier to not be locked.
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2007 5:30:36 PM

I'd better let somebody else reply to that one with details. A locked multiplier reduces your options, i.e. you have one less thing to fiddle with. It is important if you want to overclock to the max. It is not important if you want to overclock only a bit or not at all. Keep in mind that overclocking to the max would also require more expensive RAM and cooling.

Some light reading, if you're interested:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/E6600-multiplier-dropped-ftopict192298.html
http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=4945&pid=31379&st=0&#entry31379
June 19, 2007 5:33:55 PM

Kronos, I am by no means an expert overclocker. I have the qx6700 for gaming and multimedia stuff (video editing.)

The multiplier is needed to increase the cpu speed but changing the FSB can also overclock. Those are the two adjustments required to adjust the speed of the CPU, Multiplier and FSB. You can adjust the fsb with the motherboard and overclock (while not changing the muliplier.) But this is only if the motherboard is capable of doing so and you will have to look into that to see if it is able.


My games run fine at 2.66 Ghz with a 1066 fsb. I can overclock but everything runs fine as it is and frankly, my games are way over 60fps for almost every game. I am not a performance edge guy when it comes to this stuff but I don't think you will regret waiting a month for your target cpu and getting the advantages it will come with down the road.
June 19, 2007 7:05:33 PM

Hum, interesting, i have to get the future build specs together and try and find out from some of the experts online here how easy it would be to overclock the system with the Q6600. Given all the other aspects that factor in it might be hard to make the final decision on the processor at this time.

Thanks!!
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2007 7:43:51 PM

Hey, you've got 32 more days to figure it out :lol: 

Use the Search button, you'll find 40 threads for "Q6600 overclock". Mostly boring but you may get some useful hints.
June 19, 2007 10:50:10 PM

Well, with only 32days left I better now waste another minute. :D 
June 20, 2007 12:14:51 AM

I sold my QX6700 for $850..lost $100..but I didn't want to go Watercooling which I think is absolutely necessary for any OCing with the quads. I tried the top 2 aircoolers...120 ultra TR...Tuniq...as well as the freezone which the quad cookied..literally. I have th E6600 now and it hits 3.68 on air without a hiccup. SO if you want to OC, go H2O with a Quad, if not, stick with the duos for air.
June 20, 2007 11:54:04 PM

i would not spend any thing extra on over 2.4ghz and 1066 bus

the bus is not the limiting factor and C2D chips run better at low multipliers for the most part - if your air cooling the chip gets hot at 3.3ghz regardless if its a Q or a QX, a 67 or 66 or a 68 for that matter.

if you water cooling 3.6ghz is about it if want to keep it from frying - still the 66oo version at 3.4ghz is still in low end of the fsb for many new mobos.

why waste your money get a q6600!

just like p4's, a 3.4, 3.6 and 3.8 all maxed out a 4.25ghz
June 21, 2007 12:27:19 AM

Quote:
Kronos, I am by no means an expert overclocker. I have the qx6700 for gaming and multimedia stuff (video editing.)

The multiplier is needed to increase the cpu speed but changing the FSB can also overclock. Those are the two adjustments required to adjust the speed of the CPU, Multiplier and FSB. You can adjust the fsb with the motherboard and overclock (while not changing the muliplier.) But this is only if the motherboard is capable of doing so and you will have to look into that to see if it is able.


My games run fine at 2.66 Ghz with a 1066 fsb. I can overclock but everything runs fine as it is and frankly, my games are way over 60fps for almost every game. I am not a performance edge guy when it comes to this stuff but I don't think you will regret waiting a month for your target cpu and getting the advantages it will come with down the road.


Just to add to this:

Overclocking on C2D with locked multi can only be achieved by increasing the FSB. The default is 266MHz FSB.

FSB frequency x CPU multiplier = CPU frequency.

So 266 FSB x 9 multi (E6600, Q6600) = 2.394GHz (default frequency)

Very simple.

The advantage with having an unlocked multi is that it offers much greater flexibility. To reach 3.6GHz, for instance, with the E6600 or Q6600 you will need to raise FSB to 400MHz, which your chipset may or may not be capable of achieving (actually this won't be a problem with enthusiast chipsets). With an unlocked multi, you are basically able to increase the CPU frequency independently of FSB, which has several advantages particularly if you intend to run your memory modules at lower latency etc.
June 21, 2007 12:42:19 AM

To be honest, the unlocked multiplier is a bit of a non-issue, since you will hit the CPU's speed ceiling before you hit the RAM's or the FSB's (provided you have a decent mobo).
June 21, 2007 1:36:19 PM

Interesting, well in terms of OCing I was only thinking of getting the Q6600 and pushing it, maybe if possible, up to 3GHz. I don’t want to over due it my first time out the gate.

The MoBo and Ram I was considering going with is listed below. Basically I am not sure yet if there is any value in going with the Quad Set of GeIL or just buying two sets of the G.SKILL. Anyway, I am open to suggestions, I figured since everything I have read to date mentions that the MoBo and Ram play such a big role in OCing that I would get everyone’s opinion..

Thanks


EVGA 122-CK-NF68-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard – Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

GeIL Black Dragon 8GB(4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Quad Channel Kit Desktop Memory – Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 21, 2007 2:16:39 PM

Kronos,

I have the first version of that MOBO which had some bugs but will easily give you some flexibility for OCing.

I assume you are running or will be running a 64bit OS as you are looking at 4gb of ram. Vista -32bit and WinXP -32bit will only utilize 2GB of ram.

Both of those RAM sets are ddr2 800. I might consider upping it to ddr2 1066. If cost is an issue, then get a good value for the ddr2 800. The 1066 will give you a little more flexibility in overclocking.

Furthermore, I have 1066 and I overclock by changing that Multiplier only, leaving the RAM and FSB linked (1:1 ratio) at 1066. This is (as I have heard) the most efficient way to run the FSB-RAM-CPU subsystem. There are guys here who know more, and tweak and get it down to that last wire, but I don't have time. If I did, I would. This strictly speaking from the perspective of newer builders like ourselves.

Jer
June 21, 2007 2:21:10 PM

Same here, First time trying to do any OCing, I am actually looking to go out to 8Gigs of Ram, with 64 Vista, but I may make that trade off and go with the 1066 instead of paying extra for the 8Gigs of Ram. I will develop a system outline and post it on the boards and get some opinions from everyone on the build and see what they think.

Thanks again!
June 21, 2007 2:53:14 PM

Cool.

It may be worth checking to see the goods and bads of the OS. I simply have never used a 64 bit OS. Without sarcasm, is it that much better? I don't think it can run games at all made for 32 bit systems. It crushes 32 bit systems when coming to engineering, massive multimedia stuff, etc but if you are looking to play games, you may not get the bang for your buck, or any bang for that matter. (Yes, 64 bit is coming to all, but I think we have a few years.)

I just don't know. Having spent money on things that did not pan out for me, I hope you save some frustration.

Make your specs and see what people think.

Jer
June 21, 2007 4:46:06 PM

Good Point, I am not to familiar with the 64Bit systems myself, that is something else I need to look into more in-depth. For me, the rig is mainly for gaming so, if I can't play any of the games I enjoy on the system that it really isn't worth it for me. In the meantime I am compiling my list of equipment and my objectives for the forums to get everyone’s input, especially since I am new to OCing. The PSU values I am coming up with is crazy....
June 21, 2007 5:03:05 PM

64bit windows OS can also run 32bit application, but a little bit slower (generally). But hey, the bright side is that you don't have to upgrade your hardware since you most likely have a 64bit compatible CPU, ram, mobo. If your hardware is capable of running 64bit, then why not run 64bit OS?
June 21, 2007 6:18:20 PM

Jackluo,

I had no idea. Isn't another consideration however the need to purchase/download 64 bit applications for everything? The big stuff like MS Office (if people do that) and the little stuff like overclocking software, spyware anaylzers etc.?

Is one able to play those games directly on a 64bit OS or in a virtual machine on the same computer?

(For me and any one else that wants to know.)

Thanks,

Jer
June 21, 2007 6:25:36 PM

Definitely one can play any 32bit games on a virtual 32bit OS. Since the point of Virtual machine is to become another machine, it will work.

Quote:
the big stuff like MS Office
Is there even a 64bit MS office because i've never heard of it. Here's a link that explains that office 2007 32 bit can run on 64bit operating system but with some limitations.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ha1016686510...

More links explaining,
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MtHMPzqd_N0J:news.z...

Quote:
Although 64-bit systems can run 32-bit software, they require new drivers for any hardware device--drivers that have been slow in coming.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/64bit.html
June 21, 2007 7:27:09 PM

Thanks man. That xbit article is a great find.

I guess my feeling is that I don't need to mess with the 64 bit stuff as I am all set 'functionally'.

With respect to games in the present, (without contention), why would one switch to 64 bit with more memory but with slower games? For example, I have winxp pro 32bit and my games run fine and fun. I have 2gb of ram. Is there some other reason (other than number crunching) to buy another 2 GB ram (or more) to fill in the slots and run a 64 bit system to have the games I have run slower any way?

Now, I always love upgrades, and I am not a fanboy of one or the other, I just don't see a functional advantage. Any thoughts?

Jer
June 21, 2007 7:38:18 PM

You get less virus by switching to 64bit operating system, or thats what i heard. Vista 64bit doesn't support 16bit programs. Most viruses are 16bit thus less virues.
June 21, 2007 8:41:53 PM

I've been running XP x64 for a year or more and have been running Vista x64 for the past month on my new machine. I have no problems running any of the games I play including: BF2, CS:S, Supreme Commander, WoW, Starcraft & GRAW. 64bit has come a long way and too many people still think it's worthless and too hard to get drivers for. Some of my favorite freeware even has x64 support such as Auslogics Disk Defrag and others. I remember when installing BF2 that I get a warning saying that it has only been tested on 32bit OS's but it runs and installs just fine. All my other 32bit apps work fine as well. I'm sure there are some exceptions such as drivers for old periphials and such but if your hardware and periphials are that old than it may be time to upgrade them too.
Speaking of Office 2007, yes it is only 32 bit and I have that installed on my Vista x64 as well and it works without a hitch.
June 21, 2007 8:43:48 PM

from what i've heard, the problems with 64bit OS's stem mostly from device drivers. A lot of manufacturers do not provide 64bit drivers, so those pieces of hardware will not work properly.

maybe it's not as much of a concern now like the poster above said, but i've never tried.
June 21, 2007 8:48:28 PM

Yes, you are right but for older hardware and periphials. I'm not trying to sell anybody on x64 but if you have current hardware & periphials then I wouldn't be scared of it if you are wanting to have more than 2GB of RAM.
June 21, 2007 9:14:24 PM

Zorfloe,

That is great perspective. I had no idea. I also appreciate the device driver thought.

Do you think that extra ram actually contributes to the final "feel" and performance of the system? Do games load/run that much faster?

My understanding is that current games (bf2 etc.) are built for a max of 2gb and virtual memory. I do not know if they would use more memory if one had 4 gigs and if that would improve performance.

Hippo, the starting poster of this thread, is considering a new system and I certainly see some value in just starting off at a 64 bit OS, especially if it all works. I was just wondering about your impression of the function overall for a gamer. Is it worth pouring out the cash for 4-8 gigs of ram for the future if the games today would not utilize it?

Any thoughts?
June 21, 2007 9:23:03 PM

If you had 8GB of ram, you could use ramdrive and install the game on that. It will load many times faster than loading from hard drive.
June 22, 2007 12:16:14 AM

This is a interesting thing to consider overall, I hate to buy an operating system more than once, I really want to do Vista ULT but I am not going to buy it twice, so if I go 32bit now I wonder if there would be any value in the 64bit later, or maybe I will be okay over the next 6 years until the next big platform comes out. I am sure at some point the games, along with other popular software selections, will start to transition over to 64bit, the real question is when?
June 22, 2007 1:54:59 AM

Vista Ultimate has both version..at least mine does.
June 22, 2007 2:16:19 AM

That is what I thought but I wasn't sure if I was reading it right. Here is a sad statement, I wrote to MS (Microsoft) three different times and asked the question "Does Vista ULT come with both versions of the OS 32 and 64" Three times I received different answers, sad, one was a link to the info page on Vista itself, the other was a link to a page on 64bit compatibility, and the last said NO! My god no one over there knows the products they are pushing, that is sad, even most of the street vendors (criminals, but I am trying to be politically correct) are aware of the products they push these days. Well go figure, it is MS.....
June 22, 2007 2:20:42 AM

Vista Ultimate retail version has both 32bit and 64bit versions. You cannot use 2 versions at the same time because you only have 1 license. If you buy the Vista Ultimate OEM version, then it comes in either 32 or 64bit, which ever version you choose.
!