Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom's 2007 CPU Charts

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 16, 2007 11:58:30 AM

We Compare 91 AMD and Intel processors, including Intel's brand new Core 2 FSB1333 CPUs, under Windows Vista and across 37 individual benchmarks.

http://stage.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/

More about : tom 2007 cpu charts

July 16, 2007 1:24:05 PM

Good article, it took a long time to read. It's nice to see that AMD (with the 6000+ at least) still has fairly a competitive product. It clearly shows that quads are the future and as more programs take advantage of them the will leave dual cores in the dust, anyone who was wondering Q6600 or E6850 just needs to read that. Good job.
Related resources
July 16, 2007 2:28:24 PM

Exactly right there AUsch30 -- just get a Q6600 and OC it to 3.0 GHz and you got all you need for a damn long time. No need to spend the $$$ on the Q6700 or QX6800. Especially with more and more games headed for multi-core use just look at the Supreme Commander benches - the quads RULE!!!
July 16, 2007 4:14:15 PM

Well I don't know if you noticed but the E6850 scored better than the Q6600 at supreme commander, which is supposed to be a game that utilizes multiple cores, as well as nearly all of the other games tested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the E6850 also has greater overclocking potential than the Q6600, which would also make it more appealing.

I bring this up because I am about to build myself a new computer because I am currently running a agonizingly slow Athlon XP 2000+. And one of the things that I have been researching heavily is the choice between the E6850 and Q6600. Based on what I have been reading on these forums over the past week I was fairly sure I was going to go with the Q6600, but after looking at those benchmarks I'm having doubts...
July 16, 2007 5:35:47 PM

And like you zenze I have been reading a LONG time. I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual. I like AMD, but have never built an Intel system.

Am I reading the article right that a currently available AM2 6000+ running on a Nvidia 680I chipset WILL work on that socket with a future AMD Quad due out in next 6 months? So that the only thing I have to change would be a bios flash and the new quad dropped in to the existing MB, etc.
July 16, 2007 5:53:16 PM

For the next year or three, a Duo core cpu will let you overclock higher, cost less, with less investment in cooling and run your apps faster than a Quad will. For 90% of the buying public.

On the other hand, if you do 3D rendering / modelling, a lot of video encoding, a lot of folding, live for running benchmarks or just want some game to run faster (of the small handfull that will take full advantage of 4 cores), then a Quad makes sense.
July 16, 2007 6:08:34 PM

Trouble is E6850 and Q6600 are the same price.

The way I see at the moment is this when choosing between them:

1. Are you a gamer?
If yes then go to 2.
If no then get a Q6600.

2. Will you be mostly playing current gen and last gen games or next gen games?
If Current + Last gen get a E6850 (5-15% better than Q6600 in this area)*
If Next gen get a Q6600 (Up to 80% better than a E6850 in this area)*

*Percentages very rough guestimates based on the benches I have seen so far... there will always be exceptions though.
July 16, 2007 6:27:14 PM

In relation to my, (Ertman's) post above.
I game a lot, widescreen monitor, will obtain with new build 8800 GTX or better to go with it.

I run BF2, 2142 now maxed out and do okay. STALKER is another story. My point is I like AMD, just trying to figure out if the AMD quads will run with the setup I mention above.
July 16, 2007 6:53:27 PM

Aono said:
Trouble is E6850 and Q6600 are the same price.


...not really true if you consider overclocking and cooling. To overclock them to the same speed (which you won't be able to do - the Duo with it's new G0 stepping will clock much better than the older stepping Quad), would require a more expensive cooling solution on the Quad, making it more expensive, overall.

Aono said:
The way I see at the moment is this when choosing between them:

1. Are you a gamer?
If yes then go to 2.
If no then get a Q6600.

2. Will you be mostly playing current gen and last gen games or next gen games?
If Current + Last gen get a E6850 (5-15% better than Q6600 in this area)*
If Next gen get a Q6600 (Up to 80% better than a E6850 in this area)*

*Percentages very rough guestimates based on the benches I have seen so far... there will always be exceptions though.


I guess I see it a bit differently than listed above, for a few reasons...

- if you have a few apps (be it games, 3D rendering, media encoding, folding, whatever) that you use often and can already take advantage of multiple cores and you don't mind your system running hotter/slower for everything else - then get a Quad.

- Otherwise, the newer stepping Duos are more than capable for most users needs for the next few years, will overclock higher, run cooler and cost less at the same time.

- 80% better?? That's either highly specific to some game where it won't mean an 80% better playing experiance to start with or just highly unrealistic. Game developers will start migrating to running more threads where it makes sense, but they can't start writing games that require a Quad to run. Either way, this migration will take time. I'd consider "80% better" to be the exception, not the rule :) . But hey, check back with me 3-4 years from now and I might agree.

...I expect the picture to change with favor swinging more towards Quads, a little bit once they get a newer stepping and again once the move to 45nm is made (lower power consumption, less heat), so if you think you could utilize a quad, it might still be better to wait if you're not in any hurry.
July 16, 2007 7:00:57 PM

I would just like to point out that the Q6600 is supposed to start getting the G0 stepping as well according to something I read someplace :>>>

I'm hoping it does because it will be on my shortlist when that happens.

Until then, the G0 stepping is really the way to go.
Most of the review sites have not fully given it complete credit yet.

I've seen some posts with people getting 3.6Ghz on 1.30v and close to 4.0Ghz under 1.4v. (That is just CRAZY!)


Spanki said:
...not really true if you consider overclocking and cooling. To overclock them to the same speed (which you won't be able to do - the Duo with it's new G0 stepping will clock much better than the older stepping Quad), would require a more expensive cooling solution on the Quad, making it more expensive, overall.

July 16, 2007 7:05:19 PM

So, theoretically; crysis will run better on the E6850? since supreme commander also uses 4 cores; why does it run faster on the Duo?

or am i just getting all crosseyed?
July 16, 2007 7:10:05 PM

I said "Up to 80% better", what I mean by that is gains right now non-existent or slightly worse. But over the next few months the gain will be very small, maybe 0-5%. Next 12 months 5-15% better. 2 years time, 15-50% better and it will continue to grow. I don't it's unrealistic to think that by the end of their life the Q6600 will be out performing the E6850 by a large margin.

I'm also only talking about stock speeds so you may be right about over clocking potential, I don't know. I%u2019ve seen people argue it both ways. Some say the E6850 over clocks more; while others say that although the Q6600 doesn%u2019t over clock as much, BUT any gain you do make is worth more performance Mhz for Mhz when compared to E6850. EG A +600Mhz increase on a Q6600 improves performance more than +600Mhz would on the E6850.

But this is the future we're talking about so who knows?
July 16, 2007 7:22:05 PM

From what I saw in the charts the Q6600 was slightly slower in most benches than the E6850 and the benches in which it was faster it beat the pants off it. If you plan on getting a 45nm quad when they come out I would say go for the E6850 but if you plan on keeping the CPU for a few years the quad would be the better choice.
July 16, 2007 7:26:43 PM

Aono said:
But this is the future we're talking about so who knows?


Ohhh, i know someone who knows....my good ol' friend, God
July 16, 2007 7:34:02 PM

zenmaster said:
I would just like to point out that the Q6600 is supposed to start getting the G0 stepping as well according to something I read someplace :>>>

I'm hoping it does because it will be on my shortlist when that happens.

Until then, the G0 stepping is really the way to go.
Most of the review sites have not fully given it complete credit yet.

I've seen some posts with people getting 3.6Ghz on 1.30v and close to 4.0Ghz under 1.4v. (That is just CRAZY!)


Yeah, I thought I read that the Q6600 was getting the G0 stepping as well, but I don't remember where now. Personally, I do 3D rendering/modelling for a living and do folding as well, so my next cpu upgrade will be a Quad, but I'm more interested in what the situation will look like with the Oct. (or even Feb. 08) price-cuts than the July 22nd ones. Hopefully by then the quads will be on the new stepping and we should have a better picture of what the Intel 45nm chips and AMD offerings look like.
July 16, 2007 8:06:20 PM

MMM……

I notice the absent of the AMD FX -7x models.
July 16, 2007 9:06:59 PM

Aono said:
I said "Up to 80% better", what I mean by that is gains right now non-existent or slightly worse. But over the next few months the gain will be very small, maybe 0-5%. Next 12 months 5-15% better. 2 years time, 15-50% better and it will continue to grow. I don't it's unrealistic to think that by the end of their life the Q6600 will be out performing the E6850 by a large margin.

But this is the future we're talking about so who knows?


15-50% in 2 years???? man, by then quad cores will probably be argued as being as crusty as father time and folks will be raving about 8 cores and higher as the must have item. I won't even comment on that 80% number!!

The only thing we need to worry about is that with prices falling having 4 cores over 2 will become, or is, essentially, FREE. Whether we see any benefits now, in 2 months or two years is irrelevant. We don't know. Lets just stick to that shall we.
July 16, 2007 9:20:13 PM

warezme said:
15-50% in 2 years???? man, by then quad cores will probably be argued as being as crusty as father time and folks will be raving about 8 cores and higher as the must have item.


Of course... but what's that got to do with how well the Q6600 will perform relative to the E6850?
July 16, 2007 9:46:36 PM

The 6850 is also at 3.0 GHz; just grab the 6600 and OC to 3.0 GHZ and bam you got 1 kick-ass chip with 4 cores. Can you say bring on Crysis, Alan Wake, the new Valve engine, etc. et.c which all of the future games will be using.
July 16, 2007 10:41:23 PM

Forgive me as I'm a noob in many things but what exactly is g0 stepping and what is its benefit?
July 16, 2007 11:29:27 PM

fx51 said:
MMM……

I notice the absent of the AMD FX -7x models.


And I noticed the absence of my FX60. Surely its better than a lot of those celerons and such. It may only be an old fashioned 939 cpu, but its still fairly quick, especially when overclocked to 3.1 ghz.
July 16, 2007 11:30:38 PM

zenze589 said:
Forgive me as I'm a noob in many things but what exactly is g0 stepping and what is its benefit?


Lower power usage + higher allowed Tcase temps + lower voltage needed = higher overclocking.

Just google "G0 stepping".

Oh and apparently the Q6600 is moving to that stepping, with general availability starting today (the 16th).
July 17, 2007 12:45:32 AM

zenze589 said:
Well I don't know if you noticed but the E6850 scored better than the Q6600 at supreme commander, which is supposed to be a game that utilizes multiple cores, as well as nearly all of the other games tested.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the E6850 also has greater overclocking potential than the Q6600, which would also make it more appealing.

I bring this up because I am about to build myself a new computer because I am currently running a agonizingly slow Athlon XP 2000+. And one of the things that I have been researching heavily is the choice between the E6850 and Q6600. Based on what I have been reading on these forums over the past week I was fairly sure I was going to go with the Q6600, but after looking at those benchmarks I'm having doubts...



That quad cores will out perform a faster dual core is a common misconception, and one that has been promulgated relentlessly by the 'wide eyed' tennie bopper crowd that is overcome by the 'more is better' theory, but dont understand multi threading or advertising.

Saying that an app is multithreaded or optimized for multicore does not mean it will give better perfromance for a greater # of cores. There are at least 3 ways (that I know of) to write multithreaded programs; fine, course and hybrid. Depending on which method is used to write a given program, that application may or may not see improved performance by increasing core #.

In the case of course threading, it will give you the best overall performance increase of the 3 methods, but a thread must be writen for each core...meaning a course threaded app written for 2 cores will see no improvement by going to 4 cores. It will not scale.

Fine threading on the other hand will scale, but will not give the same performance boost that course threading will. So a fine threaded app will not run as fast on 2 cores as the same app would if it were written in course, but the fine threaded app will improve in perfromance with more cores, up to the point it runs out of individual loops to process.

Hybrid threading combines the two methods and like fine threading will make scale up on more cores, but also like fine threading, does not give as good a gain as course threading.

So, when an app is advertised as making use of, or optimized for mulitcore, it doesnt mean it will scale up in performance for every core added, only that it will use more than one core. Of course, most kiddies see 'optimized for multicore' and just assume it means the app will take as many cores as you can throw at it. Those same kiddies then proceed to run around the internet crying 'buy the quad, buy the quad, it rulz' but as the test results show, clockspeed is still important.

Something to consider. Dual core processors have been around for awhile now. Apps that make use of dual core (with the exception of the heavy data crunchers like 3d rendering, video editing, encoding ect) havent exactly been been 'raining' down upon us. There are a handfull of upcoming big title games that will make use of quad core, but these are only a fraction of apps currently or soon available. But because these games are highly anticipated, and highly hyped, they are getting a lot of attention, making it seem as if every new app to be released is going to be quad capable. Just not true. Trust the benchmarks, not the stuff you read in the forums. ;) 
July 17, 2007 1:15:17 AM



I would like to add that in Supreme Commander you get an extra 10 frames for 2 extra cores. Big deal. I think it will be ashame if they start to make games that don't maximize frames for everyone no matter how many cores you have. Hell I don't want to have to buy a quad core just to play some crappy game because that is what it is optimized for. The programmers need to utilize all the resources of the computer so if I have a high end card then it damn well better be used. But an extra 10 frames is not a big deal I would say that is kinda sad. People are going core crazy. I purchased a AM2 6000+ for $170.00 and it is a great chip and all I will need for a while. I think we are at a cross roads where the software needs to catch up with the hardware. Pretty soon we will have 8-10 cores and if all it gives me is an extra 10 frames I say who needs it. :hello: 
July 17, 2007 2:04:34 AM

Denisimo said:
Update your article. Its out of date.

Intel 965, 975, Officially supports 1333FSB CPU with BIOS update as of today.

http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=7866


The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?

If you do not argee with me, then try calling Intel Tech Supp. :D 

In other words the article is not outdated.

Cheers
July 17, 2007 3:02:56 AM

Hats off to Toms. Nice article Patrick and Bert. I enjoyed this very much. I really liked the chart showing the differences between the Intel FSB speeds. I hope you do the same with DDR3 as it becomes more popular.

Bravo!
July 17, 2007 3:11:46 AM

I'm planning a build right now and will buy the CPU after 7/22. I too have been torn between the E6850 and the Q6600. I was leaning towards the Q6600 until Tom's posted their latest CPU charts. In almost every benchmark the E6850 beat the Q6600.

turpit said it well:
Quote:
clockspeed is still important


I think you have to know what you use your PC for to make a good decision on whether to get a dual or quad core. In my case, I do some gaming, a pinch of video editing, some development, and office applications. So now, after seeing the new CPU charts, I am definitely going with the dual core. It will suit what I do better than the quad. In addition, the new 45nm chips are soon to hit the shelves so all of a sudden the current chips are last generation. I figure the dual core will suit me just fine for a few years until more software is out that will properly utilize quad core chips and at that time I will just upgrade my chip when it makes sense to do so.

Cheers.
July 17, 2007 3:23:10 AM

caamsa said:
I would like to add that in Supreme Commander you get an extra 10 frames for 2 extra cores. Big deal. I think it will be ashame if they start to make games that don't maximize frames for everyone no matter how many cores you have. Hell I don't want to have to buy a quad core just to play some crappy game because that is what it is optimized for. The programmers need to utilize all the resources of the computer so if I have a high end card then it damn well better be used. But an extra 10 frames is not a big deal I would say that is kinda sad. People are going core crazy. I purchased a AM2 6000+ for $170.00 and it is a great chip and all I will need for a while. I think we are at a cross roads where the software needs to catch up with the hardware. Pretty soon we will have 8-10 cores and if all it gives me is an extra 10 frames I say who needs it. :hello: 


Thats true, but the problem is, with the course threading (which would give the best improvement), its more demanding to write. Fine threading just takes loops and divides them among the cores, so its just sub routines that are getting done by the extra cores, and thats limited because the loops must be independant. That is, they can not require, or share information from other loops on different cores, so you gain a little, but not as much as course's full thread. The thing with fine threading is, as many independant loops as there are, they can be divided. So if you have twenty loops, you can keep adding cores up to 21 and continue getting improvement. So for the developers, the question is, go the easier route and use as many cores as possible without getting the maximum benefit, or take a longer time writing for a fixed number of cores, but make the most of them. Valve uses the hybrid method that incorporates both fine and course, so up to what ever number of course threads there are as I understand it, you should see solid improvement until you reach that number of cores. Then after that you should continue seeing improvement, but not at the same rate.

In any event, I sort of agree. Depends on prices and base frame rate. If your only getting 30FPS to start, then 10 more is a big improvement. But if it costs twice the price for the quad, then the heck with it. And I agree with the crossroads on the software, but weve been there for awhile in a lot of apps. And some apps will never change...you're never really going to need a multicore for word processing...then again, if theres a way to bloat a word processing program so much that it needs a multi core, Im sure M$ will find it. ;) 
July 17, 2007 4:03:56 AM

Ertman said:
And like you zenze I have been reading a LONG time. I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual. I like AMD, but have never built an Intel system.

Am I reading the article right that a currently available AM2 6000+ running on a Nvidia 680I chipset WILL work on that socket with a future AMD Quad due out in next 6 months? So that the only thing I have to change would be a bios flash and the new quad dropped in to the existing MB, etc.


:pfff:  The nVidia 680I chipset is for Intel processors, The nVidia 680a chipset is on AMD's dual socket L (AMD's quad :lol: ). If you want SLI on a AM2 platform you will have to get the nForce 590SLI chipset.
Good luck getting a AM2 processor to fit in a LGA775 motherboard.
July 17, 2007 4:07:09 AM

turpit said:
And some apps will never change...you're never really going to need a multicore for word processing...then again, if theres a way to bloat a word processing program so much that it needs a multi core, Im sure M$ will find it. ;) 


If there's anything I've learned through the years, its never to underestimate what M$ can do to make something small and easy into something big and difficult.
July 17, 2007 4:11:31 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
Good luck getting a AM2 processor to fit in a LGA775 motherboard.


I got a big hammer that says it will fit :o 

No guarentees that it will ever power up, but it will fit, one way or another. :kaola: 
July 17, 2007 5:11:26 AM

I never know what to think with this stuff.

I play games, so therefore I should get a E6850 due to high clock speed (3.0ghz) and OC ability (4.7ghz i've seen so far, probably 5.0ghz with the right set up).

I also do a lot of audio and video conversions which point me in the direction of the quad (specifically q6600). People are almost getting 4.0ghz on the q6600. That seems like the ticket to me, considering the non-gaming things I do, plus I'm usually running a few programs (instant messanger, spread sheet, web browser, word processor) while I do other stuff like encoding or gaming.

Logic would say that the Quad would be better. I hope I'm right, lol.
July 17, 2007 11:54:34 AM

Many thanks for this article :) 

I'm currently on an AMD 64 3800+ which is adequate for most things but is starting to drop behind in games. As this is what I mainly use it for, I've been doing some research into upgrading for about 8 weeks now.

Looks like the E6850 is the way to go, I was very much considering the Quads but I mainly play HL2 mods so I wouldn't make real use of them. Now I just need to get the cash to make the upgrade ;) 
July 17, 2007 6:17:00 PM

marky200484, what graphics card are you using? If you go the E6850 route you'll need a good PSU and good cooling, as well as a good graphics card to make the most of it.

Also, I'm quite pleased at how well the AMD processors compare, taking into account the fact they were there before Intel's mamouth effort in producing Core 2 Duo. From a price perspective I choose AMD because most of the systems I build have to run stable 24/7; they do not need to run at blistering speeds, not when they aren't running the most demanding apps.

The money I save from not buying Intel gets pumped back into better components: PSU, graphics and quality RAM. That's why the systems seldom come back and only then it's due to software or a faulty fan.

For video work it's a different matter: If clients can afford it, Core 2 Duo is good, Quad is better but there's no way I will put together a quad system without forking out for good cooling, not when they're running these rigs at full load.

So all in all considering their price, I don't think the AMD rigs are 'that' far behind. All these processors would make for excellent, general-purpose computers.
July 17, 2007 11:49:13 PM

netburst said:
The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?

If you do not argee with me, then try calling Intel Tech Supp. :D 

In other words the article is not outdated.

Cheers



Then the article should state that in the first place. Other wise it gives false information and/or misleading.
July 17, 2007 11:53:18 PM

Thanks Ghost for your reply. I didn't articulate that very well. Still learning.
July 18, 2007 8:18:10 AM

wild9 said:
marky200484, what graphics card are you using? If you go the E6850 route you'll need a good PSU and good cooling, as well as a good graphics card to make the most of it.


I'm on a 7600GT at the moment but upgrading to an 8800GTX when I buy the CPU :) 

Not 100% on the board yet but looking at an Enermax Galaxy 850W and probably a Zalman Cooler, still undecided on that as well ;) 
July 18, 2007 10:25:15 AM

netburst said:
The article was refering to official Intel support, and by da ways, Intel cant stop 3rd party manufacturers if they want to make a mobo based on their chipset officially support what ever they see fit. Remember when 915 chipsets were made compatible with the pentium D proc?


I have a Asus P5GDC Deluxe mobo which has a 915P chipset. It has currently a P530 cpu.
Do you know if this mobo supports a Pentium D upgrade, even considering a BIOS update?
Many thanks!
July 18, 2007 1:06:09 PM

Another way of looking at the choice between Q6600 and E8850:

In all games that are out today Q6600 will give you enought preformance to enjoy the gameplay to the fullest. On the other hand in most of the future games they claim to have an "optimised" support for Quad CPUs. In 2006 chairman of Remedy went as far as claiming that they got Alan Wake to the point where they can use one core just to calculate physics. I couldn't find any detailed info on what they mean by Quad core support in games besed on new Crytek/Unreal engines or even an "optimised" Valve engine but if they can use the extra two cores for physics and AI E8850 will plainly fail vs Q6600.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro

Some here have said that you have to trust benchmarks but all benchies in toms review are based on pretty much outdated games, Q6600 doesn't lag that far off behind the E8850 in Supreme Commander and in the review on anandtech E8850 falls behind Q6600 in Cave and Equals in Snow tests.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx... 5

I belive that it all comes down to your expectations. If you expect the gaming industry to find a way to REALLY USE Quads in the upcoming titles like UT3/Crysis/Wake and/or you work with apps benefiting from Quads - you hit Q6600. If you think that gamedevelopers are slow on the uptake you hit E8850 and live with fear that you might be wrong :heink:  And overcloking pretty much comes down to the same. If you overclock E8850 to 5 Ghz and Q6600 to 4 but your game/aplication has the ability to use all 4 cores it will be a total 4 Ghz increase for E8850 vs 5.36 Ghz increase for Q6600 :) 

July 18, 2007 1:26:23 PM

Xela... you're working with a lot of "what ifs," and "supposed" facts.

And let's not forget... Tom's may be using some old games, but a LOT of people play a LOT of old games. Counter-Strike 1.6 still has a HUGE user base, and is the focal point of a large amount of e-sports activity.


EDIT: I haven't gotten to the conclusion of the article yet.. but I hope they tell me why the e6850 failed on some benchs...

EDIT EDIT:
Wow... I just checked out the anandtech article. Since most users are looking at CPU from a purchasing standpoint, the anandtech article BLOOOWS the THG one out of the water. THG should have just posted their CPU charts and left the articles to anandtech.
July 18, 2007 3:42:21 PM

Phrozt said:
Xela... you're working with a lot of "what ifs," and "supposed" facts.

And let's not forget... Tom's may be using some old games, but a LOT of people play a LOT of old games. Counter-Strike 1.6 still has a HUGE user base, and is the focal point of a large amount of e-sports activity.


EDIT: I haven't gotten to the conclusion of the article yet.. but I hope they tell me why the e6850 failed on some benchs...

EDIT EDIT:
Wow... I just checked out the anandtech article. Since most users are looking at CPU from a purchasing standpoint, the anandtech article BLOOOWS the THG one out of the water. THG should have just posted their CPU charts and left the articles to anandtech.


* I was addressing the question of Q6600 vs E8850

I do work with a lot of "what ifs" and "supposed" facts but lets review what we know to be true facts:

Compared to E8850:

- Q6600 has more proccesing power if all 4 cores are used.
- Q6600 does it's part much better in games already released in 2007 (Lost Planet, Supreme Commander)
- Q6600 cannot be overclocked to the hights of E8850 but as far as four core applications go the benefit of 4 slighty less overclocked cores will outway the benefit of 2 overclocked cores. ( I only belive the latter to be a fact because of simple math ( as E8550 oc @ 5 Ghz will give us 2 * 5 = 10 Ghz vs Q6600 @ 3.5 * 4 = 14 Ghz), but there might be factors I am not aware of)
- Many of the upcoming titles such as UT3 + all games running U3 engine, Crysis + all games running new Crytek engine, Alan Wake claim to be Quad core friendly but noone is willing to tell us to what extend... (those games are not years but month away)

and that brings us back to where I've started:

* The answer of choice (for gamers) between the Q6600 and E8550 lies in eather you bet on game manufactures ability to utilise all cores in near future or their failure to do so and to that we do not have an answer based on solid facts.

PS: It's cool that people still play CS 1.6 but will you be better off with 150 FPS with E8850 then with 135 FPS with Q6600? Same counts for most of todays games ---> Q6600 should deliver you a cool gaming experience in any modern game.

PS2: Another two facts:
- I have not yet seen one site that would give a satisfactory prediction or even a guess in how the future gaming will/won't be boosted by Quads. My guess is that they have no solid facts to work with and are afraid to give guess as thier reputation in on the line.
- with a lot of howevers, buts and ifs, Anandtech went for Q6600 in the end :) 
July 18, 2007 6:34:33 PM

Spanki's link seems to indicate that the new G-0 stepped version of the Q6600 should be out for consumers to buy already (16 July 2007). I've pretty much decided on the Quad, but I wasn't sure if I'd be able to wait for the G-0 stepped version. Has anyone seen this version online yet? I would think that it will take some time for the vendors to sell off their current version of the Quad before they start selling the G-0 stepped version (logical?). I would think that any vendor that had the newer version would display that fact prominently...but I haven't seen one.
July 18, 2007 7:15:56 PM

Ertman said:
I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual


Socket 939 IS upgradeable to dual-core (Opterons + X2s) - unless you have an unusual motherboard?
July 18, 2007 7:17:42 PM

Ertman said:
I got bit by the 939 not being upgradeable to dual


Socket 939 IS upgradeable to dual-core (Opterons + X2s) - unless you have an unusual motherboard?
July 18, 2007 7:38:21 PM

gooman said:
Spanki's link seems to indicate that the new G-0 stepped version of the Q6600 should be out for consumers to buy already (16 July 2007). I've pretty much decided on the Quad, but I wasn't sure if I'd be able to wait for the G-0 stepped version. Has anyone seen this version online yet? I would think that it will take some time for the vendors to sell off their current version of the Quad before they start selling the G-0 stepped version (logical?). I would think that any vendor that had the newer version would display that fact prominently...but I haven't seen one.


Yes, the older stock will need to work it's way out of the market. If you want to be sure to get a G0-stepping, you could get on TankGuys list.
July 18, 2007 9:38:12 PM

So bottom line is that it all boils down to what you do the most, or what is more important to you, gaming vs quad core supported software.

Man, AMD sure has some ground to make up! :) 
July 21, 2007 7:48:23 AM

from the test result chats, i see the cpu, e6650.
i don't think e6650 is existed.
!