Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

e6850 or q6600?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 22, 2007 11:57:30 PM

Well, Im about to buy one of these processors. They are both about the same price, but I want to know which would be better value. I know everyone is saying the q6600 because you can overclock it to past 3ghz, but I probably wont want to overclock my computer. As of right now the e6850 might have an edge on the q6600 seeing that nothing is made to run quad-core, but when there are applications that take advantage of it, will the quad even be a whole lot better than they are now? There really isnt a way to tell from what I understand. What has me leaning towards the e6850 is the higher stock speed which means it will run faster while being more stable than an overclocked quad, and the fact that it will be 1333 fsb and not 1066.

More about : e6850 q6600

July 23, 2007 12:34:43 AM

What will you be doing with this comp? You can only determine if you need a quad or dual core by what you will be using it for.
July 23, 2007 1:06:45 AM

Gaming, 3D Programs (3ds Max), Photoshop. Everything basically.
Related resources
July 23, 2007 1:14:16 AM

Q6600 easily.
July 23, 2007 1:26:07 AM

The Q6600 will be good for your 3D stuff for sure.
July 23, 2007 1:55:04 AM

For me it was very easy to overclock my first time, it took me 15 minutes to get 3.6GHz. Then I simply ran Orthos for 72 hours (forgot that I even had it still running during my vacation, its stable for sure now. All you need to do is see what other people are getting as far as FSB speeds on the mobo your getting and just type in 400 fsb, then run Orthos for at least 12 hours.
July 23, 2007 2:31:16 AM

Your sig says e6600 not q6600...
July 23, 2007 2:49:28 AM

it will be used MAINLY for gaming, and form what i have seen in benchmarks, the e6850 performs better in games. I hear Crysis may take advantage of 4 cores, but i still would not want to buy a slower speed processer if the extra cores will not make a huge difference, seeing that i dont want to OC.
July 23, 2007 5:17:13 AM

Aono said:
Your sig says e6600 not q6600...


That was just an example of how easy it is to overclock. The Q6600 is basicly two E6600's nitted together on to the same die. The Q6600 may not reach as high an OC because you now have to cool four cores instead of just two.

Aono do you have anything helpful to add to this post?
July 23, 2007 6:31:35 AM

But then when you consider the steppings...An q6600 B3 or e6850 G0? :/ 
July 23, 2007 9:46:10 AM

^^my question exactly

and since I dont want to overclock, wouldnt having the e8650 at stock speeds run my memory faster (pc2-6400) at 667mhz.
July 23, 2007 11:10:50 AM

Why exactly would he have to use a lower multiplier? The FSB speed is what counts not the multiplier. As long as his FSB is set to 333 (x4=1333) and his ram is set to 333 too (333x2=667) then they should run 1:1 with no problem. 333:333 == 1:1
If I'm mistaken please correct me.
July 23, 2007 12:05:11 PM

bash007 said:
Why exactly would he have to use a lower multiplier? The FSB speed is what counts not the multiplier. As long as his FSB is set to 333 (x4=1333) and his ram is set to 333 too (333x2=667) then they should run 1:1 with no problem. 333:333 == 1:1
If I'm mistaken please correct me.


Seems like I should have had a longer vacation. Your right and I'm going to sleep for two days now, haven't had any sleep for 32 hours.
July 23, 2007 12:56:03 PM

systemlord said:
Aono do you have anything helpful to add to this post?


Only to say that your post was irrelevant. Was just making sure people didn’t think you were talking about the q6600 or e6850, you didn’t make it very clear.
July 23, 2007 3:48:57 PM

Which is better for video encoding and editing?
July 23, 2007 4:45:27 PM

Q6600 is what all the cool cats say is best for video encoding and editing.
July 23, 2007 4:46:08 PM

Ive been researching the Crysis Quad Core thing, and theres an interview where Crytek says that the game runs great on a Penryn Quad Core. Does this mean that it will not be optimised forthe current quads? Seeing that they may be different in architecture. Im not willing to wait that long to get a CPU.
July 23, 2007 6:07:13 PM

Synthetickiller said:
Q6600 is what all the cool cats say is best for video encoding and editing.
For the most part. But, on the Anandtech site that was quoted, it's only better at certain applications (e.g. Windows Media) and slightly better at others, usually by a second or two. At general purpose applications, the E6850 is often better. So, I was thinking the difference is not that great. At the same price, though, maybe the Q6600 is a better choice if you're doing video stuff?
July 23, 2007 7:21:50 PM

If I did a lot of video encoding and 3d stuff I would get the Q6600, if I mostly did gaming and stuff like that I would get the E6850.
July 23, 2007 8:00:03 PM

I'm pretty much on the same page as you on this but the thing is i don't really do any 3D or video stuff....at least not that much.....i usually convert video files to different format (so i can put on my PSP/IPOD video), so i'm always converting big movie files and currently im running a
Dell
P4
1.6ghz
512mb RAM

so.....it basically takes FOREVER for me to convert a file that is a little smaller than 1GB......so which would be better Q6600 or the E6850? Which one would be able to convert files quicker....i am also gonna use the new rig for gaming and just general use.....and if there isn't TOO much of a difference, i'd rather go with the E6850...since it performs better with games....and also thinking about getting a Quad Core compatible motherboard so i can upgrade in the future if i need to

July 23, 2007 8:09:09 PM

The quad core should be faster at encoding movies because it can utilize all 4 cores. I also do some encoding, but I mostly game, that's why I sprung for the 6850. Also, I have a laptop I can do the encoding on while using my desktop for gaming, surfing the web, etc. Either way you go though will be a HUGE upgrade fo you, so it might not make a big difference to you.
July 24, 2007 12:37:50 AM

well thanks guys, youve all been a big help. I'll be going to Frys tomorrow to buy one of them. Im still not sure which one i will get, but Im leaning towards the 6850 at the moment. I'll probably check at see if they even have a q6600 with the G0 stepping.
July 24, 2007 5:57:48 AM

Spikke, which laptop do you use for encoding video? I would like to get a laptop but I don't know if I should invest in two computers. Also, which laptop is good for encoding? I suppose those just under 2 grand but I thought maybe get a good Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad desktop machine for the encoding and a decent laptop for surfing, watching DVDs or whatever other lighter task one might want to do. The total cost would probably be lower for 'higher performance desktop + mid-range laptop' than the other way around (mid-range desktop + high performance laptop). Whatya think?

I also have a theory for the price cut situation: I think most retailers are delaying the price cut in the hope buyers would impatiently give up and buy at the current prices. Obviously, they prefer to sell ASAP at the current prices before implementing price cuts. I was anticipating this happening so I am not overly surprised the cuts aren't showing up yet.
July 24, 2007 7:41:04 AM

Q6600 easily, just think about things in the future, for example crysis is being optimized for 4 cores as was mentioned by the ceo of crytek. So that bodes very well for more cores.. also apps will only become faster as companies start to optimize for 4 cores.. so unless your going to upgrade again when penryn comes out just go get the Q6600
July 24, 2007 10:57:34 AM

Canuck1 said:
Spikke, which laptop do you use for encoding video?

I have a Hypersonic CX7 with a 2.4GHz Core Duo, 2gb Mushkin DDR2 667, 100gb 7200rpm hd and a 7900GTX. They no longer make this model, it was replaced by the SR7 with the Core 2 Duo w/ 800fsb and the 7950GTX. It actually encodes as fast or faster than my current desktop that has a s939 4200+ X2. I keep a little directional fan on it when it's encoding or it gets pretty warm.
!