Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 or E6850 for a non Overclocker?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 31, 2007 1:52:25 PM

All I do is gaming,no encoding,no rendering.I am not into overclockin too.What do you suggest?
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 31, 2007 2:43:42 PM

If you intend to keep this CPU for less than a year then go with the E6850. Longer term the quad is a smarter choice because game makers will learn to take advantage of cores 3 and 4.
Related resources
July 31, 2007 3:19:49 PM

The choice for you is the e6850. I think it will work for you for more than a year before the game developers are really utilizing four cores effectively, which will give the new 45nm Penryn chips time to come down in price.
July 31, 2007 6:05:28 PM

Which games do you play?

I play SupCom and there are some games you can only get into if you have a dual core CPU. Have yet to see a quad-core restriction, though. :) 
July 31, 2007 6:12:51 PM

Im only playing cod2,titan quest and CC:TW atm,but I plan on getting the new MOH,Crysis,Cod4.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 31, 2007 6:27:10 PM

Crysis will take advantage of Core2Quad
July 31, 2007 6:36:57 PM

e6850. not enough progs will take advantage of quad core, especially games from this year. maybe future games, but with that power, your more than alright
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 31, 2007 6:39:59 PM

jwallace1023 said:
e6850. not enough progs will take advantage of quad core, especially games from this year. maybe future games, but with that power, your more than alright


Yeah, you'll be fine with either CPU. What you really need to worry about is the graphic card :pt1cable: 
August 1, 2007 1:20:15 PM

Havent decided about the cpu yet :( .The graphic gard will be the 8800 GTS 640 probably.
August 1, 2007 1:56:42 PM

I have a Q6600, never overclocked before but with a Thermaltake V1 cpu cooler, I got my 2.4 GHz up to 3.08 GHz very easily.
August 1, 2007 2:36:42 PM

E6850, because a Q6600 lack in clockspeed will be much more affected in performance than the E6850s lack in cores because of softwares current and even future utilization of core count.

Go with the E6850.
August 1, 2007 2:44:30 PM

The lack of Clockspeed could always be addressed, but the lack of Cores can't be addressed as easily.

E6850 @ Stock = Fast Soldier with only one boot(Can't afford running shoes or another boot)

Q6600(G0 Stepping @ Stock)= Fast Solders with both feet with Running shoes (Just too lazy to go fast; unless you speed them up)

I'd go for the one with shoes and make them go faster :) 
August 1, 2007 2:45:26 PM

I was trying to make the same decision a month ago or so. I went with the E6850 and have 0 regrets.
August 1, 2007 2:50:32 PM

YO_KID37 said:

I'd go for the one with shoes and make them go faster :) 

He said he's not into overclocking. Maybe read the first post before replying. He is just gaming and games right now are just starting to take advantage of dual cores, that's like 2 years after they were introduced. It would not surprise me at all if we didn't see a decent amount of games optimized for quads for another 2 years. Plus, even the one game that supprts quads(Supreme Commander) barely outperforms the E6850, whereas the E6850 will ouperform the Q6600 in every other game.
Maybe it's just me, but the shoes comparison made no sense.
August 1, 2007 2:59:53 PM

Quote:
Anandtech:

"Quad-core gains an advantage over dual-core over all of our benchmarks"


http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8

Not just looking at Gaming, but overall he might see none(If at all) an advantage @ Stock both while in the tests the Quad-Core resulted in about ~4% gains. I'm pretty sure he won't be playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R every waking moment of that computers life to appreciate that meagre 8% improvement.

The Graphic Card is usually the limiting factor for him and I think those few percent gain in Games come from the 267FSB gain, not the lack of Overall speed if ~10% is the gain in gaming than a 2.66Ghz Quad-core would match if not beat a Core 2 Duo @ 3Ghz in everything.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 1, 2007 3:02:44 PM

totaly agreed ^^^ but if he only does gaming , then E6850
August 1, 2007 3:12:38 PM

If he does keep that machine for the next 2 Years worth of games, the Quad-Core will be much more of his friend than Clockspeed, most games will take advantage of Multi-cores and that 10% fall back will become more like a -25% disadvantage, E6850 vs Q6600.
August 1, 2007 3:15:17 PM

Maziar said:
totaly agreed ^^^ but if he only does gaming , then E6850

But if like any red blooded man. I'm sure he'd appreciate 10 windows streaming Porn on 4 Cores.
Just saying :lol: 
August 2, 2007 3:00:07 PM

but if you had multiple single threaded apps like all of office running, plus a game in the background and web browsers loading pages, all 4 cores would be utilized, right?
August 2, 2007 9:57:17 PM

Starman,

I am not going to fully answer this question as it has been asked again and again.

Again and again the same people have given their same advice on this.

Please look up things like:
+"supreme commander" +"dual core" or "+quad core"

+"Crysis" +"dual core" or quad core"

Just cut and paste the above lines into google and you should get your answer.

Really not trying to sound like an A$$ but this has been asked over and over again. And some of the people on here do NOT know what they are talking about. Some of the info provided above does not compute.

So I gave you the google lines so you can draw your own conclusions.

But the future of gaming which these people keep talking about has already come and the QUAD is actually ready for that future. But please do not take my word for it.

Also,

If you look up two threads started by me you will get some entirely technical data that supports why or why not to go Quad. I think from there you will also choose the Quad. But please do make up your own mind and do not let some on here influence you into a bad decision.
August 4, 2007 1:44:24 PM

Do you still need a good heatsink if you're not overclocking?

Regardless of whether I got B3 or G0 stepping, if I bought an Antec Solo with fans in all the ports, should I still get an aftermarket heatsink?

I was thinking to be on the safe side and this is my suggested setup:
Antec Solo, case fans, Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, Q6600 (G0 stepping).

I really don't want to pay the high price for B3 stepping as I feel it's an inferior chip when the G0 is only slightly more expensive. I figure the G0 stepping will become more available anyway as the lack of demand for B3 (should drive the price down) and influence Intel and retailers to only stock G0. Just watch.
August 6, 2007 5:35:44 PM

Canuck,

If you are NOT overclocking then the retail provided heat sink is more than enough. They are spec'd using that heat sink...

You should be fine. Should you decide to OC then I would definitely get something else a little more beefy...
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 7, 2007 5:41:08 AM

I concur with ches111, I have an E6850 running at stock at the moment (placeholder for G0 Q6600) and idle temp has dropped as low as 25c with the stock cooler and got as high as 47c when running 3D '06 cpu test.
August 7, 2007 8:38:28 AM

May I ask a question?

What game will run too slow now on a q6600 or the e6850 ???

What game will run better in a 1-2 years from now on a q6600 or e6850???

Is the clock of the q6600 so slow that your games will run slow???
Or you are just afraid of getting 150FPS when you could easily get 200FPS??
!