Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 G-0 Stepping Vs. E6850

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 17, 2007 10:52:09 AM

Hello everybody,

I'm building a new system. It is meant to be a rock solid stable powerful platform, not for games, but for an impressing applicative experience (mainly compilers, math apps, office apps, etc.). OC that requires more than the original Intel stock fan won't be done.
I have a nice budget, but I do have restraints, which I've already stressed enough. I've already decided what would be most of the system's components:

Motherboard: Probably GA-P35-DS3P, or maybe Intel DP35DP, the one I will find more stable.

Memory: G-SKILL 4GB (2*2GB) 800MHZ CL5 (the only 2*2 reasonably priced I've found, couldn't find a CL4 pair).

Hard drive: RAID 2*WD740ADFD Raptor 10,000RPM and another SATA drive, most probably Seagte, for data storage only, maybe even my current Maxtor IDE 250GB relatively new drive, in order to cut the budget.

Display: Leadtek 8600GT extreme 256MB

My biggest problem is that I can't choose a CPU. The E68580 is the best dual-core around with 3GHZ, but the new Q6600 G-0 stepping sounds very promising too. However the former has a clock rate of 3GHZ 1333 FSB in contrast to the latter which has a clock rate of 2.4GHZ with a 1066 FSB.

Which one should I choose ???...

And a few more questions:
Would I be able to even do a minor OC with the memory I chosen ? Would a HEC 400WATT PS be able to maintain this configuration (with only a DVD recorder in addition to the mentioned spec) ?
Does the Raptors make such a noise as I've been told ?
Any other recommendations regarding my setup ?

Thank you all very much.

More about : q6600 stepping e6850

September 17, 2007 11:23:10 AM

Mistake - memory would probably be OCZ 4GB (2*2) 800MHZ CL5 Vista Upgarde.
September 17, 2007 11:24:00 AM

"mainly compilers, math apps, office apps, etc "

I bought the E6850 because I do a lot of programming and compilers require raw horsepower. Hence I am recommending the same for you. Espically considering you don't have a desire to OC.

Also look into the Crosair HX450 or 620. Very good PSU's.
Related resources
September 17, 2007 12:48:23 PM

Chadsxe is correct. No Oc and heavy compilers and math apps...6850.
September 17, 2007 12:55:30 PM

I've already read an infinite no. of posts, threads and articles.
None of them included a straightforward answer, especially regarding my conditions.

And what about my additional questions ?
September 17, 2007 1:20:59 PM

Well, I definitely disagree on the E6850.
I think the Q6600 is a no brainer for multiple reasons.

1) IF you compiler supports 4 cores, it will wipe the floor with the E6850.

2) If you compiler does not support 4 cores and you are actually working on a number of projects and applications at the same time, you can configure your different apps that do not support 4 cores to run on seperate cores. Example - Set Compiler on Core3+4, Set Math Apps on Core1+2, let Office productivity can just pick a core or you can divide further.

The benchmarks are nice, but they really do not tell the whole story for a "Workstation". Frequently you will kick off a heavy cpu process that could be running for long periods of time. Assuming you have other heavy tasks you would like to do at the same time, you could be SOL for performance on a dual core.
September 17, 2007 1:22:36 PM

Maziar, be kind. If the Codedi wants to participate in his own Q6600 vs. E6850 why squash that?

Anyways, Codedi. I recently upgraded one of my rigs to specs not too foreign from yours. I went with the E6850 and purchased an addtional 4GB of Corsair CL5 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145176 ) to add to an existing pair of CL4 Dominator C4Ds.

Even stock the E6850 is a nice, yet cool running chip. With an ever-so-slight overclock...say to 3.4Ghz it flat out slams the the virtualizing tasks I feed to it (2 virtual PC domain controllers and 4-5 clients running concurrently, all quite responsive) and the "E" never any asks questions or complains.

However, given that you may be considering Vista 64 over XP Pro 64 (for the 4GB of RAM you're considering) I'm almost inclined to recommend the Q6600 to you though as I understand Vista can better feed the quad cores.

If the apps you're looking to run are multi-threaded and/or your planning to run several multi-threaded apps concurrently you may want to give the "Q" more priority. ...but its hard not to love the E6850 for its raw power and generous overclockability. The term "Nasty Fast" applies. However, I've read of folks taking their quads up to 3.6, abeit with nicer cooling than you'd need for the "E". Though your budget may seem stressed now you may find resources available sooner than you think for a better cooling for the "Q" lending it to better overclocks.

Anyways, sorry to ramble, yet these were the things I had to consider and I think they may apply to you as well. Though the E6850 is has a lot of left over power even after I try to overstuff it I'm still kind of curious as to how a "Q" would have been. When you look back a year from now what will you wish you'd done?

...and yeah, as Maziar said, you can surf the net and read similar considerations.

Good luck!
September 17, 2007 1:22:47 PM

And, Yes, a 400w PSU would be fine.
I don't know anything about that PSU off the top of my head, but the 8600GT uses minimal power.
September 17, 2007 1:42:09 PM

I faced the same question but ended up going with a used q6600 G0. It runs at a daily overclcok of 3.6Ghz on water and is a fantastic chip. Still, I'd love to have the raw speed the 6850 is capable of. I'm sure with good cooling it would go to 4.0GHz Orthos Stable easily.


Look at your software and if it is optimised to run on multiple cores the quad may be a better bet. If not then go for the raw power of the e6850.
September 17, 2007 1:52:39 PM

I am still not agreeing with you guys on the Q6600.

Halcyon ** though it is a fair assumption he never stated he was using a 64 - bit OS. Many people throw 4 gigs of ram in their 32-bit systems. Sure some is wasted but it assures that you are feeding the absolute max to your programs and not having some pulled away for OS needs.

My argument has to do with the fact that is he more worried about completely dominating a compile and math ap or is he more worried about being able to run a **** load of programs at once at decent speeds. Sure there will be a time when IDE's and compilers actually utilize quad cores but that is still a while off. Enough to the point where I personally would have gone through another build before it even affects me.


codedi - you might want to provide some more details on future plans
September 17, 2007 1:53:58 PM

merc14 said:
I faced the same question but ended up going with a used q6600 G0. It runs at a daily overclcok of 3.6Ghz on water and is a fantastic chip. Still, I'd love to have the raw speed the 6850 is capable of. I'm sure with good cooling it would go to 4.0GHz Orthos Stable easily.


Look at your software and if it is optimised to run on multiple cores the quad may be a better bet. If not then go for the raw power of the e6850.


He stated that OC to those speeds is not something he wants to do.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2007 2:04:59 PM

Halcyon , havent u seen we have tons of thread like this ? dont u become tired answering same quetsion every day ?
September 17, 2007 2:20:47 PM

Firstly, as I stated before, OC won't be done in a way that requires more that stock fan, probably not at all, stability is very important.

Secondly, my current OS is gonna be WinXP Pro 32BIT, even though There is the 3.2GB limit issue, which I heard there is a solution for. As soon as Vista SP1 is released and after apps comatability or replacements are verified I'm gonna jump to Vista Ultimate 64BIT.

I'm actually upgarding my almost 7yr old setup (1400Mhz T-Bird on Gigabyte GA7DXR with 1GB DDR266) that was upgarded moderately along the years (mainly peripherals and memory and HD) and still rocks, and this is something I don't do frequently (even though I hope the next time would not be that far), meaning, I'm trying to do the best but I can do, considering the money, while long term performance is crucial.
I already have a Compucase 6A19 case with a compatible 400WATT HEC PSU, supposedly a relatively reliable piece.

Another issue is that in ISRAEL, my country, I can't put my hands on every component Newegg has to offer, even though I must say we get almost everything here.

The bottom line is that I want a system that can take everything I throw at (my Windows performances experience is very important to me too), and preferably should do that as long as possible.
September 17, 2007 2:23:32 PM

Maziar, yeaaaah, but there's a chance there will be other input or opinions from which I'll learn too. Since the subject is interesting (to me), I like to participate. Now, I would get tired of answering "What color is the sky?" or "Who makes the Intel E6850?" :pt1cable: 
September 17, 2007 2:31:42 PM

codedi said:
Firstly, as I stated before, OC won't be done in a way that requires more that stock fan, probably not at all, stability is very important.

Secondly, my current OS is gonna be WinXP Pro 32BIT, even though There is the 3.2GB limit issue, which I heard there is a solution for. As soon as Vista SP1 is released and after apps comatability or replacements are verified I'm gonna jump to Vista Ultimate 64BIT.

I'm actually upgarding my almost 7yr old setup (1400Mhz T-Bird on Gigabyte GA7DXR with 1GB DDR266) that was upgarded moderately along the years (mainly peripherals and memory and HD) and still rocks, and this is something I don't do frequently (even though I hope the next time would not be that far), meaning, I'm trying to do the best but I can do, considering the money, while long term performance is crucial.
I already have a Compucase 6A19 case with a compatible 400WATT HEC PSU, supposedly a relatively reliable piece.

Another issue is that in ISRAEL, my country, I can't put my hands on every component Newegg has to offer, even though I must say we get almost everything here.

The bottom line is that I want a system that can take everything I throw at (my Windows performances experience is very important to me too), and preferably should do that as long as possible.


After having read this I stand by suggestion. Some might site "long term" as a check in the Q column but I ask you this. Is it more important for you to run a few programs at the fastest possible speed you can or is it more important for you to run a whole bunch of programs at once? From you applications I am guessing you want to run at the "fastest possible speed". The clock diffrence of 600mhz is going to be huge when considering that.
September 17, 2007 2:32:45 PM

Maziar,

I'm a guest here, so I don't wanna be rude, but this forum's goal is to assist people and discuss relevant issues (such as our current debate), and not just to redirect them to other places.

If someone don't want to assist or contribute his opinion, he doesn't have to, but I'd prefer him not asking others to act this way as well.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2007 3:07:59 PM

well i posted something , but its not been posted lol :D  ,
i just wanted to say please read the forum before asking questions, yes our job is here to help, but u can help us a bit by reading other articles ,anyways i answered u and i appologize if i talked bad , sorry

cheers :)  :D 
September 17, 2007 3:08:36 PM

I really can't say.

I understand that the FSB edge is negligible, but I'm unable to value the 600MHZ gap in contrast to the multi-tasking ability.

This is the problem.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2007 3:13:12 PM

well i posted something , but its not been posted lol :D  ,
i just wanted to say please read the forum before asking questions, yes our job is here to help, but u can help us a bit by reading other articles ,anyways i answered u and i appologize if i talked bad , sorry

cheers :)  :D 
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2007 3:14:56 PM

Anandtech review :

This graph is a lot more colorful than our previous ones because the decision just isn't that clear. If you look at the average, quad-core gains an advantage over dual-core over all of our benchmarks, but if you look at the tests themselves you'll see some trends. Encoding and 3D manipulation benchmarks have the quad-core CPU clearly ahead, while general usage and gaming benchmarks mostly favor the higher clocked dual-core E6850. So, which do you choose?

If you're strictly building a gaming box, you'll get more performance out of the dual-core E6850. However, if you do any encoding or 3D rendering at all, the quad-core Q6600 is a better buy. Our pick is the Q6600 and if you want to make up the performance difference you can always overclock to E6850 speeds, but the chip only makes sense if you're running apps that can take advantage of four cores. As the chart above illustrates, those applications are almost exclusively limited to video encoding and 3D rendering.
September 17, 2007 3:20:18 PM

I like the intel q6600 plus the intel mobo. since your looking for stability, no ocing on the intel plus intel surely has done a lot of testing with the two components so stability all but guaranteed. if your math intensive why the need for an add on graphics card? Also, why raptors? You said your doing math intensive apps right? if true, you will have a lot of cacheing going own. your raptors are going to spend more time idle than moving. pure waste of money to buy them there raptors. also, the more cache you have in the processor the better your processing speed.

i read your post thoroughly and from the read of things either you have not thought things out properly or you've fallen victim to the noobs who recommend ocing and what-nots. word of advice pal, because i don't show up often, more is always better than less, unless it slows you down. think about it for a while and maybe, just maybe it will come to you to make the right choices.

Peace and may the noobs not kill you in your sleep.
September 17, 2007 3:26:14 PM

codedi said:
I really can't say.

I understand that the FSB edge is negligible, but I'm unable to value the 600MHZ gap in contrast to the multi-tasking ability.

This is the problem.


1) We can't answer this question for you. You are going to have to weigh you needs and decide for yourself.

2) Don't think you can't multi-task on a CD2. It handles multi - task/processing very well considering IT HAS TWO CORES.

3) Don't expect every aplication out there to make use of quad-cores. The ratio of those that do in comprision to those that don't is very heavily weighed towards those that don't. Sure in the future this will change but it is going to take years for the majority to switch. Things that do take full advantage of quad cores are aps that you did not mention a use for i.e Video Encoding, 3DSMax, and new cutting edge games.

Agree or disagree but alot of people are mis-guided by the fact that the all mighty Crysis is going to make use of quad-cores. I am willing to put money on the fact that a E6850 would have no problems handling that game at max settings. Unless you are in the need for some really specific processing issues (like mentioned above) I just don't see it being the most logical choice at the time. Talk to me in a five years and I might change my mind but by that time there will be something way better on the market then the Q6600. For your needs at this time the E6850 makes much more sense to me. Even for a few years to come I would still say the same thing. If your needs are diffrent then what you stated and you infact are worried about Video Encoding and things of that sort then do tell me.
September 17, 2007 3:28:58 PM

Maziar said:
Anandtech review :
As the chart above illustrates, those applications are almost exclusively limited to video encoding and 3D rendering.


Yes Yes and Yes
September 17, 2007 3:43:27 PM

chadsxe,

I must say I currently rank the E higher, and a few days ago I even didn't take the Q into consideration at all, but I just wanted to ask around for more opinions.

Gaming and encoding are entirely not relevant. However, in the future the system might function as a Media Center also (an important piece of information I forgot to give you).

I noticed you have the GA-P35-DS3P board, how is it ? Stable ? Memory compatibility ? How do you think it is in contrast to the Intel DP35DP ?
September 17, 2007 4:39:21 PM

codedi said:
chadsxe,
Gaming and encoding are entirely not relevant. However, in the future the system might function as a Media Center also (an important piece of information I forgot to give you).

I noticed you have the GA-P35-DS3P board, how is it ? Stable ? Memory compatibility ? How do you think it is in contrast to the Intel DP35DP ?


Both the Q6600 and E6850 are way more then enough for a Media Center so no worries there.

I have had great success with the DS3P. So far its been stable a a rock. I am running this memory

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1682...

If you do get this board be sure to get memory that is on the compatability list.

As far as the Intel board goes I can't comment because I have no experince with it.


Do remember that everything I say should be weighed against all other information you gather. I am just one of many with opinions and I am offering one that I feel strong about.
September 17, 2007 4:44:20 PM

BTW, is the Zalman 9700 you use is for OC purposes ?
September 17, 2007 4:52:53 PM

Damn, I've checked the MB's memory compatibility list - there is no way I would find something relevant on this limited list.
September 17, 2007 5:07:19 PM

codedi said:
BTW, is the Zalman 9700 you use is for OC purposes ?


Nehhhh...I have it running at stock speeds. I actually got the Zalman 9700 off a freind for free and decided to throw it on there for the heck of it.
September 17, 2007 5:09:23 PM

codedi said:
Damn, I've checked the MB's memory compatibility list - there is no way I would find something relevant on this limited list.


Really, I found the list to be very complete. Had the majority of better manufactures of RAM on there. Just because its not on the list does not mean its not going to work. You are just guranteed it will if it is. Go look at the reviews of the mobo on newegg and see what other RAM people are using with it.

Regards

Chad
September 17, 2007 5:22:38 PM

codedi said:
I'm actually upgarding my almost 7yr old setup (1400Mhz T-Bird on Gigabyte GA7DXR with 1GB DDR266) that was upgarded moderately along the years (mainly peripherals and memory and HD) and still rocks, and this is something I don't do frequently (even though I hope the next time would not be that far), meaning, I'm trying to do the best but I can do, considering the money, while long term performance is crucial.
That says it all. Get the Q6600 G0, or you will be crying in 2-3 years at the absolute max. Throw that piece of crap stock heatsink in the trash and get an aftermarket one. Get one with a backing plate (no push pins). Then take the "gift" of an overclock to 3G/1333 FSB at stock voltage here is a list of good ones compared against the best.

AnandTech: Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme: Is More Better?

As far as that HEC 400W PSU, I have never heard of it. I found a link to what I think is it. If it really costs $19.95 then throw it in the trash right on top of the stock Intel HS, because it is junk.

HEC, HEC Power supply, Replacement power supplies.

Get a tier 1 or 2 power supply from this list.

Official XS Tiered PSU Manufacturer Brand Listing Phase III

Use this calculator to decide how big it should be. Pay special attention to the footnotes or you will get a bogus number.

eXtreme Power Supply Calculator Lite v2.5

If you get the Gigabyte then get RAM that is on Gigabytes Ram compatibility PDF. You may be fine if it is not on that page, or you may not. Don't chance the "no boot" or "random lockup" problem. Remember you said that you want stable.

motherboard_memory_ga-p35-ds3p.pdf

On to the Raptors in RAID0. You don't need RAID0 and you may run into problems that will leave you with unrecoverable data. You decide how much aggravation you want to deal with.

Also Vista + Raptor + 8800 = Potential Trouble. Don't get me wrong, I love my Raptor but I have XP and X1950 so no problem. I will use XP until they pry it from my cold dead fingers, or updates stop whichever comes first. I also built one with a Raptor and an 8800GTX that runs flawlessly, but it is also on XP, who would have figured. Here is an article by Tom's, you decide.

WD's Raptor And Nvidia G80 Don't Play Nice With Vista

I think that about covers it. Good Luck.






September 17, 2007 5:33:25 PM

Zorg said:
That says it all. Get the Q6600 G0, or you will be crying in 2-3 years at the absolute max.


Though it is a huge point to consider he still has not answered on how long he expects to run this computer. For one he said it might possible end up as a Media Center in which we all know that just about any processor is up for that task. Second, I still feal that for what he has said he wants to use this machine for the E6850 will be better even in the long run. Compiling for the most part is compiling. It is not going to change in such a drastic matter that for some unforseen reason 2 more cores is going to yeild such a dramatic diffrence in performance. In 2-3 years he might also be crying that he still is running at 2.4 gigs instead of 3.0 when compiling an ap.

It seems to me people are sooooooooooo quick to jump the gun and recommend a Q6600. You really have to examine what he is using this machine for. He is not gameing, not doing 3D art, and not transcoding video. He is compiling, running mathAps, and doing office work. All which are better suited for raw horse power outside of the office work. Besides when is that last time a word document put any kind of noticable hit on a processor.

If you can justify with reasoing why the Q6600 is a better choice then please by all means do so. Just don't make a statment with out reasoning. He needs all the information he can get so that HE can make the best choice for himself.
September 17, 2007 5:35:28 PM

Mistake....
September 17, 2007 5:54:19 PM

No, he asked for an OC that can be done on stock cooling.
He even asked if he could OC with the RAM specified.

Yes, you can OC the Q6600 to close to 3.0Ghz w/Stock Cooling.
You can also take the E6850 higher with stock cooling.

The Speed difference between the two will likely narrow some but not exceptionally.

Personally, I suspect most compilers will rapidly support all 4 cores.
The reason is that Intel and AMD are working hard at adding support for 4 and more cores into the programs they compile so the compiler supporting it would make sense. Also, serious math programs likely already have supprot for 4+ cores, since often these type of programs run on Server class boxes running 24x7 with 4 or more cores already.

And this is not to claim that 2 cores can't multi-task, heck single cores can. But if you are really doing alot of heavy lifting by multiple apps all day long, then the more cores the merrier. But from additional posts, it does not really seem like he will be hitting the system all that hard.

If he had budget restraints, the E6750 clocked to E6850 speeds could be a good choice. This is a snap for the stock cooler.
September 17, 2007 6:04:02 PM

Yeah I forgot that he mention he would OC on stock. My mistake.

I agree that eventually compilers will support all 4 cores but I don't see so in a time frame where neglecting the added clock speed is a smart choice. None the less more food for though for him to think about.
September 17, 2007 6:32:13 PM

The Raptors are NOISY! Noisy idle and thrash when in use. Temps are as much as 5-7c hotter than my other sata II drives.

I second the ditch the het psu for ones posted above, and the addition of a better cooler. Especially if you go the Q route.
September 17, 2007 7:05:40 PM

hi, what I should buy a motorcycle or a car? god!
September 17, 2007 7:21:28 PM

chadsxe,

I'm not going to get into an argument with you, I see you have an e6850 so it is a waste of my time. I see you read zenmaster's post so that covers the multicore and overclocking debate that you have already acquiesced. As far as how long he will be keeping his machine why don't you read his quote at the beginning of my post. The important parts are in bold to make it easier for you to understand. If history is any indication then he will be keeping it for seven "7" years. I believe that my statement was justified with reasoning, it's not my fault if you cannot understand the reasoning behind it.

The Q6600 at this point is really the only sound decision for whatever you are doing, assuming that you don't upgrade every year or two. I'm sorry that you missed the boat, maybe next time.
September 17, 2007 7:25:45 PM

gufz said:
hi, what I should buy a motorcycle or a car? god!
That's a hard one, I have both. The motorcycle is a hell of a lot more fun, but it's nice to have a full metal rain suit. :lol: 
September 17, 2007 7:47:41 PM

The Raptors are NOISY! Noisy idle and thrash when in use. Temps are as much as 5-7c hotter than my other sata II drives.

I second the ditch the het psu for ones posted above, and the addition of a better cooler. Especially if you go the Q route. said:
The Raptors are NOISY! Noisy idle and thrash when in use. Temps are as much as 5-7c hotter than my other sata II drives.

I second the ditch the het psu for ones posted above, and the addition of a better cooler. Especially if you go the Q route.



...boy you got that right! My 2 WD800 Raptors are noisy even in a vibration dampening mount...and I'm not sure that they're SO much faster than than a nice pair of WD 250GBiters that its worth the noise.

I went with the E6850. Its a nasty fast processor, I don't think that can be argued and I don't think the OP would look back from a per performance standpoint and wish he'd gotten a Q6600. If fact from a sheer processing standpoint its so much faster than his current Thunderbird (I believe) that unless he's touched or seen something similar or faster elsewhere, he'd likely be blown away.

I guess the question is what is the best long term investment...say 5 years?? That's what makes me kind of lean towards the Quad. In 5 years when there's 8-core razors out there he may be happier with a Quad then he'd be with a dual.

Would you rather have a dual core @ 2.4 Ghz today or a single core @ 3.2Ghz...today?
September 17, 2007 8:26:51 PM

Zorg said:
chadsxe,

I'm not going to get into an argument with you, I see you have an e6850 so it is a waste of my time. I see you read zenmaster's post so that covers the multicore and overclocking debate that you have already acquiesced. As far as how long he will be keeping his machine why don't you read his quote at the beginning of my post. The important parts are in bold to make it easier for you to understand. If history is any indication then he will be keeping it for seven "7" years. I believe that my statement was justified with reasoning, it's not my fault if you cannot understand the reasoning behind it.

The Q6600 at this point is really the only sound decision for whatever you are doing, assuming that you don't upgrade every year or two. I'm sorry that you missed the boat, maybe next time.


Argument? Wow...I did not know we where arguing. Thanks for clueing me in. :) 

Serious I am just trying to have a reasonable conversation to help this guy out. Don't get negative and take personal jabs because your on happy with my view point.


On to the topic...

He said he had his last computer for 7 years. Granted this can be taken as a sign to how long he will have his new one but we will have to wait untill he indulges us with further info. The Q is a great processor and I am sure he would be happy with eaither one he chooses but in MY OPINION he would be happier with the E6850 based on where I see him using his computer. The type of processing he does is years off from fully embrassing quad cores and even when it does it is not going to be a giant leap in performance like you see with Video Encoding/Transcoding.
September 17, 2007 8:54:56 PM

no ocing? no gaming? htpc in the future? save money, buy celeron dell, drop in q6600 and some 3gb ddr2 800. net savings about $275 over retail diy. foolish to spend money on features not going to use. r u being honest with us about its use? if not, how we help u out? just rip dvds and converting to xvid? don't need much power to do that. if converting, much faster buy ati x1xxx series use avivo converter. faster than anything out.
September 17, 2007 9:04:25 PM

chadsxe said:
Argument? Wow...I did not know we where arguing. Thanks for clueing me in. :) 
I didn't say we were arguing I specifically said
Zorg said:
I'm not going to get into an argument with you, I see you have an e6850 so it is a waste of my time.


chadsxe said:
Serious I am just trying to have a reasonable conversation to help this guy out. Don't get negative and take personal jabs because your on happy with my view point.
That would be nice. How would you receive these comments?
chadsxe said:
It seems to me people are sooooooooooo quick to jump the gun and recommend a Q6600.

If you can justify with reasoing why the Q6600 is a better choice then please by all means do so. Just don't make a statment with out reasoning. He needs all the information he can get so that HE can make the best choice for himself.
It appears that you were the first to get negative and take personal jabs because you're unhappy with my view point.


chadsxe said:
He said he had his last computer for 7 years. Granted this can be taken as a sign to how long he will have his new one but we will have to wait untill he indulges us with further info.
You may do anything you want, I prefer to base my recommendations on the facts at hand as opposed to no facts at all.

chadsxe said:
The Q is a great processor and I am sure he would be happy with eaither one he chooses but in MY OPINION he would be happier with the E6850 based on where I see him using his computer.
Sorry, I completely disagree with you.
chadsxe said:
The type of processing he does is years off from fully embrassing quad cores and even when it does it is not going to be a giant leap in performance like you see with Video Encoding/Transcoding.
You don't know that to be the case, you are just guessing. Again, I completely disagree with you. Also, how do you know what he is going to be doing with his computer in the next 7 years, I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know.
September 17, 2007 10:10:33 PM

I do apologize if I came of harsh. I never intended it to be that hence why I was taking back when you started firing shots at me. None the less my intentions in joing this conversation have been some what jusified. He now has two sides of the story for him to weigh and decide himself.

Haven written some small pascal compilers during school I can only tell you what I took away from that experince. Optimization of the compiler based code comes at an assembly instuction level with variables being switched between multiple register per each indvidual token that is parsed from the syntax. One token and its intended meaning can span a number registers that would reduce the effectivness of have multiple cores. Its like four people waiting in line to pee in one toliet. What really lights a fire under the processes ass is raw power. The faster that person can piss the quicker the next token can be parsed. Granted I am a long way off from fully understanding all there is to know. I am sure there are plenty of other factors to consider. But, from the circle of programmers I converse with the general feeling is the same.

There are a lot personal things to consider that the orginal poster has not indulged us with. Like you said he might not even know. None the less he is the only one who can figure that out.

Regards

Chad
September 17, 2007 10:28:25 PM

I agree, I do think that everything is moving toward multicore support.The way things are going in 5 or 7 years the hot CPU will probably be a monolithic 16 core and the Q6600 will be the single core of today. There is really no way to "future proof" a computer the way things have been advancing lately. I just like the Q6600 @ 3G that doesn't mean it's for everyone.
September 17, 2007 10:42:12 PM

Thank you all guys for youar input, you don't have to fight though :-)

Well, I'll try to respond to all the relvent question and issues I've found since my last response.

The computer would probably serve me for the maximum of 3 years (until I garduate software eng. at uni. if anyone is interested). I don't expect it to be "future proof" - there is no such thing, but I do want it to be powerfull enough to not frustrate me a year only from now.

I am aware of the tremendous progress CPU's have made since my 1.4GHZ T-bird. I actually kept on building systems for friends and familiy for the past seven yeras, including C2B based systems. I'm just trying to build a system that would live with respect longer than a few months. I'm also an enthusiast who craves a good computer.

I do plan to use the computer for the things I've listed, it's actually a bit ridicules, to doubt me on this issue. No need to patronize. Maybe I can't choose a CPU but it doesn't mean I'm novice.

Well, I must say all this input just made me more confused. I keep on changing my mind.

As I mentioned, my budget is somewhat limited, and is taking in consideration ISRAELI resellers pricing and not Newegg pricing. Every advice here costs a few dollars, and dollars are limited. So I'm trying to decide which is more important.

I've actually thought to buy an OC'd setup with the Q but then I have to also buy a decent cooler and probably a new PSU (mine is good - not a 20$ as someone asked - but not a high-end one). I also still try to get an ABIT IP35PRO MB, instead of the Gigabyte one (my regular reseller stopped selling them), which will raise the price too. So if I build an OC'd setup I want to do it all the way and not a partialy good system. If not, I prefer to stick with stock setting and speeds. I would probably end up with the latter.

I hope this will help you advise me further on.

Thanks you all very much !
September 17, 2007 11:03:15 PM

You are really the only one that can make these decisions. You are the only one that knows the true cost, to yourself, for each additional amount of money you have to spend. An E6850 will carry you a few years without any problem, unless you all of a sudden decide to take up video editing. I would buy an aftermarket cooler if you can afford it, even one that is not the best will be significantly better than the stock one. You can get the money back from the cooler by doing a mild overclock. If you have the dough the quad IMO is still preferable, but if the cost is too much of a burden the E6850 won't disappoint. There is really no way for us to know because we don't have the relative pricing between the CPUs etc.
Good luck
September 17, 2007 11:19:41 PM

Stuck in the same situation here = q6600 with apps that can use it or linux + compiling source code then q6600.
If not and windows + software that can not really use the extra cores = e6850.

If you are serious about compiling say gentoo source code or similar and 1 core @ MAKEOPTS="-j8" per core then q6600 or even get a server motherboard with 2x cpu sockets + something cheap like the E5310 , 2 or 4 of them + a dual or quad cpu socket motherboard will do the trick. Then you have 8 or 16 cores and very few things a normal person uses can use this up even at "-j8" per core.
My t2600 2.16ghz laptop core duo I run at "-j16" and it rocks with 3 Simultaneous compiles I get to 95% + percent cpu use and barely touch the NICE part. 85C temps.

You might still end up with $2000 spend but it can deliver when needed and apparently meduim video card + extreme cpu = better than okay cpu + medium or fancy gpu not sure here.

2x 7300gts nvidia in linux gets 14000fps using glxgears or 1x 7800gtx = 13300fps (aquamark of 77000minm. with old windows 84.?? nvidia drivers) to give you a idea using 100.14 nvidia linux drivers. Should result in similar windows performance.

Cpu's needed or speed needed ? Both can be overclocked to ?? provided the software can use the cores and not only the speed. Same with 32bit or 64bit argument is very valid here as well.

Linux and a hand full of windows apps can use 2+ cores effectively. 4 cores or more and running several vmware virtual pc's = good idea provided you have it on a stable os that can handle this. Quad core suggested here or for similar type activities.
Maybe look into Xen + linux as base and then virtual pc's on top or directly Xened.

Also ram depends on the actual compiles you are doing as with linux source compiles it uses mainly cpu and very little ram , I could not once full up 2gb 667mhz ddr2 in linux.
Photoshop + big files / photo's / pics / media 100+mb or more get ram and lots of it + fast ones. Again server motherboard with 2 or more cpu sockets some even have pice 16 video card thingy's for a 8800gtxor asus has one with 2 for sli / crossfire ??

Hd's:
Anything 120MB/s or faster and I presume I/O / server response drives if this makes sense.
2+ wd4000kd's in raid ? might be budget wise a better option as the new motherboard will have raid on it likely. $400 for 2 fancy wd's or 4 wd4000kd's what is the best speed ? space heating / cooling option ?

If using linux hd speed boost at the possible data loss you can add "commit=30" or 60 to /etc/fstab but 30 or 60 secs of data loss can happen this way use with caution.

Might be able to save money and get 1 or 2 cheap video cards in sli instead of a 8800gtx as the 7950gtx in my laptop is more than sufficient at 1440x900 and all other settings maxed in linux or windows games. Oblivion runs better with wine / cedega in linux than on xp pro or so I have read.

Hope this helps. Keep some of this in mind when buying or planning and do research when and where you can on this ideas.
September 18, 2007 12:25:52 AM

For development work, most current compilers work with as many cores and processors as you can throw at them. For example, the new Visual Studio has been tested with 64-CPUs and works fine.
September 18, 2007 10:35:32 AM

Just so there are no cofusions. Visual Studios is not a compiler. It is an IDE. There are compilers that are a part of Visual Studios. When you say 64 - CPUs do mean 64 actual CPUs or 64-bit? If you mean 64 actual CPUs I would love to read the source. I am intrested as to what in the world would ever require that much power to compile and why. What many consider to be extremely large programs actually don't take an insane amount of time or power to compile.
!