/ Sign-up
Your question

Need Help Picking! Help!

  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Quad
  • Processors
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
September 28, 2007 1:04:48 AM

Ok guys I have a budget but not a tight one, I need to upgrade my processor/ram/cpu:

I can afford these:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz

I mean the Quad 6700 probably the best def, but its like twice the amount of the 2.4 version and duo 2 is it worth it if it really is ill dish it out. I just want a reallly good processor for now to tide me over until the Penryn Quads come out this holiday season and ill get a new mobo now with it to support the upgrades. Need help!

More about : picking

September 28, 2007 1:48:55 AM

would say Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz with the C2D you can overclock them quite nicely, obviously this is true of the 3.0GHz you could overclock it too. to quote something i read on another thread "you cant buy extra cores" thats y i chose the quad. but if your waiting till this holiday season couldn't you just wait? check out prices/performance because it sounds like your going to spend money just to replace it in a few months. any of these should do you just fine for another year, with some ocing, then you could see what the new year brings.
September 28, 2007 1:56:49 AM

well for one im not ocing any processors im not good with that stuff and im not ruining them. so what do u guys think? Its ok the holiday season= my birthday and christmas hehe
Related resources
September 28, 2007 3:14:01 AM

q6600 g0 with p35 fastest combo

email me for settings
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 28, 2007 3:28:39 AM

Q6600 is definitely a better deal than Q6700. I have a Q6600, not overclocked, and most I ever managed to get from it is 81% on all cores compressing videos. That means a Q6700 would have finished that job in exactly the same time, bottlenecked by the hard disk too, and I'd have just wasted the additional money. You won't get ANY benefits at all from a Q6700 (or QX6850, for that matter), compared to Q6600, unless you use Raptors or RAID and even then the difference would appear only in extreme cases - like what, 10% of the time?

Q6600 vs E6850: an E6850, at stock, would have done the same compression job slower. Think of it, 81%*4*2.4 compared to 100%*2*3.0, this means with an E6850 I'd have to wait about 25% more time for the same job.

In current games the E6850 does better than the Q6600, except Flight Simulator. Crysis will prefer the Q6600. Most future games will also prefer quads, if their developers are competent. In conclusion, I'd prefer Q6600 over E6850 too.

If you can wait until Christmas, there will be a new series of quads from Intel, made on a new 45 nm technology. One of them (forgot the number, sorry) will be priced about $300 and will be better than Q6600. Get that one instead of the Q6600 if it's available when you are ready to buy.
September 28, 2007 5:19:24 AM

i build systems every week and the q6 chip only looks better - considering its 2 chips pasted togther the temps difference is only 5-7 c with a good cooler at 3.4ghz

3.4ghz is magic spot for air cooling