I am going to upgrade my computer for Unreal Tournament 3 and I was wondering what would be a better processor, a Q6600 or E6750? I have a Asus P5B Deluxe motherboard, OCZ Gold 2GB DDR2-800 RAM, 620W power supply and I am going to be buying a nVidia 8800GTS. I don't know much about computers and I would really appreciate your opinion.
The E6750 all the way. While the quad-core may seem tempting, the 6750 will beat the q6600 in every game. period. Games just aren't made to utilize the parallel processing power.
games will start to use the quad-core. because i can do more with a quad and its faster in games i can o/c my quad to 3.0/1333. it is very fast and stays cool. dual is good but quad-core more and more games/programs wil use them. and do use them now. a dual-core has only 2 cores a quad-core has 4. 4 is better then 2.
Name one game that makes better use of 4 cores as opposed to 2. If you look at ANY of the benchmarks for gaming, the Q6600 does not stand a chance against the higher clocked E6750. Sure you can overclock the q6600, but same with the 6750. The biggest problem I have with the 6600 is the "Kentsfield" core. It is not as good an the "Conroe".
I am a Software Engineer, and I will tell you good multi-threaded programming is hard to get right, and even harder to debug. Effectively utilizing multiple threads for games is much more difficult because there is no logical division of work to do. Every time you spawn a new thread, you have to ensure that whatever data it is manipulating is "locked" from any other threads. So naturally, programs that perform a lot of disjoint activities are great candidates for multiple threads. Games however would not benefit as much from such an approach because you would lose any benefit you may have gained in constantly having to wait for data to be unlocked.
@Cana,
So my point is... if gaming is your bread and butter, go with the E6750. It has a much better core, and is clocked higher, AND utilizes a 30% faster BUS speed. Don't listen to these guys who don't want to hear that the q6600 they bought earlier this year isn't as great for gaming as they thought.
Now don't get me wrong. If you are a big multi-tasker doing things like video encoding etc... then 4 cores would suit you better. But for gaming, it just isn't the case.
Badger you are right about games TODAY not using all the cores, but look a the future of gaming, and understand that the OP may not want to upgrade his cpu over and over again because a better written game can use four cores, and his e6750 will be a bottleneck.
BTW I own an e6750. and the bus increase makes no difference (less than 10% is insignificant by statistical standings and that is just ONE aspect of all COMM done in the computer). The clock speed difference? You cannot see the diff in any game because with the right video card your FPS will be above 80 in both CPU's so what is the point of having the e6750 clocked 266MHZ more? 266mHZ? what is that? it is nothing.
Four cores is something and it opens the door to faster processing especially when Vista 64 starts getting better (SP1 soon I hope) and this is a purchase for futureproofing and not just for today. I bought the e6750 and am happy, but when I see the q6600 now just $55 more than what I paid a month ago...hmmm.
Message edited by bornking on 10-13-2007 at 09:28:51 PM
If it was me I'd grab the e2180 and oc it faster then stock 6750. Then when the new quads come out and drop in price I'd grab one of those and put it in.
I have a question, that is somewhat related, I hope i am not stealing the thread.
Doesn't XP or Vista, run a pile of services in the background, and hence even a single core game run better on a Quad because those extra cores can run those services?
Quote :
If it was me I'd grab the e2180 and oc it faster then stock 6750. Then when the new quads come out and drop in price I'd grab one of those and put it in.
Good idea, and that is why i am still on my e4300 instead of a q6600, but I tell ya, the wait is painfull
I have a question, that is somewhat related, I hope i am not stealing the thread.
Doesn't XP or Vista, run a pile of services in the background, and hence even a single core game run better on a Quad because those extra cores can run those services?
Quote :
If it was me I'd grab the e2180 and oc it faster then stock 6750. Then when the new quads come out and drop in price I'd grab one of those and put it in.
Good idea, and that is why i am still on my e4300 instead of a q6600, but I tell ya, the wait is painfull
Itll be worth the wait though. Its alot better then spending an extra $280.00.
Name one game that makes better use of 4 cores as opposed to 2. If you look at ANY of the benchmarks for gaming, the Q6600 does not stand a chance against the higher clocked E6750. Sure you can overclock the q6600, but same with the 6750. The biggest problem I have with the 6600 is the "Kentsfield" core. It is not as good an the "Conroe".
Message edited by PSYCHoHoLiC on 10-14-2007 at 02:54:20 AM
yes but the e6750 will be bottlednecked in about a year. hl2 will start to use 2-4 cores. and Crysis will use 4 cores. so i gave you the name of 2 games. and btw i could care less if my computer is the top of the line or not. all that matters is its runs fast for me. and does what i want it to do. i did months of looking around before i got my q6600 G0. btw the q6600 is 2 conroe's core put togather. i am not saying i am smart but i look up everything and read about the items before i get them. the quad-core will be more furture proof. and yes alot of ppl say quad-core is not furtue proof but i think they are wrong. because as software goes on and games become more and more adv. and windows vista 64 use my q6600 very well. 2 e6600 put as one. just like the pentium D's and i my quad core runs very nice and cool. but its better to have 4 cores then 2. am i wrong on that one?
Don't get me wrong, I think the Q6600 is a fine processor, and I would probably buy one over the E6750, simply because I could easily make use of 4 cores. All I am saying is that it isn't the best choice for gaming right now.
Either processor is going to be just great. So do what you want.
Although I agree to some extent with badger..I don't agree once he spoke regarding ocing.
the only reason I would see to get a dual core is because you'll see more performance from its higher clock. Afterall..You can get a 6850 for roughly the same price at a q6600...3.0 ghz dual core to 2.44 quad...Budget wise the 6750 is a great deal as well...
Now the main issues being how long you want to use this new processor. The future is multithreaded...Almost all applications in the future will take a turn for this..Heck look at the road maps...8 cores will come to be in a few years..then probably 16.
Regarding OC'ing....I agree with badger on oc'ing the q6600 as many others will also. It's great for the price. But the comment about "you can oc the 6750 too" is just false...Yes you can oc it..but it's much more beneficial to grab a q6600 for a overclock. Yes you can always push your processors harder...But you can never add additional cores.
Cana..If you plan to OC...get a quad..If you don't plan to OC...You can get by with a faster clocked dual core. It all depends on what you want to use it for. Also keep in mind that the q6600 will be future proofed a lot farther down the road then the dual core will.
The downside though...I don't know if your ram sports D9 micron chips. Judging by the fact it's an OCZ gold selection..It probably doesn't. You probably won't be able to oc it very far...Your memory would also have a lower life expectancy compared to higher grade micron modules. But don't let this detour you from oc'ing...You should still be able to get a decent OC....
q6600 would be my choice..higher clocked Dual cores may be nice right now..but down the road that's a different story..
Message edited by Kamrooz on 10-14-2007 at 05:40:59 AM
