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.
Q6600 or E6750?
- Thread starter Cana
- Start date
-
- Tags
- LED Monitor Monitors Product
badger101101
Distinguished
- Nov 28, 2006
- 72
- 0
- 18,630
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.
killz86
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2005
- 403
- 0
- 18,780
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.
badger101101
Distinguished
- Nov 28, 2006
- 72
- 0
- 18,630
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.
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.
Maziar
Champion
- Jul 20, 2007
- 21,707
- 1
- 52,960
Q6600 VS E6850 :
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html
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.
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.
roadrunner197069
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2007
- 4,416
- 0
- 22,780
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?
Good idea, and that is why i am still on my e4300 instead of a q6600, but I tell ya, the wait is painfull
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?
Good idea, and that is why i am still on my e4300 instead of a q6600, but I tell ya, the wait is painfull
roadrunner197069
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2007
- 4,416
- 0
- 22,780
SpeedyVV :
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?
Good idea, and that is why i am still on my e4300 instead of a q6600, but I tell ya, the wait is painfull
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?
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.
PSYCHoHoLiC
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2006
- 246
- 0
- 18,680
Here's your games you requested... more than one BTW..
Notice the 3.6ghz quad vs the 3.85ghz dual
the 2.4ghz quad holds its own against the 3.6 in a couple of them.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html#sect0
its really a no brainer.. the Q6600 rocks.. and the G0 clocks like crazy.
Notice the 3.6ghz quad vs the 3.85ghz dual
the 2.4ghz quad holds its own against the 3.6 in a couple of them.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html#sect0
its really a no brainer.. the Q6600 rocks.. and the G0 clocks like crazy.
killz86
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2005
- 403
- 0
- 18,780
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?
badger101101
Distinguished
- Nov 28, 2006
- 72
- 0
- 18,630
badger101101
Distinguished
- Nov 28, 2006
- 72
- 0
- 18,630
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.
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..
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..
swifty_morgan
Illustrious
- Feb 10, 2006
- 13,566
- 1
- 42,960
This video sucks, but at the same time it's good. It shows physics utilizing the quad core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWpmpzQd-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWpmpzQd-0
GeoMan
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2005
- 218
- 0
- 18,680
You've got a head scratcher.
1st point: both chips run most games at over 80 fps so you won’t notice the difference for most games so get the cheaper chip.
2nd point: Those links that Maizar gave are pretty useful, but what it shows is that different reviews come to different conclusions, some say duals are better, some say quads are better for gaming. For most current games the duals will win, just check out Toms charts. Prey, Quake IV, Serious Sam 2 and Warhammer Mark of Chaos run better on the E6750 and Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 2004 have higher FPS with the Q6600. You mentioned UT3, I have no idea which it runs better on, The Beta demo was released on Friday, so hopefully there will be benchmarks for it pretty soon and you'll be able to find out what it runs better on.
Personally I'd lean towards the quad because I do more than game, and the difference between 134 and 153fps isn't noticeable for games. There is a lot of talk about 'future games' that run better using 4 cores. Since I haven't seen 'future game' benchmarks all this speculation is just so much hot air, and I'll wait till 'future game' becomes 'current game' and I can reference a benchmark instead of passing on hearsay.
And now that I've gone and re-read your opening post, I've used that incredibly useful thing called GOOGLE, checked up on your mobo and it DOES NOT SUPPORT QUAD CORE!!!!!
So unless you plan on upgrading your mobo as well, you only have the E6750 to choose from.
RTFM
1st point: both chips run most games at over 80 fps so you won’t notice the difference for most games so get the cheaper chip.
2nd point: Those links that Maizar gave are pretty useful, but what it shows is that different reviews come to different conclusions, some say duals are better, some say quads are better for gaming. For most current games the duals will win, just check out Toms charts. Prey, Quake IV, Serious Sam 2 and Warhammer Mark of Chaos run better on the E6750 and Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 2004 have higher FPS with the Q6600. You mentioned UT3, I have no idea which it runs better on, The Beta demo was released on Friday, so hopefully there will be benchmarks for it pretty soon and you'll be able to find out what it runs better on.
Personally I'd lean towards the quad because I do more than game, and the difference between 134 and 153fps isn't noticeable for games. There is a lot of talk about 'future games' that run better using 4 cores. Since I haven't seen 'future game' benchmarks all this speculation is just so much hot air, and I'll wait till 'future game' becomes 'current game' and I can reference a benchmark instead of passing on hearsay.
And now that I've gone and re-read your opening post, I've used that incredibly useful thing called GOOGLE, checked up on your mobo and it DOES NOT SUPPORT QUAD CORE!!!!!
So unless you plan on upgrading your mobo as well, you only have the E6750 to choose from.
RTFM
sparky79
Distinguished
- Jan 30, 2007
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
Yes it is. Kentsfield is two conroe cores slapped together. Do a simple search on it. Why do you think AMD has being saying thats its not a true quad core? Conroe is a dual core, but once Intel hooked two of them up together its not a conroe anymore, hence the new name.
e6600 conroe 2.4ghz, 4mb cache 1066fsb
q6600 kentsfield 2.4ghz 8mb cache (2x4mb) 1066fsb
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q6600
Bornking, I'm looking to upgrade. Should I wait for the Penryn's in January? My system is only for gaming. In a couple of months I want to go back to MMORPG's and get Flight Simulator X ( I will learn how to land planes in this lifetime lol).
Is it time to upgrade to Vista?
plguzman
Distinguished
- Nov 14, 2006
- 337
- 0
- 18,780
Tom's charts doesn't apply in this case IMO, because it takes the old Q6600 @ stock speed, and the point of the newest reviews is that the Q6600 G0 overclocks like mad. If you are not going to OC, then the faster C2D should perform better than a Q6600 @ stock, but if you are going to OC, then is a no brainer: Q6600 all the way.
plguzman
Distinguished
- Nov 14, 2006
- 337
- 0
- 18,780
mikeny, is up to you. Penryn are the new quads, and yes, FSX is one of the games that uses the 4 cores, so a quad core will perform better than a dual core even with a mild overclock. In my case, I'm going to a Q6600 now (installing next week) and will wait until Nehalem is out (Nehalem are the new CPU's that are expected to be released in Q3 2008), and will be a completely different hardware platform (MOBO, RAM, etc). But once again, is up to you.
About Vista, I have Vista 64 installed since 2 months ago, and yes, is worthy now. Vista performs much better than XP in all tasks. The only downside was the gaming performance (XP performed much faster) but now there is no noticeable difference, and you have DX10. Bioshock and Crysis looks gorgeous in DX10. FSX will have a patch for DX10 soon.
PSYCHoHoLiC
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2006
- 246
- 0
- 18,680
You know what i found funny about this post?
You are trying to be a smartass about using google.. and telling him to RTFM.. Yet you cant even read the webpage you linked to? It says in plain text "Intel® Quad-core CPU Ready"
Score so far (from what i can tell)
E6750: 2
Q6600: 5
E2180: 1
I might have missed something a vote here and there, but it looks like either way is a good choice.
Games today E6750 is better. Q6600 might be better in the future.
Am I reading this right?
E6750: 2
Q6600: 5
E2180: 1
I might have missed something a vote here and there, but it looks like either way is a good choice.
Games today E6750 is better. Q6600 might be better in the future.
Am I reading this right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 5
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram