Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 OR Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 21, 2007 8:23:29 PM

hi
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 OR Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ?
both cost the some
which one is the best?
i am going to use this computer for video edting and gaming..
please help
thanks'
October 21, 2007 9:03:41 PM

If you plan to OC then Q6600... if not then E6850.
October 21, 2007 9:03:42 PM

Q6600 for sure
Related resources
October 21, 2007 9:10:44 PM

Q6600. It's more future proof. Crysis will make use of the extra cores (and Alan Wake, etc....)
October 21, 2007 9:14:56 PM

but in most cases i see that e6850 is faster than the q6600
October 21, 2007 9:19:27 PM

I think people are getting too carried away with the Quad, Octa marketing.

If there was a 6.0Ghz single core CPU that would be awesome.

A lot of people seem to think you cannot multi-task with a single CPU. This is possible and the idle will for sometime be a really fast single core.
October 21, 2007 9:37:55 PM

but you'll see substantial speed up in video editing if you have more cores than more speed.

As for games, you'll beginning to see games that take advantage of multi-cores, rather than high clockspeeds.

EDIT:

Anandtech did a CPU review for UT3.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4
October 21, 2007 9:45:19 PM

zisman said:
hi
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 OR Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ?
both cost the some
which one is the best?
i am going to use this computer for video edting and gaming..
please help
thanks'

Q6600 no ifs ands or buts. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_6.html

Every month programs even games will move toward 4 core optimization so those benchmarks will just keep moving in the favor of Q6600.
October 22, 2007 8:06:38 PM

the q6600 working on 1026fbs
e6850 working on 1333fbs
isnt it faster ?
so why q6600?
October 22, 2007 8:21:20 PM

Wait for quads at 1333fbs imo
October 22, 2007 9:56:57 PM

@archy
Wait for quads at 1333fbs imo


Why? the Q6600 is cheap now and in most cases OCing would get you to somewhere around 1333"FSB" anyways. All beit lowering the multiplier.
FSB bottlenecking the most talk about it just about non-existant. The only reason would be to get a slightly more "up-to date" part.
October 22, 2007 10:57:37 PM

q6600 will last you longer and won't take a ,assive hit in performance especially if you OC it to 1333fsb speeds
October 23, 2007 12:57:13 AM

hmmm, the E6850 is overclockable to 4.4GHz (water), nothing uses quad core atm so pretty much pointless - might aswell have the extra clock speed on cores with E6850 - by the time developers pull theyre fingers out will be loads of new quad-core cpu's (cheaper)... Thats why the Q6600 is cheap lol..........
October 23, 2007 1:06:28 AM

zisman said:
the q6600 working on 1026fbs
e6850 working on 1333fbs
isnt it faster ?
so why q6600?


Because having a faster interconnect buys you next to nothing on desktops.
October 23, 2007 6:02:20 AM

i dont know what to choose
i dont think of doing oc on py computer even do i have water cooling system
what is the fbs speed? from what i know is the speed of data movment on the mainboard or somthing like that...
October 23, 2007 9:29:27 AM

The front side bus (FSB) or system bus is the physical bi-directional bus that carries all electronic signal information between the central processing unit (CPU) and the northbridge.

Most modern front side buses serve as a backbone between the CPU and a chipset. This chipset (usually a combination of a northbridge and a southbridge) is the connection point for all other buses in the system. Buses like the PCI, AGP, and memory buses all connect to the chipset to allow for data to flow between the connected devices. These secondary system buses usually run at speeds derived from the front side bus speed.


a b à CPUs
October 23, 2007 10:13:45 AM

frig whats with all the BS on this post?

FSB 1066 vs FSB 1333 is next to nothing - P6 based cpu's arnt FSB Hungry!

The Q6600 runs 600mhz slower then the E6850 - big deal, OVERCLOCK THE Q6600 TO 3GHZ/FSB1333.

Single cores are out, and 6ghz is nothing (a stock E6600 beats a P4 @ 7.4ghz at SuperPi)



The future is multiple cores, if you have the $$$ then get the quad, dont listen to all this BS.

Just take a look at Anandtech's UT3 benchmarks - Next generation gaming is almost here and is using multiple cores.
October 23, 2007 10:16:06 AM

Though I have an E6850 with the slightest of overclocks and I'm very happy with its performance (heck, how could I not be)...I'd recommend going for the Quad. It's more future proof and as has been noted previously, more and more software is being "contemporarilized" ...or increasingly multi-threaded. ...besides, if you must, the Q6600 can be over clocked nicely, as well.
October 23, 2007 10:39:27 AM

What makes you guys think he will OC when he also already mentioned he doenst want to OC.

Imo its not the time to buy CPUs. AMD then Intel will release new ones. Then he will be able to buy slightly better CPUs for the almost same price.
October 23, 2007 10:54:38 AM

Archy said:
What makes you guys think he will OC when he also already mentioned he doenst want to OC.

Imo its not the time to buy CPUs. AMD then Intel will release new ones. Then he will be able to buy slightly better CPUs for the almost same price.



Im with Archy.. I think he should wait. All the high end parts of today will come down in price and he'll be able to get a q6750 for the price of a q6600 if not just get one of the newer better models.

Just wait a month
October 23, 2007 10:57:01 AM

Quote:
The future is multiple cores, if you have the $$$ then get the quad, dont listen to all this BS.


Only because thats the only way at the moment to produce faster processors due to thermal limitations. But this probably wont always be the case. Is it more effecient to run with 1 core at 6ghz or 2 cores at 3ghz. I think not because code has to be implemented to track the other cores.

Quote:
a stock E6600 beats a P4 @ 7.4ghz at SuperPi


I should hope so - core 2 is different architecture.

a b à CPUs
October 23, 2007 11:16:29 AM

WazzaUK said:
Quote:
The future is multiple cores, if you have the $$$ then get the quad, dont listen to all this BS.


Only because thats the only way at the moment to produce faster processors due to thermal limitations. But this probably wont always be the case. Is it more effecient to run with 1 core at 6ghz or 2 cores at 3ghz. I think not because code has to be implemented to track the other cores.

Quote:
a stock E6600 beats a P4 @ 7.4ghz at SuperPi


I should hope so - core 2 is different architecture.


Thermal Limitations - Nope, the Pentium M (dothan) at 2+ghz back in its day took on most of the desktop cpu's for its day and was a ~30w design taking on 89+w designs - Thermal Limitation my a$$, dual and quad core - increasing performance per mhz and per watt. Scaling - even the Celeron 420 cant exceed speeds of the dual and quad cores - single cores are just about EOL.
October 23, 2007 4:46:29 PM

first of all guys
i have to say that here is the best forum i ever had , lets say profesional
thank u all
i dont think i will wait becouse it is never over all the time new stuff will come and the prises will go down
i thing my next step will be to learn how to oc my new q6600 cpu.
i am realy think that for the long time it will the best (the q6600)
thanks
sory about my english lol...... :ouch: 
October 23, 2007 5:21:23 PM

zisman said:
first of all guys
i have to say that here is the best forum i ever had , lets say profesional
thank u all
i dont think i will wait becouse it is never over all the time new stuff will come and the prises will go down
i thing my next step will be to learn how to oc my new q6600 cpu.
i am realy think that for the long time it will the best (the q6600)
thanks
sory about my english lol...... :ouch: 

No worries. Glad you made the right decision :) 
October 23, 2007 5:51:38 PM

I used to say Q6600 hands down.
But after doing some thinking, I came to the conclusion that a neat E6550 with some OC will serve you better, since performance will be as good BUT with more money in your wallet and less heat on your cooler.

Id even say that you should make it a short-term upgrade with some E2000 series and some low-end P35 mobo (like Foxconn and the likes) until Nehalem arrives with native Quad (I know its NOT better, but you do save a lot of transistors) and next-gen chipset.
At least thats what Im gonna do.
October 23, 2007 11:33:06 PM

zisman said:
first of all guys
i have to say that here is the best forum i ever had , lets say profesional
thank u all
i dont think i will wait becouse it is never over all the time new stuff will come and the prises will go down
i thing my next step will be to learn how to oc my new q6600 cpu.
i am realy think that for the long time it will the best (the q6600)
thanks
sory about my english lol...... :ouch: 


Cool. But don't apologize for your English. Many only speak 1 language, you, at least, seem to be communicative in 2. Go with the q6600, you'll likely have more peformance than you'll need, whether you OC or not.
October 24, 2007 8:27:45 PM

thank u guys
see u next time regarding my new computer oc
the new computer with q6600 is on the way
October 24, 2007 10:57:21 PM

Again... Why is it always between Q6600 and E6850. Q6600 for sure
February 1, 2009 8:40:07 AM

yomamafor1 said:
No worries. Glad you made the right decision :) 

please i need help..
i have a cpu with this specs...
intel core 2 quad 2.40 q660
3 gb ddr2 kingston
512 mb nvidia 8600 gt
and intel dg3pr1 classic mother board
...... i play crysis and maxxed out to high l graphical settings and the lag is so high, why????why???why???
February 1, 2009 9:43:44 AM

nice bump there

The 8600GT is a piece of crap and will never do High on crysis at 20fps+
!