E6850 vs. E6750

[Silverghost]

I'm looking to build a new system and I have to admit I haven't much kept up with the latest and greatest. Consequently I have what maybe a, let's call it uninformed question. I see a lot of talk about the E6750 Duo Core but almost nothing about the E6850 Duo Core. For only about another $70-$100 it seems like the boost from 2.6 to 3.0 GHZ would be well worth the cash. Does the E6850 not OC well (or at all)? Am I better off investing some of that $100 in better cooling and just OC the E6750? Or am I missing something about the E6850 chip? Any input would be appreciated.

 

[cnumartyr]

E6750 is 2.66 GHz.

They both will end up topping out at about the same thing on air cooling and you will probably end up lowering the 6850's multiplier anyways (for 400x9 or x8 imo).

So why pay the extra?

If you want to pay for a 6850, buy a G0 Q6600 and OC that.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

yup get q6600 instead but if only want dual cores get the e6750 and oc

 

[Silverghost]

Cool, thanks. I use my system primarily for games and it has been my experience that games don't really make use of additional cores would performance suffer from being down to 2.4GHZ with the Q6600 as opposed to OC the e6750? Though I suppose I would OC the Q6600 as well…

(Sorry if these questions are stupid, back in my hay day all we had to worry about was the MHZ and floating point calculations.)

 

[cnumartyr]

In benchmarks yes. Would you notice? Probably not. In todays games 90% of the bottle necks are in the graphics cards. You aren't going to be able to visually see any difference (imo) because if anything it might pull 15 FPS less and you're already over 100.

Also... 6600s are easy to OC.

 

[jt001]

Go for the Q6600, games are limited by the GPU anyway, I don't think there's any game the Q6600 couldn't handle easily. Plus when games in the future need more power, they'll support more cores which you'll have so it's more future proof.

 

[Silverghost]

Thanks, all. Appreciate the input.

 

[Granite3]

I chose the 6750 over the q6600 for the gaming side.

By the time the games really take advantage of the 4 cores, the next gen will be out with the 45 dies, and that $100 I saved will come in handy picking one up.

My 6750 oc'd to 3.4 on auto voltage by just upping the fsb, prolly the easiest oc I have ever done, and runs way cooler than the q,

 

[cnumartyr]

I chose the 6750 over the q6600 for the gaming side.

By the time the games really take advantage of the 4 cores, the next gen will be out with the 45 dies, and that $100 I saved will come in handy picking one up.

My 6750 oc'd to 3.4 on auto voltage by just upping the fsb, prolly the easiest oc I have ever done, and runs way cooler than the q,

I plan on getting a Penryn quad.. but just to play Devil's advocate...

I think the fastest benchmark improvement I've seen so far from the two extreme models are +5-10%. The maximum coming from SSE4 support. My Q6600 runs as fast as the new Extreme 1600 MT/s FSB processors.

...But for the record, I plan on buying a Penryn when they come out and seeing if I can run a 2000 MT/s FSB with an X38.