E6750, E6850 or Q6600? Help me decide

[Shad0w]

Hi
First of all I tried to find older threads about this topic, but all the threads didn't exist for some reason, so here I am with a new post

I am about to buy a new computer within some weeks, so I was looking at the three cpu's: E6750, E6850 and Q6600.
I am in doubt whether it is any good to buy the Q6600 since I see that the two dual core cpu's are faster than the Q6600 at today's games.
The question is then if this difference is really that noticeable, and if the Q6600 is kinda outdated when the games really begin to take advantage of four cores. I'm not the kinda guy that is upgrading every 6 months, so I would prefer a computer being capable of playing games properly as long as possible. With that said I wouldn't be happy about sacrificing a lot of performance because it *might* get better in the future with the quad. What's your opinion on that?

Lastly, of the games out today, I am gonna play mostly is probably COD4, and maybe some UT3. I couldn't find any benchmarks comparing the E6750 and Q6600 in these games. So it's crucial that COD4 is able to run smooth with my new computer (the gfx will most likely be a geforce 8800GT)

I hope someone can help me decide

 

[rgeist554]

If you're only going to game, buy the E6750 and OC just a tad (you can use stock cooling for this in most cases) to match the speeds of the E6850. No sense in paying $100 more for 400Mhz.

If you're going to encode or heavily multi-task, and OC'ed Q6600 is only $10 more than the E6850 and will beat it in gaming performance if you OC to 3.0-3.4Ghz. (This will require aftermarket cooling)

Lastly, of the games out today, I am gonna play mostly is probably COD4, and maybe some UT3. I couldn't find any benchmarks comparing the E6750 and Q6600 in these games. So it's crucial that COD4 is able to run smooth with my new computer (the gfx will most likely be a geforce 8800GT)

Both of those chips will run the game perfectly fine, and even though the benchmarks show the Duo's beating out the Quad's, it's not really a jaw-dropping difference. Honestly, you can't really go wrong with either choice.

*edit* I'm also surprised that no one else has commented on this.

 

[kyosuke]

Are you sure you weren't looking at the "E" 6600? The "Q" 6600 is the quad-core newer processor, where the E6600 is the dual-core version. The E6600 is almost 2 years old now, so computer age wise it is getting a bit older.

The E6750 and the E6850 are both dual-core.

While the Q6600 is set at 2.4ghz. That's 2.4ghz x 4 processors vs. the "two" on the others. If you're a speed demon, then the Q6600 could easily be Overclocked with the right setup and give you that extra edge if you want it.

When it comes to those 3 as a choice, the Q6600 is the choice hands down as far as the best bang for your buck goes. imo.

 

[Grimmy]

I was going to respond earlier, but I'm getting sick of saying the same thing over and over. (as well as other people saying the same thing)

The Q6600 will shine best when OC'ed if your looking for extra speed. But most people will not OC or never heard of OC'ing. :lol:

If you also into encoding video, running allot of programs at once, compression of files, autocad, or even have programs that make use of a quad, you will notice a difference at stock speed.

You can always get a quad later on, and just get a dual now to fit your needs, whether your OC or not, or want to say money, and have something that performs just as well. (OC.. like E2200 @ 3ghz or E4500 @ 3.2ghz)

 

[Dame1701]

If I were you I'd definately get the Q6600. I recently got one of these myself for around £130 and overclocked it to 3Ghz without even having to increase the core voltage.

You will need a hefty 3rd party heatsink, (I'm using a ThermalRight IFX-14, whicb contrary to some reviews actually performs very well) but it's worth it - even when running games mine doesn't top 45oC.

With regards to games, it is true that at the moment there isn't much that uses more than 2 cores, but there are games such as Alan Wake comming out next year that will definately require all 4 cores. I believe they are offloading the physics calculations to one core and using another to precache the game world n real time - which is all very exciting stuff.

 

[rgeist554]

I was going to respond earlier, but I'm getting sick of saying the same thing over and over. (as well as other people saying the same thing)

Ah, lol. I guess it does get a little repetitive. Especially since this pretty much sums up everyone's thoughts/responses on Quads:

The Q6600 will shine best when OC'ed if your looking for extra speed. But most people will not OC or never heard of OC'ing. :lol:


If you also into encoding video, running allot of programs at once, compression of files, autocad, or even have programs that make use of a quad, you will notice a difference at stock speed.


You can always get a quad later on, and just get a dual now to fit your needs, whether your OC or not, or want to say money, and have something that performs just as well. (OC.. like E2200 @ 3ghz or E4500 @ 3.2ghz)

 

[gamebro]

The Q6600 will generally OC to 3.0-3.6, but so will the E6750 or E6850.

What is better for games RIGHT NOW?--- the duel cores. Even Crysis, which hyped us up about quad cores all year long, barely benefits with a quad, as a duel core is all it needs! In that game we are limited by GPU power not CPU. A quad core is only beneficial in that game with mass physics going on, and even then, it is barely better (best I've heard is all 4 cores getting used 70% only (then crashed lol) ) where as the duels will do up to 100% stable.

I think I've seen benches that showed UT3 did benefit a little bit from having a quad over a duel, but don't take my word for it as I may be wrong.

The benches I've seen on COD4 seem to suggest that a duel is every bit as powerful as a quad at same clock speeds.
---------------------------

SO WHEN WILL I NEED A QUAD CORE FOR GAMES?---

This looks to be a bad year for PC games.... There are very few titles coming out that even I am interested in.... However they should start better using quad cores by the end of the year.... But will they make quads own duel cores if not even Crysis can?

I highly doubt anyone who buys a duel core for GAMING now will regret that purchase anytime soon, especially with the upcoming E8400 (penryn wolfdale duel core) which easily overclocks to 4+ghz on air cooling alone. It looks like this year, gaming belongs primarily to the E8400 (no doubt be a hot product all year)
If I were you, I'd wait a few weeks for that (like I am) as it will only be $200 vs $280 for the Q6600, or $350 for the Q9450 (in feb-march).

Remember this is strictly for gaming... Other apps do make very good use of quads and that trend will only continue to grow. A duel core is not for everyone, but neither is a quad right now. People need to look at what they'll be using their PC for and decide what is best for them.

If you really can't wait a couple of weeks for the E8400, then my vote goes to the E6750, for strictly gaming.

 

[chookman]

either e6750 or q6600 depending on your needs and if you are going to overclock.

As said multi-thread get the q6600 hands down.

If you are an overclocker get the q6600 hands down

If you are only mainly gaming then get the e6750

 

[gamebro]

What, the Q6600 can overclock but the E6750 can't?

Why does everyone seem to say that the Q6600 is the best choice for overclockers!?!?

If you plan to overclock, the E6750 should also get to 3.2-3.6ghz just like a quad maybe even higher!! yet everyone says--- "If you are an overclocker, get the Q6600 hands down"

Not trying to flame ya chookman, as others basically said the same thing in this thread and many others...

I don't get it, can someone explain that to me? Why does overclocking only apply to the Q6600 when recommending a CPU on these forums lol? Is there something I don't know?

Like does the E6750 only OC to 3ghz? Why is the Q6600 better for OCing?

 

[Grimmy]

Ummm... basically 4 cores > then 2 is why.

Edit:

CPU Charts 2007

And one game that uses 4 cores (Q6600 is slower then E6750 at stock speed):

It does lag behind other games, but then when more games/apps are encoded to take advantage of all the cores, then the choice would be more cores. Also, even though it may be slower FPS wise, its not got to be much that you would really notice it.

 

[Vathral]

What, the Q6600 can overclock but the E6750 can't?

Why does everyone seem to say that the Q6600 is the best choice for overclockers!?!?

If you plan to overclock, the E6750 should also get to 3.2-3.6ghz just like a quad maybe even higher!! yet everyone says--- "If you are an overclocker, get the Q6600 hands down"

Not trying to flame ya chookman, as others basically said the same thing in this thread and many others...

I don't get it, can someone explain that to me? Why does overclocking only apply to the Q6600 when recommending a CPU on these forums lol? Is there something I don't know?

Like does the E6750 only OC to 3ghz? Why is the Q6600 better for OCing?

Because there are people that do not overclock so the E6750 would be a good choice since most games don't take advantage of the 4 cores. However, if you are an overclocker, the Q6600 would be the better choice since you'll have not only increased its speed but it is available for any games that takes advantage of it. Although the E6750 isn't a bad choice either.

 

[Shad0w]

Thanks for all the comments, it's appreciated

And yes it's 100% gaming, though it's only the big multiplayergames that I would upgrade for, mostly the shooters that I play on my PC like cod4.

I have never been OC'ing so I have no experience on that. I wouldn't be happy to be too worried about my cooling working properly or burning things off

I could wait a few weeks for the E8400 if it would be worth it, but I'm not up for waiting for something getting delayed, out of stock etc. because it's so new.. leaving me waiting for more than around 1 month

Btw, I live in Denmark, so the release dates you are talking about, are they correct for Denmark too? If you know

 

[chookman]

Ummm... basically 4 cores > then 2 is why.

Edit:

CPU Charts 2007

And one game that uses 4 cores (Q6600 is slower then E6750 at stock speed):

It does lag behind other games, but then when more games/apps are encoded to take advantage of all the cores, then the choice would be more cores. Also, even though it may be slower FPS wise, its not got to be much that you would really notice it.

You beat me too it Grimmy

 

[gamebro]

I think you guys missed my point, even though I don't know how I coulda laid it out better.... Let me try again.


FOR SOMEONE WHO LIKES TO OVERCLOCK---

Why is the E6750 bad, but the Q6600 good? Do they not both overclock to similar levels?

You fellows seem to have no problem saying "if you don't OC the E6750 is a good choice"

But you fellows say "If you overclock the Q6600 wins hands down"


Don't you people see the madness in that? I don't get it! You can't recommend 4 cores at stock speeds, but you can overclocked, even though the E6750 OC's just as high if not higher...


Ok,,, that does it... My brain is official burnt =D

 

[chookman]

Lol

Someone who likes to OC generally likes the performance gains, i would have to say youd get more performance gain (all round ie games, benching, encoding etc.) than you would with an OCed e6750. So it wins in that regard IMO. And with the Q6600 at speeds of the stock e6750 youll get approx. if not better gaming as well.

If your not going to OC and prodominately play games than the higher clock at stock of the e6750 will win overall.

Not saying the e6750 is bad, its a great CPU but for those that are choosing between Q6600 and e6750 obviously price is no issue so why not get something with twice as many cores?

 

[apache_lives]

Q6600 - no brainer

 

[gamebro]

OK thanks for clearing that up a bit.... I just starting to see where ya'll coming from now, but all is not answered----
People should stop forgetting that the duel cores are wonderful overclockers as well... Q6600 is the only way to go for overclockers? I don't agree... You take both chips up 1ghz, why does the duel core suddenly not become a viable option?

example (fake) quotes--

"Yer no gona OC? yeah.... I recommend the E6750 for you"

"Going too OC 1ghz whatever it is you buy?.... OH you better get the Q6600 then!"

WHY!? =0

 

[chookman]

OK thanks for clearing that up a bit.... I just starting to see where ya'll coming from now, but all is not answered----
People should stop forgetting that the duel cores are wonderful overclockers as well... Q6600 is the only way to go for overclockers? I don't agree... You take both chips up 1ghz, why does the duel core suddenly not become a viable option?

example (fake) quotes--

"Yer no gona OC? yeah.... I recommend the E6750 for you"

"Going too OC 1ghz whatever it is you buy?.... OH you better get the Q6600 then!"

WHY!? =0

In those cases it comes more down to what the EXPERT Overclocker is doing with the rig or if they are showing off.

 

[Evilonigiri]

I like to think it like this:

E6750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz!
vs.
Q6600 Oc'ed to 3.6Ghz!

Hmm...E6750 is dual core so 4Ghz X 2 = 8Ghz.
Q6600 is quad core so 3.6Ghz X 4 = 14.4Ghz.

Winner: Q6600

 

[chookman]

I like to think it like this:

E6750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz!
vs.
Q6600 Oc'ed to 3.6Ghz!

Hmm...E6750 is dual core so 4Ghz X 2 = 8Ghz.
Q6600 is quad core so 3.6Ghz X 4 = 14.4Ghz.

Winner: Q6600

LOL thats assuming 100% scalability and assuming that every piece of hardware and every written bit of code utilises 4 cores and that much power.

 

[Maxinator]

ok here's the 'facts.'

first of all the new q6600 'G0" stepping will easily oc to 3ghz+ on stock voltage. i did it and im a total noob wen it comes to oc'ing. the way i like to think of comparing a quad to a duo is the fact that im able to burn a dvd, surf, copy files, and run a thread of prime without the machine slowing down too much at all. i betcha a dual can't do that. but that is only my opinion. plus ive had no heating problems or nething at all with my q6600 and if your only running a single core atm, like i was, the amount of punishment you find you machine can take is amazing. you will defiantly not be disappointed in buying a quad core. btw i can run cod 4 at 1680x1050 maxd out w/ 8800gt at 702/1712/950*2. looks f'ing fantastic!

im neva going nething less than quad core again in the future and im sure that time will be a lot longer down the track compared to a dual core.

Hope that helps,
Max

 

[Grimmy]

OK thanks for clearing that up a bit.... I just starting to see where ya'll coming from now, but all is not answered----
People should stop forgetting that the duel cores are wonderful overclockers as well... Q6600 is the only way to go for overclockers? I don't agree... You take both chips up 1ghz, why does the duel core suddenly not become a viable option?

example (fake) quotes--

"Yer no gona OC? yeah.... I recommend the E6750 for you"

"Going too OC 1ghz whatever it is you buy?.... OH you better get the Q6600 then!"

WHY!? =0

Here's a nice article:

Overclocking: Dual- vs. Quad-Core CPUs

If you don't read the article and just browse through the benches, you notice the E6750 is OC higher to really beat the quad. But then ask yourself this question. How long has quad cores been out compared to dual? In the long run, having more cores will eventually be better then increasing single or dual cores faster. It does depend on the software though, as some of the benchmarks point out.

Everything does has it pros and cons, energy consumption is one thing. The quad, well it just simply will have a bigger appetite. :lol:

I never did say that the E6750 is bad, hell I'm using a E4400 @ 3ghz and I find it to be great, especially for 126 bucks. But then even those who have an E2200 at 95 bucks are prolly even happier at @ 3ghz for the amount of money they spent for similar performance.

But back to the article, I pretty much agree with their conclusion:

Conclusions: Intel Quad-Core And MSI P35 Neo2 Get Our Nod

In general, we can say that overclocking definitely pays off, regardless of whether you choose the dual-core or the quad-core CPU. Either one of these processors is capable of a 25% speed increase, which is noticeable even with everyday computing tasks. The increased energy costs that result from overclocking is not especially pronounced with Core 2 processors; their share in the system's overall power consumption is so small that overclocking always pays off. The question whether you should opt for a dual-core or quad-core processor is easily answered as well.

In video-editing and 3D-rendering scenarios, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is noticeably faster than the dual-core CPU. On the other hand, it still trails its sibling when it comes to gaming. In our benchmark suite, only one of the six games supported the additional cores, allowing the Q6600 to catch up with the E6750. Bear in mind though that upcoming gaming titles, especially those expected this holiday season, will change this situation, bringing much better quad/multi-core support to the table. Only after this happens will the quad-core processor get our recommendation, even for the gaming enthusiast.

The quad-core can offer the user advantages even if applications offer "only" dual-core support, namely when background processes take up additional CPU time. Take anti-virus software scanning in the background, for example, or an archiving program that is extracting a file, which saps processor power from your main application. Tasks running in the background interfere much less with the main application when there are more cores at the system's disposal.

Seen from this perspective, the only argument remaining in favor of the dual-core Core 2 Duo E6750 is its lower price.

Even though the dual-core model is able to reach higher clock speeds, the quad-core wins in the final analysis thanks to multi-threaded software. If you have the extra $88 to spare for the Q6600, we recommend you choose it over its little brother. In our opinion, the dual-core version simply isn't worth it any more. The situation is even more dire for the E6850, which costs as much as the Q6600, making it an even tougher sell.

That brings us to our other recommendation: the motherboard. Gigabyte and MSI provided us with review samples, and both boards proved to be excellent overclockers and were able to help the processor reach high FSB speeds. Of the two, we recommend MSI's P35 Neo2-FR or P35 Neo2-FIR. Despite their low price, these boards come with a heatpipe solution, which is the better choice for an overclocking board. As an added benefit, the MSI boards allow you to create a Crossfire configuration and offer an indispensable CMOS-reset function, which resets the BIOS at the touch of a button without clearing your settings.

 

[Shad0w]

Grimmy, you said that "In the long run, having more cores will eventually be better then increasing single or dual cores faster. It does depend on the software though, as some of the benchmarks point out. "

That sounds reasonable but my only concern is that if the Q6600 is outdated when quad-cores are really utilized? Then the result would be a sacrifice of performance by choosing quad today and in the near future (if I don't OC), and having a mediocre system for future games though it might perform better than if I had bought a E6750 because games are supporting four cores.
I hope I make sense

About the overclocking: Would I be able to clock a Q6600 to, let's say 3.0 ghz, without any experience in overclocking at all? And would I be able just to set it at that speed and leave it without having to worry about anything?

Finally, would I have to pay more attention to what mainboard and ram I buy if I plan to do some overclocking?

 

[Grimmy]

Errr... if the Q6600 gets outdated when it utilized, that would also mean, all the dual cores would be outdated as well. When the games start coming out taking advantage of all the cores, the Q6600 still out paced the E6750 at stock. You can perhaps get a higher OC on the duals, but thats what it take to beat it by a certain margin.

Yes, OC the quad to 3ghz can be safely done without problems from what I read. I pretty much believe them since I'm running my E4400 at 3ghz. I've been running it for over a month straight folding. I've had to reboot for software updates, but so far my XP system has been running 6 days straight without any needed reboots. (actual time 5days, 21 hours)

As far as MB, I'm sure people out there will recommend X38 chipsets, or something that will run the Q6600 for now, and have upgrade options down the road.

 

[Reynod]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/page15.html

Thanks Grimmy for the link above.

What mobo would you recommend?

I like Asus ... and I am not up on the latest Intel mobos.

Following this thread with interest.