Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6750, E6850 or Q6600? Help me decide

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 27, 2007 4:47:09 PM

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The question is then if this difference is really that noticeable, and if the Q6600 is kinda outdated when the games really begin to take advantage of four cores.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 :) 
December 27, 2007 6:06:18 PM

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)

Quote:
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.
December 27, 2007 6:08:43 PM

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.
Related resources
December 27, 2007 6:27:05 PM

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)
December 27, 2007 6:30:07 PM

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.
December 27, 2007 6:32:30 PM

Quote:
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. :p  Especially since this pretty much sums up everyone's thoughts/responses on Quads:

Quote:
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)
December 27, 2007 6:33:36 PM

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.

December 27, 2007 6:34:53 PM

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
December 27, 2007 7:05:24 PM

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?

December 27, 2007 7:12:07 PM

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.

December 27, 2007 7:24:53 PM

gamebro said:
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. :pt1cable: 
December 27, 2007 8:01:51 PM

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 :D 

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 :) 
December 27, 2007 8:09:51 PM

Grimmy said:
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
December 27, 2007 8:35:06 PM

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



December 27, 2007 9:29:31 PM

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?
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2007 9:31:01 PM

Q6600 - no brainer
December 27, 2007 10:28:56 PM

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
December 27, 2007 10:46:46 PM

gamebro said:
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.
December 27, 2007 11:16:04 PM

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

:p 
December 28, 2007 12:07:28 AM

Evilonigiri said:
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

:p 


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.
December 28, 2007 5:11:30 AM

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
December 28, 2007 6:18:16 AM

gamebro said:
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:

Quote:
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.
December 28, 2007 7:19:16 AM

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?
December 28, 2007 7:45:23 AM

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.
December 28, 2007 9:56:14 AM

I like Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, since those guys have been around for a while.

I do hunt down review to get some kind of expectation out the hardware in mind.

But I guess the real question would be, to OC to 3ghz without major problems (heat/upping the vcore/HS mounts) I think any of those shouldn't have too much problems since your not really pushing the system out of its intended range.

On the other hand, it would depend on how far you want to go, as well as perhaps being able to upgrade without to much hardware to change.
December 28, 2007 2:27:00 PM

Grimmy,
I maybe explained myself badly, my concern was just that the games really utilizing four cores could be too far away, so that I could just as well buy dual now since the performance in most games is better right now.. :) 

But if I can run cod4 perfectly smooth with a Q6600 (and geforce 8800GT), then I actually don't see the reason not to buy quad now? Except that I it's a bit more expensive.

Of future games I actually don't have any other games than Starcraft 2 and Age of Conan in sight (but I am not much into what else gets released in 2008 :) ), but these two games should be able to run nicely too i guess.
December 28, 2007 2:44:13 PM

I'm betting SCII will utilize 4 cores if you start getting into some large-scale battles. :) 

I'm waiting for SCII to come out... it looks so sweet and brings back memories of when I was kid, staying home from school to play. :D 
December 28, 2007 10:17:41 PM

If was me, i probably go for the e6850 for gaming now.
December 29, 2007 11:14:52 AM

I'm still not convinced what to buy :( 

I am leaning towards the Q6600 and overclocking it to 3.0 ghz, but can I be sure that the Q6600 at stock speed also will be able to run cod4 perfectly smooth too?
December 29, 2007 11:41:54 AM

As I said before I have no experience with overclocking so I would only overclock moderately where you don't have to worry much about it's stability etc.
December 29, 2007 12:22:33 PM

Okay, I could try read a bit about it.
But I'm also not very keen on buying something with the thought on buying something else already after 6 months or so. I would probably end up with upgrading too late so I would be better off buying a new gfx-card, or not upgrading at all and let some time go. In the last case I would probably have to buy a brand new PC since everything starts to get outdated :) 

So I'm not the kinda guy buying 1 new piece of hardware every 6 months.. so maybe it would maybe be better buying something lasting as long as it's possible.

December 29, 2007 1:21:19 PM

It all boils down to preference, OCing intentions, upgrade frequency, power demands/cooling, and budget when selecting a chip. Remember the contoversy of single vs. dual core...same arguments were made regarding gaming. Anyone want to argue they are still getting better performance from a single core?

OTH, for most present games s939 paired with decent graphics are still very viable gaming machines since any cpu/gpu combination that gets >40-60 fps at acceptable resolutions has no real observable difference. Any current C2D or C2Q that gets an OC of 3.0+ghz will be more than enough for gaming for sometime yet. Once you get past the above fps threshold; online gaming is dependent on your connection and QoS management over your cpu/gpu and that is true for COD4. All of your choices exceed the cpu requirements for this.
December 29, 2007 1:43:12 PM

Quote:
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.


if you're not going to upgrade your CPU for a while, i strongly suggest you wait for the Penryns to arrive...which would probably be in march... if you buy any one of those CPUs now, and then you see the performance/price index of the Penryns, you wont be happy. Here is the Penryn lineup:

E1200 $53 1.6GHz/512KB L2/800MHz FSB/65W (Dual Core Celeron)
Q9300 $266 2.5GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
Q9450 $316 2.66GHz/12MB L2/1333MHz FSB
Q9550 $530 2.83GHz/12MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8190 $163 2.66GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8200 $163 2.66GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8400 $183 3GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8500 $266 3.16GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
QX9770 $1,399 3.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 12MB cache and TDP of 136W

If you notice, the E8200, E8400 and the Q9300 make the current lineup of CPUs look like rubbish. And note the 12mb cache on the Q9450. Its going to sell like hot cakes.

Anyways if you really cant wait, go for the E6850.
December 29, 2007 1:45:11 PM

Shad0w said:
Okay, I could try read a bit about it.
But I'm also not very keen on buying something with the thought on buying something else already after 6 months or so. I would probably end up with upgrading too late so I would be better off buying a new gfx-card, or not upgrading at all and let some time go. In the last case I would probably have to buy a brand new PC since everything starts to get outdated :) 

So I'm not the kinda guy buying 1 new piece of hardware every 6 months.. so maybe it would maybe be better buying something lasting as long as it's possible.


Wait a min... Re-reading your 1st post, where you say:

"I am about to buy a new computer within some weeks,"

Are you going to buy a pre-build (Dell/HP-Compaq/Gateway/ect)? I guess I may have a different impression on your 1st post now, but if its a case to where your looking at a particular CPU in a pre-build, then just go for the fastest they offer.

Edit:

Just not sure if your going to build it yourself. :oops: 
December 29, 2007 2:10:06 PM

Grimmy said:
Wait a min... Re-reading your 1st post, where you say:

"I am about to buy a new computer within some weeks,"

Are you going to buy a pre-build (Dell/HP-Compaq/Gateway/ect)? I guess I may have a different impression on your 1st post now, but if its a case to where your looking at a particular CPU in a pre-build, then just go for the fastest they offer.

Edit:

Just not sure if your going to build it yourself. :oops: 


mihirkula said:
Quote:
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.


if you're not going to upgrade your CPU for a while, i strongly suggest you wait for the Penryns to arrive...which would probably be in march... if you buy any one of those CPUs now, and then you see the performance/price index of the Penryns, you wont be happy. Here is the Penryn lineup:

E1200 $53 1.6GHz/512KB L2/800MHz FSB/65W (Dual Core Celeron)
Q9300 $266 2.5GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
Q9450 $316 2.66GHz/12MB L2/1333MHz FSB
Q9550 $530 2.83GHz/12MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8190 $163 2.66GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8200 $163 2.66GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8400 $183 3GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
E8500 $266 3.16GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB
QX9770 $1,399 3.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 12MB cache and TDP of 136W

If you notice, the E8200, E8400 and the Q9300 make the current lineup of CPUs look like rubbish. And note the 12mb cache on the Q9450. Its going to sell like hot cakes.

Anyways if you really cant wait, go for the E6850.


Yup...and in 6 more months a newer platform will be available that is even faster, uses less power, and OC better! It never ends. :pt1cable: 
December 29, 2007 2:53:20 PM

Since my new computer is really crap I'm not much up for waiting till march for something new :)  And by march new gfx-cards are most likely getting released if I wait just a tad more and etc. etc.

Grimmy: At first I was about to buy one prebuild, but I hope I can find a friend who can help me build it so I can get the best parts :) 
December 29, 2007 3:13:45 PM

Whelp... try to be forward as possible then, like what your budget is. I'm sure these guys can help point you to the right parts.

And don't be afraid to OC or ask questions on C2D(s). OC'ing is pretty much a breeze, especially when you don't need to increase the vcore, and were talking less the 50% more speed. All you basically do is bump the FSB up lil by lil while testing it to be sure its stable. Burning up the CPU is allot harder to do these days since the chipset are protected by a thermal trip.

I hope that helps you feel somewhat better about taking an approach to building perhaps a mid rig, and make it perform like a top dog. :D 
December 29, 2007 5:57:45 PM

Let's say I bought a cheap CPU now with plans on buying a new quad core when they are released. I have three questions in that regard:

1) Will I be able to buy good enough memory and mainboard, which suits a new quad core too without any problems or loss of performance compared with what you can get when the CPU's are released?

2) I would most likely have to buy another cooler for a cheap CPU so I can overclock it. Will this fit on a new CPU too? So I wouldn't have the cost of another cooler too to add to the budget.

3) Is the performance gain in the new CPU's really that worth of a wait, and couldn't I risk that dealers are out of stock and prices are quite high in the beginning?

Regarding my budget it's around 6500 danish kr. which is 630£, but that would be if I bought a CPU now not subject to a replacement in the near future.

And btw, thanks alot for all of you input so far, it's really nice that you take the time to help me :) 


a c 313 à CPUs
December 29, 2007 7:18:45 PM

If you want a pc for games, then your focus should be on the vga card, not the CPU. Fortunately, it looks like vga cards will be easy to upgrade for the next few years. Pick the best you feel comfortable buying today. You should be happy with a 8800GTS-512(G92).

On the cpu side, any of the mentioned cpu's(E6750, E6850, Q6600), or the upcoming penryns will perform about the same in games. There is no good future proofing strategy today. In about a year's time, nehalem will launch, requiring new mobo's and memory, so get what you want for today, and rethink it in a year or so.
December 29, 2007 7:21:19 PM

Gamer, get the best CPU you can for $200 and blow the rest of your cash on 3 video cards so you can play Crysis.
Also get a PCPower&Cooling PSU.
December 29, 2007 7:34:17 PM

geofelt: that was yet another opinion just making me more confused ;) 

bobbknight: what? 3 video cards? :D 
a c 313 à CPUs
December 29, 2007 8:13:35 PM

@shad0w: Sorry to muddle things up. Think about your objective and how best to distribute your limited funds among the parts. When I look at benchmarks, I see the vga card as being the dominant factor in games, particularly when played at high resolutions and/or settings. Only a few games, such as flight simulator seem to scale well with more and faster cores.

For the games you want to play, try to find some reviews or benchmarks that compare your choices.

Some other thoughts:

With the same cpu, all motherboards perform about the same in real world applications(vs synthetic benchmarks)
DDR2 and DDR3 memory at any speed also show very little(2-3%?) difference in application performance.
Not enough memory hurts. At current prices, go for 4gb.

I like oem cpu coolers. They not only keep your cpu cooler, but the good ones have 120mm fans and are much quieter.

I understand that Jan 20 is supposed to be launch day for penryn. It might be a good idea to see what happens.
I think they will be 5% faster clock for clock, and probably 15% cheaper.

If you will do lots of multitasking, look at a quad, if you are primarily into games, for the same price take the higher clock speed of a duo.

---good luck---

December 29, 2007 8:25:08 PM

Don't be sorry geofelt :) 
I have tried to find benchmarks on the games I want to play atm (which is cod4), but without luck.

About the launch date for Penryn I can't figure out wether it's in january or march. Is it confirmed somewhere when the penryns actually are released?
December 29, 2007 9:42:54 PM

i just bought Q6600 & dont regret it one bit, just completed COD4 today,
the whole experience was like playing a movie, fantastic & absolutely flawless performance from Q6600!
i dont think this is a extremely demanding game,
focus on your GPU & decide E6750 or Q6600, both will do you fine!
multi core games in the future? who knows?
December 29, 2007 10:49:36 PM

Being in the same boat as Shad0w... If you wanted to buy a PC today, I would go with the Q6600, it's the best value for the price... Will run all your FPS just fine, and will excel in the RTS if your into those types of games.

But if you can wait till February... do it.. let the new tech come out, you will see prices drop, and new tech for the same price you are considering today.

Personally I am clinching my bum and trying to hold out till February, my PC of 4 years old is maxed out and it's time to buy new... but i don't want to make the same mistake i made last time were i got a socket 754, AGP port MB in December, right before the 939 socket PCIe's came out in February for the same price, and have been stuck with my CPU and GPU for the last three years. And from monitoring tech release February and September seem to be the release dates for most new tech.

The next question I have is what type of board do you get... But that is question for another forum section i suppose....
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2007 11:10:33 PM

gamebro said:
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?


Actually, the E6750 will clock around 400MHz higher than the Q6600 simply because dual-cores have fewer heat issues.
!