Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 vs Q6600

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 9, 2008 10:09:44 PM

I have been holding out for Q9450 but, i dont think i will be waiting til feb or march. I was going to get a Q6600 but after reading the review on the E8400 i am thinking of getting it. i will be using it for video encoding,video editing and general home use. i will overclock either cpu but not to the extremes. i will be using a gigabyte p35 ds4 or a gigabyte x38 ds 4 mobo and a zalman 9700led cooler. In your guyes opinion what do u think? I know the 4 cores will be good for the video work and all but i like the overclocking potential and the support for SSE4 for future encoding apps. I have been banging my head against the wall over this :lol:  i will be using the system for at least 1-2 years then i will do a complete upgrade to the nehalems or whatever is out then. all of your opinions would be much appreciated.

More about : e8400 q6600

January 9, 2008 10:35:19 PM

Video you say?

SSE4 + Quad FTW! Wait for the Q9300 or Q9450 in February.

The SSE4 has shown 30-40% improvements in programs that utilize it at equal cores and clocks to processors that lack SSE4.
January 9, 2008 11:21:40 PM

If you were primarily a gamer, I would say E8400.
For what you do, I say go for the Q6600.
Related resources
January 10, 2008 4:26:41 AM

are sure you can clock the 9450 to same speed as the q6600?

the e8400 and e8500 will out perform quads in most games when oc over 4-4.3ghz
January 10, 2008 5:43:47 AM

dual cores are good for gaming. quads are good for video. again. they say SSE4 will have many improvements.

i guess u have to stop banging ur head. n make a decision with a compromise. :) 
January 10, 2008 7:33:01 AM

I am glad I am not the only one who now realizes quads are a poor choice for gamers this year (or at least gamers on a budget lol). =)

Me--- 90%gaming, so getting 8400, try to oc at least to 4ghz, enjoy the hell out of it, get Nahalam 4 or 8 cores, when games actually need the extra cores in a year or 2 lol.
January 10, 2008 8:10:39 AM

quads are not a poor choice

q6600 at 3.6ghz is the best chip out there - the x6800 give slight improvements in some games

but the 8500 really changes all that - intel has set these up so you can oc a quad, near the duals in the 4.4.5ghz area, any more without getting an extreme chip.

from july tell the end of the month the q6600 is the best (under 500)chip for gaming.

next month the best gaming chip is the 8500 at 4.25ghz this baby will scream on air cooling alone!

i am swaping out a g33/e6420 to new g35/e8500 in my thermaltake lan box. shoen below


i amd testing the cooler i used in this:



email me to see if it works! i know in a few days - cooler just came today!

i expect to run that lan box at 4.25ghz

next month
January 10, 2008 6:50:57 PM

Ok, not really a "poor choice" but a cheap $200 E8400 OCed to 4ghz is a better choice for probably the next year or so, especially if you are on a budget... Better to get the cheaper E8400 then a Q9450, and use the money you saved on a better GPU solution (R680, GX2 maybe?)

Your first picture looks strange, like it's a half height dwarf tower, is that really a high tech lunch box? =0
January 10, 2008 7:28:44 PM

Since the OP is looking for a video edition solution, I would say grab the Q6600 now or wait for the Q9450.

About gaming, I'm still a fans of the quads, but keep in mind that for the foreseeable the processors we have now are not going to be used to their full potential as graphics cards are going to hold them up. I suppose scores in the synthetic benchmark area will show variations between Q6600's and 45nm Duals and 45nm Quads.. but with ANY of those CPU's in your system you're going to be good to go for a couple years IMO since games are far less CPU needy then they are GPU needy.
January 19, 2008 2:18:43 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Vista "intelligently" divvy the workload among cores? (ie: Even if the game itself doesn't support quads, won't vista break up the work among the four cores to some extent?)
January 19, 2008 3:35:57 AM

jjblanche said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Vista "intelligently" divvy the workload among cores? (ie: Even if the game itself doesn't support quads, won't vista break up the work among the four cores to some extent?)

Nope. Vista can only balance load on the cores by assigning runnings tasks to different threads. A running game that is not optimized at all will simply be a really demanding task that gets assigned to a thread. That thread will be running at 100%. The only thing Vista will do, is try to keep other tasks from being assigned to that thread.
The older Pentium Ds had a terrible method of doing that. They just kept switching those demanding tasks between the threads wich caused terrible lag for some gamers.
January 19, 2008 1:29:58 PM

Ah ha!...knew it was too good to be true. Oh well, I can't say I'm disappointed I got a quad. Running at 3.6GHz. By the time a real difference between a Q6600 @ 3.6 and an E8500 @ 4ish manifests itself (ie: outside of benchmarks), both processors will already have become outdated.
January 20, 2008 5:32:23 PM

I'm actually having the same dilemma; Q6600 or E8400? I have been waiting for the E8400, and am fairly convinced it is the best choice, but part of me still has the hots for four cores. I will primarily be doing gaming, so is the E8400 still the best option?
January 21, 2008 6:19:50 PM

I really couldn't say, but I have a Q6600 I just bought clocked up to 3.6 GHz. As I said in the last post, the difference between a Q6600 @ 3.6 and an E8400 at 4.0 would be negligible, for all intents and purposes. Both chips will probably have the same life-expectancy. However, having the four cores might provide added longevity. For me, the old American adage "more is better" played into my decision to get the Q6600.
January 22, 2008 5:28:54 PM

I'm also deciding between the E8400 and Q6600. I'm building a DAW so I probably won't be OC'ing much. It's hard to justify spending $60 more on a proc that's over a year old now.

Another thing is RAM speed. Without OC'ing the Q6600 (266MHz FSB), DDR2 800MHz RAM would be running @ 533MHz. To get my RAM up to it's rated speed, I would need to OC the Q6600 to 3.6GHz, which is too much when all I want is a stable system.

If I don't plan on OC'ing would the E8400 be the better choice?
January 22, 2008 5:52:58 PM

OC'ing does not play a role in the subject.
If you OC both, the result is the same.

Also, no need to wory about RAM speed or Bus Speed.
You can adjust the memory multiplier so it runs at full speed w/o OCing the Q6600.

You can also increase the FSB on your system and decrease the multiplier so that FSB and Memory increase w/o OCing your CPU.

If you use stuff that makes use of Quad cores, go that way.
If you will keep your PC for a long time w/o an upgrade. Go Quad.
If you will be looking at Nehalm this time next year, save the case and go dual.
January 22, 2008 5:52:59 PM

I just bought a new computer with the E6850 instead of the Q6600. I choose this because I didn't fell the need for those 2 "backup" processors, and I would much rather have 2 very-fast cores instead of 4 medium-fast cores.

You see, I already had an 2 core - 2,4 gHz AMD processor and I wanted to fell a difference with my new computer. So now I'm running the E6850 at 3,6 gHz with no problems and I couldn't do that with a Q6600, because it generates twice as much heat. (I could probally only get it to 3,00 gHz.)

The Dual core I better for gaming and 'big' software, because most games/programs can only take advantage of 1 or 2 cores. So if you want a quad core, then you must consider if you need that ekstra power for running several programs at one time.

But I have to say, that I'm good at keeping my computer clean of software I don't need, so I don't have the need of those "backup" processors.

Hope this was helpfull :) 
January 22, 2008 5:56:22 PM

DON'T BELIEVE ALL THE "QUADS ARE NOT FOR GAMING" HYPE!!! I almost fell for it but did my research and bought a Q6600. OC'd to 3.3Ghz I'm seeing a huge difference from my FX60. I'm tempted to do some more research into how Vista is using all my cores even with non-quad core optimized games because I've seen real increases that I don't think can be simply attributed to just using a faster CPU. Also I've heard a lot of people say Crysis, while it's supposed to be quad core optimized really doesn't benefit from it. It my experiences thats not try. The gains are marginal at Very High due to constrants of the GPU, but at lower resolutions and quality settings I've seen as much as double the performance.
January 22, 2008 6:16:24 PM

Thing is the new dual cores clock extremly high compared to Q6600s lol. Most on air would only reach 3.4ghz, maybe some at 3.6 with low ambient.

The new duals can wizz straight up to 4ghz.
January 22, 2008 11:47:11 PM

Overclocking the Q6600 and playing games does really show increase in performance. Vista does use all 4 cores efficiently. My older E6750 @ 3.4 hits 100% load most of the time playing games. Not with my new Q6600. I can still manage to run other programs in the background while gaming w/o any decrease in performance.

Trust me, your background services will take up more CPU power than you might think. While settle for less when you can have everything running at once with a Quad.
January 25, 2008 10:52:55 AM

These Q6600 rumors about twice the heat and only 3.4 GHz is hogwash. I'm running rock stable at 3.6 GHz @ 1.45v, 67*C hottest core, 21*C ambient room temps. I could push it to 3.7 or 3.8 on air, but I'm not one to brush up against the ceiling.
January 25, 2008 8:25:54 PM

q6600 is so yesterday. buy a 8400 and post in my overclocking thread. i want to see someone get 5 ghz.
January 25, 2008 10:03:55 PM

Where's the benchmarks?
January 25, 2008 10:17:26 PM

See this article. Ignore the stuff about the Phenom procs, just look at the E8400 vs. Q6600 comparisons.

Out of 40 separate tests, the dual-core E8400 outperformed the Q6600 quad in 23 of them. And it's ~$60 cheaper.

Bottom line: "The Core 2 Duo E8400 has really stirred things up even more for AMD as this new Intel processor features a 6MB L2 cache, operates at 3.0GHz, uses a 1333MHz FSB and is built using a 45nm design process. In other words, you get its incredible performance for just $183."
January 25, 2008 11:01:19 PM

They should have benches of both the Q6600 and E8400 overclocked to their max to see which one would remain victorious. Clearly, running the Q6600 at stock speed is just a waste. I did notice that for gaming, the E8400 only beats the Q6600 by a small margin with stock speeds.

However, I doubt the E8400 would survive if any background intensive processes are running while gaming, ex: recording tv show.
January 26, 2008 12:57:01 AM

That's not the point of the E8400 though.

@JJBlanche: 3.6ghz is in no way a guaranteed figure. I know one guy who took the hype to heart but stone walled at a measly 2.9ghz
January 26, 2008 3:59:03 AM

There could have been other factors in play, though. I was walled at 2.8 until I realized that I needed to up the voltage on my RAM. Regardless, my Q6600 runs at 3.6 all day and all night, and that's all I really care about. Although the E8400 may beat the Q6600 in about half the benchmarks, when push comes to shove they are not all that different from a gaming standpoint, and, IMO, the Q6600 may have more life because of the added cores.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, if the Q6600 can still beat the E8400 in almost half the tests, and it runs 600 MHz slower at stock, that's got to be saying something.
January 26, 2008 4:01:48 AM

jbj190 said:
That's not the point of the E8400 though.

@JJBlanche: 3.6ghz is in no way a guaranteed figure. I know one guy who took the hype to heart but stone walled at a measly 2.9ghz

It could have been the motherboard.
January 26, 2008 5:32:00 AM

Whelp... to me there is no wrong or right on this. Each has its pro's and con's, so basically you get what you want or get what you know will work best for ya.

On cost.. NewEgg has the:

E8400 - $219
Q6600 - $277

However I look at it this way on cost:

E8400 219 / 2 = $109.50 per core
Q6600 - 277 / 4 =$69.25 per core (or even cheaper with OEM)

Now in most cases, there's going to be a certain amount of FPS that should be sufficient in order to play a game. The thing is, (to me) the most amount of FPS isn't going to make the game any better, or make you a better player.

Just my 2 cents. :D 

Edit:

I guess I should stress that even if you do get high fps rates, it doesn't mean its going to be constant, not to mention most games of today are more GPU intensive, depending on the resolution.
January 26, 2008 5:41:39 AM

Good point Grimmy, I guess the Q6600 offers more bang for your buck. In the end, the Q6600 still has alot of processing power to spare and thats what I need.
January 27, 2008 6:05:31 AM

I ran some tests so I hope this helps those sitting on the fence with their processor purchase. For my upgrade, I originally decided to go with the E8400. However, I wanted to see a better comparison to the Q6600 with both of them overclocked. I was hoping for some good toms benchmarks to make things easier but unfortunately they are slow at getting them out this time.

I decided to make my own benchmarks with the Q6600 overclocked to 3.6 Ghz, the E8400 overclocked to 4.2 Ghz, and my old E6400 overclocked to 3.33 Ghz. I picked these frequencies because they are easily obtainable for these three processors without risking too much heat or significantly shortening the CPU's lifespan.

Just as a warning, I had my memory timings set to 1:1 for all of the tests, so E8400 will have a slight advantage with the memory clocked at 933 Mhz. The memory for Q6600 testing is clocked at 800 Mhz and for the E6400 its clocked at 833. The timings are 4-4-4-12 for all three.

I've already seen enough benchmarks to know that most games won't take advantage of four cores. I also know that when you overclock either CPU to these high frequencies (3.6 and 4.2), that the bottleneck is mainly going to be in the video card so gaming performance isn't really a factor in deciding which CPU to go with. Instead I chose two applications that people frequently use and could potentially utilize four cores. DVD Shrink to convert dual layer DVDs to single layer and virtualdub to convert an HD movie to DivX.

I was impressed with the Q6600 as it handily outperformed the competition. I'd also like to point out that even when encoding the HD movie, the Q6600's four cores never maxed out. They usually hovered around 65% usage which allowed me to use windows and a few random apps without any noticeable slowdown. I can only assume that had the DivX codec been able to fully utilize all four cores that the tests would have shown even more impressive results in the 6600's favor. Before my test, I was set to go with the E8400. Although its still a very good option and great for gaming, it just wasn't worth it to upgrade from my E6400. The performance difference with the E8400 isn't big enough to justify buying a new CPU. The Q6600 on the other hand offers significant performance increase over my old CPU and also allows for more multitasking.

If you are on a strict budget or don't see yourself using your computer for much other than gaming and browsing the internet, then I would still say go with the E8400. However, if you are upgrading from a lower end C2D like I am, then the Q6600 will offer a much more noticeable upgrade than an E8400 would.

I included the SSE4 mode that the newer DivX codec supposedly supports (it does say "experimental") in my tests as well. The performance actually decreased in these tests so it looks as if programs still aren't being written to be optimized for SSE4 which gives me much less of a reason to wait for the Q9450. Other than slight increase in L2 cache, the Q9450 isn't really worth the wait as likely it won't clock much higher than the Q6600 without using dangerously high FSB speeds.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here are my results:






January 27, 2008 4:47:53 PM

Well, I guess that puts the official cap on it. Regardless of whether you're getting a Q6600, an E8400, or a Q9450, all of them offer similar performance in games, and variable output with regard to other programs, depending on the number of cores. Any of the aforementioned chips should serve a gamer well for the next two to three years.
January 28, 2008 8:11:31 AM

get a quad for multi-tasking, if you can wait for the 45nm, its better.

For gaming, get a high end video cards.

Hope this will help you.
January 28, 2008 6:55:04 PM

I thought that it has been said from the get-go that quads are better for encoding/ audio video workstation stuff--while the duals do a better job at games (if the speed is higher) due to the fact that gmaes do no make use of more than 2 cores. well, most games.

point being, a 8400 clocked at 4.2ghz SHOULD outperform a quad at 3.6, due simply to the higher clock speed of the dual--and the inability of the game to address more than 2 cores (therefor the q6600 loses its advantage of the two extra cores. )

its simple--if you game, the 8400 is the way to go, if you need a workstation--the q6600 is the way to go.

end of thread.
January 28, 2008 7:36:25 PM

Here is my take on this I could be wrong, but Shouldn't you be looking at the FSB on the E8400 of you are going to try and overclock it to 4.2ghz, what motherboard are you using? Would it handle the FSB you would need to take it there for very long? I have a X38 and it's not officialy rated to run at 1600mhz so If you are going to be pushing the E8400 really hard your also going to be taxing the MB pretty hard wouldn't you don't see the MB lasting very long overclocking the E8400 to anything higher than 3.6??? You would be running a FSB of 1880mhz should you be trying to hit 4.2... (Not for very long though??)

Where as with the Q6600 since it starts out with a 1066 FSB and if you have a decent MB you can tweak the FSB to get the GHZ higher without as much stress on the MB, again I could be wrong but thats the way I am looking at it???

My advice to Mestizo since he doesn't want to overclock to the "extreme" is to go with the Q6600 overclock to like 3.0 or 3.2 and enjoy it for a year or two. You'll see as the year goes by more and more programs will come out that will take advantage of the extra core(s) and you will have the hardware to support it.
January 28, 2008 8:00:45 PM

aaargh I can't decide what I want to do. I've been crawling through the forums looking at threads like this but I can't make up my mind. The main problems is I'm too impatient to wait for the 45nm quads. I intend to do alot of video encoding but I'll most likely set it to encode overnight so time really doesn't matter. I think I might get the e8400.
January 30, 2008 4:00:04 PM

IF you are planning on upgrading again in 2 years, go with the gigabyte p35 MB and the Q6600, looks to be cheaper, then trash it later and get the "New Tech" in 2010.
Personally i just got a Q6600 because i am a RTS gamer, and almost all stats i have seen, the Quads run smoother RTS games..
It's a hard choice, i went weeks researching, but i just couldn't wait for the Q9450...
January 30, 2008 6:37:33 PM

sNaKeEe said:
I just bought a new computer with the E6850 instead of the Q6600. I choose this because I didn't fell the need for those 2 "backup" processors, and I would much rather have 2 very-fast cores instead of 4 medium-fast cores.

You see, I already had an 2 core - 2,4 gHz AMD processor and I wanted to fell a difference with my new computer. So now I'm running the E6850 at 3,6 gHz with no problems and I couldn't do that with a Q6600, because it generates twice as much heat. (I could probally only get it to 3,00 gHz.)

The Dual core I better for gaming and 'big' software, because most games/programs can only take advantage of 1 or 2 cores. So if you want a quad core, then you must consider if you need that ekstra power for running several programs at one time.

But I have to say, that I'm good at keeping my computer clean of software I don't need, so I don't have the need of those "backup" processors.

Hope this was helpfull :) 

? Surely the Wolfie would have been much wiser?
Ryan
January 31, 2008 9:58:55 AM

mestizo73 said:
I have been holding out for Q9450 but, i dont think i will be waiting til feb or march. I was going to get a Q6600 but after reading the review on the E8400 i am thinking of getting it. i will be using it for video encoding,video editing and general home use. i will overclock either cpu but not to the extremes. i will be using a gigabyte p35 ds4 or a gigabyte x38 ds 4 mobo and a zalman 9700led cooler. In your guyes opinion what do u think? I know the 4 cores will be good for the video work and all but i like the overclocking potential and the support for SSE4 for future encoding apps. I have been banging my head against the wall over this :lol:  i will be using the system for at least 1-2 years then i will do a complete upgrade to the nehalems or whatever is out then. all of your opinions would be much appreciated.

If you want to do Video work get a quad whether its a q6600 or the q9450. I had an E6850 o/c to 4.0 and it was no way as fast as the Q6600 o/c to 3.6 when doing video work The extra cores dramatically reduce processing time. They will also give you great performance on any game on the market so they are they best of both worlds. . If you are looking to post high overclocks then get a dual although o/c quads will the same graphic cards will probaly beat them on 3dmark scores.
January 31, 2008 12:04:57 PM

sNaKeEe said:
I just bought a new computer with the E6850 instead of the Q6600. I choose this because I didn't fell the need for those 2 "backup" processors, and I would much rather have 2 very-fast cores instead of 4 medium-fast cores.

You see, I already had an 2 core - 2,4 gHz AMD processor and I wanted to fell a difference with my new computer. So now I'm running the E6850 at 3,6 gHz with no problems and I couldn't do that with a Q6600, because it generates twice as much heat. (I could probally only get it to 3,00 gHz.)

The Dual core I better for gaming and 'big' software, because most games/programs can only take advantage of 1 or 2 cores. So if you want a quad core, then you must consider if you need that ekstra power for running several programs at one time.

But I have to say, that I'm good at keeping my computer clean of software I don't need, so I don't have the need of those "backup" processors.

Hope this was helpfull :) 

Read up on overclocking - Go Q6600 o/c to 3.6 on air as a norm nowdays - a little harder to get higher on air but 4.0 plus with water. As they are cheaper than the E6850 and toast them on benching they were the best buy until the penryns came out. Show me some stats that prove dual core are better on gaming by any real margin - I think we are talking very little difference. A quad is still the best all round buy especially if the main requirement is video work - see the post by winkgood which shows it in detail..
January 31, 2008 5:30:51 PM

zeroneleven said:
I'm also deciding between the E8400 and Q6600. I'm building a DAW so I probably won't be OC'ing much. It's hard to justify spending $60 more on a proc that's over a year old now.

Another thing is RAM speed. Without OC'ing the Q6600 (266MHz FSB), DDR2 800MHz RAM would be running @ 533MHz. To get my RAM up to it's rated speed, I would need to OC the Q6600 to 3.6GHz, which is too much when all I want is a stable system.

If I don't plan on OC'ing would the E8400 be the better choice?

Ever heard of dividers? you can run you CPU on stock FSB x multiplier and memory at a higher ratio e.g 1:1,2:3,4:5 etc. If you dont plan on overclocking buy a dell -lol! Seriously overclocking is all about achieving maximum speed/perforamce that is 100% stable - thats why you have to run prime95 for 24 to prove it. You could quite happily limit yourself to achieving the maximum stable o/c without increasing vcore . The E8400 is probably good for 3.6 on stock - the latest batch of Quads are getting up there on low volts as well. So its still down to what you want for your money.
January 31, 2008 5:33:46 PM

sesdave said:
If you want to do Video work get a quad whether its a q6600 or the q9450. I had an E6850 o/c to 4.0 and it was no way as fast as the Q6600 o/c to 3.6 when doing video work The extra cores dramatically reduce processing time. They will also give you great performance on any game on the market so they are they best of both worlds. . If you are looking to post high overclocks then get a dual although o/c quads will the same graphic cards will probaly beat them on 3dmark scores.


Amen brother, I had an E6750 and upgraded to a Q6600, never been happier. I sold the E6750 for a great deal also. I bought the thing in October for $205 and sold it a few weeks ago for $175. What a sale! Now with my Q6600, games actually performs better and at the same time I still have alot of left over processing power to do other things, like recording a TV show in the background.
February 4, 2008 1:39:53 AM

winkgood said:
I ran some tests so I hope this helps those sitting on the fence with their processor purchase.



I tip my hat to you winkgood. :sol: 

Instead of just blurting out that this is better than that, you showed some real test results. We need more of that on the CPU threads. Did you run on the ASUS board?
February 4, 2008 4:19:43 PM

If you buy a q6600 time the march of time will be alot less hard on you. Dual cores faster in games? games that dont use more than 2 cores will be brushed aside by a decent graphics card anyway. Another 5fps in ut3 with an 8400??? blah, Totally moot.
February 12, 2008 3:43:20 PM

well i wanted to put different aspect in order to choose b/w E8400 and q6600, is temperature yeah i know many people are using q6600 on air cooling @3.6 ghz BUT what if the climate is very hot , i am from pakistan and summer time is really very hot . est 42-45 degree calcius outside at 32-37 calcius room temperature .guys can you really help me to choose what is best for me plz......?
February 12, 2008 3:59:00 PM

What's the price supposed to be on the Q9300 anyway?
February 19, 2008 5:07:39 PM

drfaraz said:
well i wanted to put different aspect in order to choose b/w E8400 and q6600, is temperature yeah i know many people are using q6600 on air cooling @3.6 ghz BUT what if the climate is very hot , i am from pakistan and summer time is really very hot . est 42-45 degree calcius outside at 32-37 calcius room temperature .guys can you really help me to choose what is best for me plz......?


If you are looking to overclock with ambient temp like that you really either need to get some air conditioning or else chilled water cooling whatever CPU you buy. If you cant get either - get an e8400. its good for upto 3.6 without vcore increase . The higher FBS requirement will raise its temps slightly but it will be easier to handle on air than the q6600. My Q6600 idles 35c at 3.6 with room ambient 22c.
February 19, 2008 6:36:28 PM

T8RR8R said:
What's the price supposed to be on the Q9300 anyway?

$266 in quanities of 1000 from Intel (i.e. Dell, HP, Newegg, etc. cost). Markup should put it in the $300 range initially, and should level out at ~$270-275 when demand dies down and supply increases.
!