Q6600 or E6750 in the long term

[Barukbuktuguduktok]

Hello!

I am planning to build a new system. I usually upgrade every 3 to 4 years.

I already read tons of information about the latest CPUs. Based on the feedbacks, Intel Q6600 is the way to go. But I am having 2nd thoughts on spending additional money for that processor since most games that would be coming out in 2008 would still not take advantage of quad cores. By the time 2009 games would come that would take advantage of quad cores, Q6600 might not be good enough already. So the extra money that I will invest would be wasted instead of adding it to, let's say, the Hard Disk budget.

So the E6750 is starting to appeal for me, since it is cheaper and runs faster in the current games.

I know that the Q6600 has more headroom in the future. But why invest on it if it will not be up to the task when future software comes?

 

[Evilonigiri]

Currently, there are several games that take advantage of 4 cores. One of them is Supreme Commander, one of the most cpu intensive game.

Anyways, since you waited so long, why don't you wait a little longer for the E8400 or something? It's due to come out soon.

 

[zenmaster]

Soon as in Next Week :>

 

[Slobogob]

Currently, there are several games that take advantage of 4 cores. One of them is Supreme Commander, one of the most cpu intensive game.

Are there any other than Supreme Commander? And don't mention Deep Fritz or something like that...

 

[Barukbuktuguduktok]

Anyways, since you waited so long, why don't you wait a little longer for the E8400 or something? It's due to come out soon.

I'ved only seen the E8400 being compared to the E6870. Yes, there might be a performance gain to the E8400.
It is obvious that the E8400 will be also faster than the Q6600 when it comes to most applications and games today.
But if the basis will be the "Quad Core" games, which I expect to come out in 2009, will the E8400 be faster than the Q6600?

 

[jevon]

There are lists out there, I don't have any links handy so you'll probably just have to google for them.

I'd choose the Q6600 since it's so easy to OC to 3Ghz. You should look it up/use search if you haven't come across it already, essentially it's 'free' because you don't have to mess with voltages or anything if you're using a P35 or X38 mothberoard.

I know most people go by the benchmark comparisons they see out there, but what many don't keep in mind is that you don't notice ANY differences between games that get synthetic benchies of 100fps (dual core) and 80fps (quad) in current games.

But in the games that are optimsed, check those benchies out (SupCom) and the different is reversed. What this means is in 2009 when more and more games are quad optimized the Q6600 will still be chuggin along nicely, it'll be your video card slowing you down.

So either go with the Q6600 now, or wait and see what 45nm benchies are like and price/availability by the end of the month.

Cheers!

 

[plguzman]

Q6600 FTW. It will take me to Nehalem. Just then I will upgrade again.

 

[aevm]

Games that take advantage of quads include CoH, SupCom, Hellgate, FSX, Crysis, UT3 AFAIK. All games will benefit from a quad if the antivirus and torrent client and other things are running in the background.

I'd wait for Q9450, but if you're in a hurry get the Q6600. It's smarter IMO to get a good CPU now even it means getting a smaller hard disk. You can easily add a better hard disk later when you saved another $100 or $200.

 

[yomamafor1]

AFAIK, Crysis definitely does not take advantage of quad core. CoH, FSX, and UT3 takes very little advantage of quad core (10% less). not sure about Hellgate, but Supreme Commander is probably the only game takes significant advantage of quad core.

IMO, I think you should stick to a dual core, and use the saved money to buy a higher end graphic card. Having a faster GPU will definitely yield higher frame rates and quality than having a quad core.

 

[gpippas]

Only 10% of the total games to be released in 2008 have been announced yet. Infact its probably less than that. Let alone the capabilities of them.

I see 2008 becoming the year of the quad. If you really plan to keep your system for as long as you say I guarentee you will wish in the future you got a Q6600. I made the same mistake ages ago with single and dualcore. Everyone said go faster single core for games. They were right, except for everything else a slower dualcore was better. Espescially as software got larger and bulkier the single core started to get bogged down.

The same will happen to dualcore and eventually quadcore. So buy 1 step ahead even if it is slower because you can overclock to make up the difference when it starts to lag.

Just my 2 cents

 

[cnumartyr]

Q6600 til Nehalem.

Then you have a bad system as a backup..

 

[The_King]

I also faced the same question when building my new system between the E6850 , Q6600 and E6750. I went with the E6750 because of its Strong performance and price and although the E6850 is faster its not by much. The Q6600 is fast becoming one of the slowest quad cores available from Intel.

Waiting for the E8000 series is an option. They have more cache than the current C2D's 6MB vs 4MB. Price Performance from Toms CPU charts puts the E6750 far above the rest.

 

[evongugg]

You can easily overclock the Q6600 to 3.0 GHZ.

 

[night_wolf_in]

if u dont intend to buy a system for 3 years. get the q6600. but if u gonna buy another one say in a year or two. get the dual. thats my opinion.

 

[ImajorI]

Q6600

 

[Jim_L9]

Forbidden Planet takes advantage of a quad core processor.

 

[sailer]

I'll vote with Aevm on the idea of waiting for a Q9450. Its just a couple weeks or so away and will provide better performance than a Q6600. Even if the Q6600 is still selected, it might go down in price a bit after the Q9450 comes out.

Since this machine is supposed to last a few years, going with quad instead of dual makes sense to me. There may be only a few games/apps that make use of a quad now, but that will increase in the years to come and then a dual core will be seen as a handicap, similar to how a single core is viewed now.

 

[Grimmy]

I know that the Q6600 has more headroom in the future. But why invest on it if it will not be up to the task when future software comes?

What are your expectations when there are more applications/games to use all 4 cores at a certain speed?

I mean, the Q6600 can OC easy to 3-3.4ghz, and thats not really something to sneeze at. And it can go more with the right cooling conditions.

There's nothing wrong with having the option to where your system can do more for you now then later. Who knows, perhaps you might get into photo shop, converting DVD's, and doing more then one thing at a time... to save time.

 

[blackened144]

Flight Simulator X will use as many cores as you have available. Unless your hurting to squeeze the CPU into the budget, then get the quad.. But I would still prolly wait for the new CPUs to come out.. Even if you dont buy the new ones, it might make the Q6600 cheaper after they are released..

 

[someguy7]

the q6600 will not get cheaper once the 45nms come out. just look at the e6600/e6700 the e6420 and so on.

 

[blackened144]

the q6600 will not get cheaper once the 45nms come out. just look at the e6600/e6700 the e6420 and so on.

AMD keeps dropping their price for the Phenom and Intel is about to release their new CPUs. Which CPU from Intel do you think will drop in price first to compete with the cheaper Phenom? The old ass Q6600, which is about on par with the Phenoms, but still beats up on the Phenom when OC'd, or their brand new CPUs that can beat up on the Phenoms at stock? My vote is they drop the price on the Q6600 first.

 

[truromeo4juliet]

why does everyone consider the Q6600 strictly for games?

as of right now, it's best at multitasking... play your dual-core-enabled game, and have a million other tasks running in the background... why would you want to close down half of your background tasks to get your game to run decent at half the detail?

simple as that...

 

[someguy7]

AMD dropped the price because there cpus where priced to high for price/performance vs the intels.

AMD then dropped them some more cause people still werent buyin them and the entire bug thing.

Intel will not adjust the price on its the old quad to compete with AMDs lower end quads. Intel would end up selling a 45nm part cheaper then q6600 before dropping the price. There newer cpus are cheaper to make and have tray prices that are WAY cheaper when the 65nms where introduced. The same thing is going down with the E8*00 series.

No Intel quads will be dropped in price to compete with any phenom. The q6600 is going to stay right around the price it is now to intel stops making them. Then the prices will actually go up a little bit. There will still be demand for them in the coming years for users to upgrade there cpus without getting a new mobo. Like how the 939 to AM2 switch went. Peopel with older intel chipsets that dont support thr 45nms in a couple years will look for cheap nice uprade from there e4*00 line or whatnot.

 

[blackened144]

AMD dropped the price because there cpus where priced to high for price/performance vs the intels.

AMD then dropped them some more cause people still werent buyin them and the entire bug thing.

Intel will not adjust the price on its the old quad to compete with AMDs lower end quads. Intel would end up selling a 45nm part cheaper then q6600 before dropping the price. There newer cpus are cheaper to make and have tray prices that are WAY cheaper when the 65nms where introduced. The same thing is going down with the E8*00 series.

No Intel quads will be dropped in price to compete with any phenom. The q6600 is going to stay right around the price it is now to intel stops making them. Then the prices will actually go up a little bit. There will still be demand for them in the coming years for users to upgrade there cpus without getting a new mobo. Like how the 939 to AM2 switch went. Peopel with older intel chipsets that dont support thr 45nms in a couple years will look for cheap nice uprade from there e4*00 line or whatnot.

That may be true since Intel has some extremely cheap quads coming out, but its the vendors who set the actual prices.. if the demand for the new CPUs drive the new ones up in price, the old ones will not move. But assuming the prices stay at their suggested levels, vendors looking to unload old CPUs that cost more than the new ones will have a hard time doing so and you will see the prices drop. Only time will tell though.

 

[someguy7]

Of coure venders can charge what ever they want. But any vendor that charges a insane mark up from intels tray prices isnt going to get much business.

The vendors dont want to lower the price much at all cause they then lose money. If they pay'd 250 a cpu for a 1000 of them then sell them for 270 thats 20 bucks profit. If they drop the price below 250 they lose money. Im not sure about this but i seen something of the sort in another thread. About how vendors return old stock back to intel for the tray price or something real close to it. Maybe somebody else with the know how on that could clear that up