Ad
News

Alienware announces desktop PC with Intel's latest quad-core processor

Published on January 11, 2007

Alienware said it "will" launch Intel's second quad-core desktop processor, the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600, on its Area-51 7500 desktop system. Read more

Microsoft ships first post-beta 2 build of Vista

Published on June 27, 2006

Late Friday, Microsoft shipped Windows Vista build 5456, its first post-Beta 2 version of the next major Windows release. Read more

Microsoft Releases New Build of Windows Vista

Published on September 25, 2006

Microsoft has released an interim build of Windows Vista to its usual testers as well as to some 100,000 of the participants in its Customer Preview Program. Read more

CES 2007: Intel rolls out new quad-core processor Core 2 Quad Q6600

Published on January 08, 2007

Intel is enjoying its lead in the current microprocessor market and today announced more CPUs with four cores. There are three new quad-cores altogether, one desktop processor and two chips for entry-level servers. Read more

Latest Reviews & Articles

Tom's SBM: The $1,500 Mainstream PC

Published on October 29, 2008

We're following up yesterday's $4,500 behemoth with a more affordable $1,500 mid-range build. Let's see what sort of performance (and overclocking headroom) you can get when you spend one third of the money. Read more

System Builder Marathon: The $4,500 Super PC

Published on October 28, 2008

This month's System Builder Marathon spreads the system prices out even further to $4,500, $1,500, and $500. Is today’s $4,500 system really worth three times as much as an upper-mainstream performance machine? Read more

Can Your Old Athlon 64 Still Game?

Published on October 24, 2008

We'd all love to upgrade every time a new piece of gaming hardware drops, but that's an expensive proposition. You think your Athlon 64 system is fairly quick--any chance a simple graphics upgrade can bring it up speed? We're aiming to find out. Read more

Benchmarking With Intel's NAS Toolkit

Published on October 23, 2008

We've been publishing our networked storage stories using Intel's NAS Performance tool kit as our primary benchmark. But before we went any further, we thought we'd introduce the software package and its individual components. Read more

  Tom's Hardware Forums » Homebuilt Systems » New System Build » Wolfdale or Q6600 Gaming Build
 

Wolfdale or Q6600 Gaming Build




Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : Wolfdale or Q6600 Gaming Build
 
Profile: newbie
More Information

My pc is for gaming/listening to music/watching movies/web browsing, of course i won't ever burn a DVD while playing a game, so really what is the point of a Q6600 for me other than to burn away more electricity?

Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Gosh, i love ATI
Profile: addict
More Information

not much tbth... the E8400 wil give you a lot better gaming performance - go with that ;)

Profile: nimble knuckle
More Information

For what you need… Ya, the Wolfdale will own Q6600


---------------
Gigabyte X48-DQ6 / Q9550 @ 3.4ghz (400*8.5) / VisionTek 4870x2 / 4GB Mushkin 1066MHZ (2*2) / Xigmatek HDT-S1283 / Antec TruePower Quattro 1000 Watt (Quad crossfire one day) / Samsung 22x DVDRW Lightscribe / Two 500GB Seagate 7200.11(raid 0)
Profile: newbie
More Information

alrighty just makin sure cause it seems every place i read i see some person saying blah blah blah the Q6600 is more future proof for gaming. When all I need is a system to last a few years untill nehalem is cheaper :)

Your Local Canadian
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

E8400.


---------------
Intel C2D E8400 OC @ 3.6GHz.--TRUE 120 W/ Scythe S-Flex 28.0dB.--EVGA 8800GTS 512MB.--ASUS Maximus Formula X38 (0907).--Crucial Ballistix 2x1GB DDR2 4-4-4-12 @ 800Mhz.--WD 150gb Raptor.--Corsair 620HX Modular PSU.--Antec P182 Case.-- Vista 32bit.
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

Tsk, Tsk! The Wolfy (even at 4ghz.) will not give you a better gaming experience than a Q6600 at 3.2+ or any C2D or C2Q at 3.2+ for that matter. Since you just want to have a fast OC...why not wait for a Yorkie. OC it to 4.0+ghz and have the best of both worlds.


Message edited by Craxbax on 02-02-2008 at 02:46:29 AM
Profile: journeyman
More Information

Because no game that exists today, not even crysis supports quad core properly, and since his motherboard supportst quad, he always has the ability to upgrade to quad in 10 years when all the games will take advantage of 4 threads of programming!!!!

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by andrei3333 on 02-02-2008 at 02:59:53 AM
Profile: member
More Information

andrei3333 wrote :

Because no game that exists today, not even crysis supports quad core properly, and since his motherboard supportst quad, he always has the ability to upgrade to quad in 10 years when all the games will take advantage of 4 threads of programming!!!!



This is a thought that I simply can never understand... why do people think they can future proof their computer? In 10 years his motherboard most likely won't be able to handle what would be considered a low end videocard. So would it matter if his processor will be able to run things? By that time perhaps games will require 8GB of ram which is most likely as much as his motherboard can handle. Even if he goes with the quad core right now he will still face this down the road.

Thats why I say by mid ranged hardware to not waste your money and simply OC it. You get the similar performance with half or sometimes even less than half the cost and in reality someones top of the line computer will be just as outdated as yours every day that passes and thiers really won't stretch out to much farther and if they can afford the best its unlikely they will continue to use the old hardware in the future and accept poor performance it would give anyways. Buy a new PC every few years do small upgrades between.

Profile: newbie
More Information

I'm not trying to future proof my computer... I just want the best that i can get while it's free shipping and i only have $900. for CPU/MOBO/RAM/Drives/and soundcard. and, Since it uses less power and all i do is game i figured it might be worth looking into you know? Sorry, electricity isn't getting any cheaper and the 30 watt made me go whaaat??? but if the Q6600 overall will have better gaming then i might wait to get the newer quad 45m, if its under $300 USD and comes out in the next month or so

Profile: newbie
More Information

I mainly want something that will LAST untill the nehalems and all that new stuff in 2009-2010 get into more reasonable prices... i'm not PC crazy, I just need to get a new PC cause the Pentium 4, that im on now I'm gonna give to my mother cause her PC still uses a 3dFX graphic card. Thats how old hers is.


All I really need to know is an honest answer from a smart person, I've never built a system and im stuck between is a Quad really worth the effort and money when all I ever do on a PC is maybe listen to music, play games, download stuff, watch movies, and probibly use a TV tuner to record HDTV from my Digital Box. Because if it's really worth spending the extra $50 then I will, it's not a big deal. I just don't want some biased-fanboy blowing smoke just cause he "likes a certain CPU" ya know? Not to say any of you are blowing smoke, I'm just Saying how I wish most forums where, you know there's people who always go, "NAH F*ck that this is better" just cause they own it

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by shinagauri on 02-02-2008 at 04:57:51 AM
Profile: member
More Information

I have the e8400. This is my new build, just got this baby up last week. It's paired with 2GB 667Mhz memory and a 8800GTS 320MB, not the new G92 ones. I only have Team Fortress 2 and Unreal Tournament 3. I play both maxed out and get 60+ FPS. I would highly recommend this processor. It's a beast. I upgraded from a 2.8Ghz Pentium D, and lemme tell ya... it's a whole new world. The E8400 is around $219 on Newegg, that's what I got it for. I doubt the the new quads will be under $300, but if you can afford them, go for that. It's up to you. However, I can tell you for sure that you will not be disappointed with the E8400. According to my BIOS on my Gigabyte ga-p35-ds3l, it was running at 13C this morning. My Pentium D idled at over 35C, so this is freakin' amazing.

Btw... something I realized is that frame rates matter a whole bunch in online gaming. I used to think I sucked or something at UT3 & TF2. Lately with my solid high frame rates, I've been kicking ass. =)

Profile: newbie
More Information

I play TF2 all the TIME! does it work good with that CPU? Yeah I play TF2 on a pentium 4 and a radeon X800XL that came with my HL2 in 2005 :) but I can't run it on high even :(


Message edited by shinagauri on 02-02-2008 at 05:00:25 AM
Sailing in my Dreams
Profile: Forum Veteran
More Information

shinagauri wrote :

I mainly want something that will LAST untill the nehalems and all that new stuff in 2009-2010 get into more reasonable prices... i'm not PC crazy,



Since you say you're planning on a Nehalem later, then by all means get the e8400 now. A quad has its advantages, but not that it seems for what you will be using it. By 2009-2010, quads will be far more useful, even possibly more necessary, then they are now. But since neither a e8400 or a Q6600 will be going into the motherboards of that future time, your cpu choice should be based on what's best for you now, and for your use, in my opinion, the e8400 will be best.


---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.

Over 50. Seen it, done it, can't remember it.
Do not eat the styrofoam
Profile: Forum Resident
More Information

If you play mostly FSX get a Q6600. It's the only game where a quad wins over a higher-clocked dual-core AFAIK. If you don't play FSX and don't do any work on the PC the E8400 is a smarter choice.

Profile: newbie
More Information

is FSX flight simulator? If so yeah im more of a FPS/Action/MMO/RPG im not really into simulators


But what do you mean it's the way to go if I don't do any work on my PC? i'm sure i'll extract files from WinRAR, WinZIP, and burn CD's/DVD's and such, and other tasks, but they won't have to be done instantly I always leave my PC anyways when I extract a file and watch T.V. or start like 10 extractions before I go to work, so there all done when I get home and such, and hell I can burn a DVD-r data CD in less than 6 minutes anyways with my old school pentium 4, so I don't see how a processor helps on that situation, to be honest


Message edited by shinagauri on 02-02-2008 at 05:57:22 AM
Profile: newbie
More Information

I know I called best buy and talked to the "Geek Squad" those fools didn't even know what a E8400 was.... they said Quads are better I was almost to ask them why they work for geek squad when they don't even know the new tech, Geeks? hardly, they are tards


Message edited by shinagauri on 02-02-2008 at 05:43:13 AM