Q6600 vs e8650?

[ACoolname]

I see on benchmarks sometimes that the Q6600 provides more fps and sometimes the e6850 provides more fps. Also, I see mixed signals with loading and rendering things, and I honestly don't know what to account for speed anymore.

All I am asking is if someone would fill me in on what is to be considered as far as speed and performance and frame rate and all of that. I like to think I have a decent knowledge about it all, but I sometimes I see charts that contradict my idea of what you look at for speed.

So, what do you look for in a CPU?

 

[englandr753]

Both are good chips and in my opinion the future will be in multiple cores. I just bought a Q6600 today for 199.99 so it took the guess work out for me. I was debating between that and the E8400 for 189.99. The E8400 will clock close to 4Ghz so it was tempting to go that route but the Q6600 stands slightly higher on the food chain in terms of the CPU chart on THG.

Are you going for gaming or what will you be doing on this system?

 

[ACoolname]

Yes, gaming. I want to be set for gaming for years as far as processor goes.

 

[mike9]

Based on what I see on
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=1096&chart=421
and the fact that the E8400 is easier to overcklock I would recommand the E8400

 

[technogiant]

At the moment the E8400 would be the better choice, it overclocks to a higher speed and most games can't use the Q6600 four cores.
But if you look to the next couple of years gaming is going quad core so even at its slower speed the Q6600 might well perform better in forthcoming games.
I suppose it depends if you are a frequent upgrader or not.
I have just bought a Q6600 as I know that will have to last me a long time, also when I finally do up grade again I'll use the old Q6600 in my other system which I use for video encoding which is far superior on a quad core.

PS the guy that bought his Q6600 for £199 spent too much you can pick them up for £150

 

[lashrimp]

I believe 199 for Q6600 is US dollar. I saw the same price in MicroCenter retail store in PA,US

 

[Craxbax]

The dual vs quad core debate has been spirited to say the least but it is generally accepted that at present most apps/games are not multithread optimized so higher mhz is favored over multicores. This will change to favor multicores and while the rate of this change is unknown... the direction is not. Basically, any C2D over 3.2-3.4 ghz will max out available GPUs for gaming if that is a concern. All available Intel quads seem to be capable of reaching this OC or higher so there isn't much visible real world advantages to the higher mhz the dual core offers. If you don't OC or have a restricted budget, or upgrade frequently then the E8400 would be a great choice. Now that the Q6600 can be found @ $200ish...it is really your preference and intended use that should guide your choice. I have no regrets over my getting a Q6600.

 

[cpburns]

2-1/2 years ago i bought a brand new Athlon X2 3800+ when dual cores were the new thing. everybody was raging about single cores still being better for gaming just because games were single-threaded. i have not looked back since i bought it. i OCed it to 2.4GHz and it's still running strong today. i'm not gonna say that i wouldn't see a boost with a better chip now, for example, and intel dual or quad core. but this chip has lasted this long because it was "future-proof" if you will. in a year or so, maybe more if i'm lucky, i'll be really pushing up against its limitations. but for the last 2-1/2 i've been happy as a clam. the only upgrade was a 8800GT to replace my 7800GT.

 

[vaker5]

Yeah the next couple of years do you know how outdated the q6600 will be in 2yrs?? Go with the e8400.

 

[halcyon]

RE: Future Proofing ??

In reality anything you buy now, even the top of the line, will feel outdated in 2.5 years. Yes, it may work quite well, but it will feel outdated when something newer is raping it in the benchmarks. Even if one can't admit it they'll likely at least wish they could upgrade to whatever's contemporary.

An E8400 will still run fine as will a Q6600 but in 2.5 years its quite likely that you'll want (not necesarily need) something better if you're an enthusiast. Its seems like a lot of enthusiasts spend a lot of energy on this idea of future-proofing?

Heck, I recall some chip called an FX-62 (lol) being the bee's knee's. Wanna trade an E8500 for one?

 

[Grimmy]

Its just a perception on how you look at future proofing. I look at it as an upgrade path. So I will take the extra time to look at for example, what a MB has to offer in future upgrades. Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen the way manufactures say it will support things down the road.

 

[englandr753]

I did purchase my Q6600 for 199.99 US dollars and as far as I know thats the lowest it has ever been so far.

I actually created another post asking opinions between the Q6600 and the E8400. They are the two that are actually in line with each other as far as the price atm...

There's several ways to look at the pros/cons to purchasing either but I dont really think anyone has a clear cut answer as to which is better for now.

Like someone else here said, the "future" is what some of these chips are made for and you don't know if or when these chips will be fully utilized. For most of us it will mean that we will upgrade before the chip actually reaches its EOL by either selling off as spare parts or going into that second system that is sitting around collecting dust.

 

[Grimmy]

My general opinion would be the quad is better. The simple reason is that it has the potential to do more at one time. Now the E8400 on the other hand, can just reach higher speeds at lower power consumption at stock (3ghz seems to be a general speed that is ideal). But then OCing the hell out of it just ruins that lower power consumption part, but still is impressive since it can be ran on a typical air cooling solution.

Then again, I really don't see how much of a better feel it comes to games when you get that additional 5-25 fps on certain games. Athough if a game really can utilize a dual core to the fullest, then what will take care of other operations when the dual core is busy?

In that sense, I'd say until the speed falls behind dramatically, it basically won't matter much in how outdated a CPU may become, as long as it does its job well.

 

[ACoolname]

I have an e6750 OC'd to 3.0GHz right now, but I was just wondering what you guys thought. Thanks for the replies.

 

[resonance451]

Go for the quad. Or better yet upgrade to the 45nm version of the quad when it comes out.

 

[nukchebi0]

If you are actually considering something, though, don't buy. You are fine with what you have.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Meh screw all that. Buy a Skulltrail for the bragging rights . Just playin.

It seems Skulltrail is good for game designers as it processes code like no other but not so good for us gamers. The Q6600 is great. A dual core in my mind is nice and able to clock higher but there will be a limit. I doubt you can do as much on a dual as a quad while gaming.

But the E6750 is nice. Any C2D/C2Q is nice. Just depends on your preference. For me the more cores the better considering I payed $275 for mine which is what I payed for my single core P4 3.2GHz w/HT 4-5 years ago. And yet we complain that $250 bucks is too much for 4 cores that blow that away.