I didnt have time to search and see if anyone has asked this q but I have actually just bought the Q6600 for 199.99 yesterday. I havent opened the box yet and before I do I just wanted some feedback on what some of you current Intel enthusiasts that have either read a lot about both chips and/or have actually owned them.
I'm just curious to know what most of you think is a better path. I realize that the E8400 is 45nm and can overclock around 4Ghz and is better energy efficient and runs cooler but what else is there that could justify going to the E8400? I believe the price difference was only 10 bucks.
THe Q6600 is a very good chip. A e8400 overclocked is totally useless to the average user. If you do video rendering or other processor intensive tasks that are multi-threaded, the q6600 is perfect.
Even for gaming the quad is more than able. In a few years it will even outpace the E8xxx series thanks to more and more software being multi-threaded. It's only a bad choice if you are chasing a maximum overclock or the highest possible frame rate right now.
I would go with the quad. Its highly overclockable with a good cooler and will last you longer. There will be more multi-threaded apps soon that will take advantage of 4 cores.
I find that there is a huge amount of biased opinions on these forums and the Internet in general regarding the Q6600. Multithreaded applications are not well implemented as of yet, therefor even though you can get a little extra performance out of quadcores in multithreaded applications it is minimal. Also the Q6600, while being a nice chip, can not out perform the E8400 in gaming. The E8400 allows for less bottlenecking of the video card and RAM, thanks to its more advanced core, resaulting in higher FPS. Not only that but I have an Intel E6750 @ 3.6 Ghz, now in my gaming rig, and a Q6600 @ 3.4 Ghz, first in my gaming rig and now in my general purpose rig. Both use the same coolers, Swiftech H120 WC kit, but the E6750 runs much cooler at its full 1 Ghz overclock than the Q6600's 1 Ghz overclock producing more stability. In gaming I find the the E6750 usually gets a 10 FPS higher score on older games, a 5 FPS on newer ones and exactly the same on Supreme Commander and Crysis. Being that the E6750 is far cheaper than the Q6600 I find this unacceptable. I will admit however in some video encoding and other strenuous processes the Q6600 clearly is faster, but not by a huge margin. The point of this is that the E8400 can be overclocked to amazing heights with much more advanced architecture than the E6750 and the Q6600, so the E8400 is the best choice for gaming. If you game and do other things more CPU intensive, then by all means keep the Q6600 and be happy, because you have a very nice CPU. If you mostly game or gaming is the most strenuous task you do then get the E8400 and be happy, because you have a faster CPU for your purposes. Take it from me, not some one who bought the Q6600 and is now unhappy that half the CPU is wasted 80% of the time, even in most games.
I got the E8400 pretty much just for overclocking bragging rights and the fact that I do very little video encoding to mpeg4 for my PS3. I did notice that going from 3ghz to 4ghz on my E8400 made encoding about 30-50% faster which was pretty cool.
Both chips are great, can't go wrong with either really..
Very good points from everyone. I can see all of your reasons for what you say. I mostly game, but I also backup and rip DVD's to a large degree.
Would it be reasonable to think the Q6600 would be better for the DVD process? I use 1 Click DVD Pro and Shrink 3.2 assisted by DVD43. I know when I upgraded from my Intel Prescott P4 3.2 478 skt setup to the AMD 6000+ DVD backups from start to finish was reduced from nearly 30 mins to approx 15-17 mins.
It would be nice to think the process could be shrunk to 10-12 mins with the Q6600. Im sure the E8400 would do much better too and I doubt 1 Click is multi core supportive so there may not be a lot of difference between the two chips in that process...
I agree with all of you. As hard as that seems to believe it appears all of you have made intelligent and valid points and its still confusing due to benefits from different areas. The question is for myself, if I select the Q6600 will I be able to control myself and not upgrade again before I can actually utilize all four cores? Gaming is my primary mode for this setup and I could see the edge to use the E8400 now.
If I go with the E8400 now, I can see later when applications start utilizing four cores that I will gain an edge with the Q6600. This is a tough call. Its basically a now or later decision. Performance now (E8400) or performance later (Q6600). I know both will simply be breathtaking to use now compared to what Im used to so I would be happy either way its just hard to decide based on trying to purchase for future useage when software begins to change and shift the benefits.
It almost seems that you would be upgrading to a better processor (want to, not need to) before utilization of all four cores would be implemented.
I checked the CPU chart and there are a few things that the Q6600 simply blows away the E8400 but for the most part the E8400 edges out the Q6600. Most of those processes wont apply to me since my useage will be different from those comparrisons.
The Q6600 is a sweet chip but it is very tempting to go back to the store tomorrow am (I have to get another cooler anyway) and see if they have the E8400 still in stock. I havent opened my box and it was only 2 days ago so that would be no problem. Overclocking to 4.0Ghz is starting to make me drool. lol!
I was under the assumption that I could locate my adapter plate to connect my Zalman 9700 CPU cooler from my AMD 6000+ setup but I was wrong. I have looked everywhere and have no idea where that thing is. I usually do better than that keeping up with things that I may need but it looks like my girlfriend may be inheriting a pretty sweet setup or sell it to my friend and recover most of my money. I think I would be able to recover all but 100.00 of the cost to upgrade, not bad!
This is a tough call people! I will have to mull this over today at work and I will act on my decision tomorrow and get this thing installed. 3 days procrastination installing hardware as sweet as these are should be an illegal act and punishable to the fullest extent of the law!
Thanks a mill everyone with your input. It has helped a lot. I will post here and let you know which way I go...
That was the thought process that I was using when I considered going to the E8400. I am thinking today that may be the best option to get the raw dual core processing power that I can fully utilize for gaming and I can see myself switching CPUs again within the next year or so and from that it probably wont matter either way really.
I am strongly leaning toward the E8400 now. I will make the move tomorrow morning when I go back to get a cooler for the CPU. My only concern is the motherboard I got for the Q6600, I dont think it supports 45nm. I will have to exchange that too...
From Microcenter where I got the Q6600 for 199.99. I have to go back and get a CPU cooler since I cant find the adapter for my 775 socket setup. I guess I will have to leave my Zalman 9700 on my AMD 6000+ X2 and get another one...
ing with you!
I keep getting confused as to what I want to do now. I had my mind made up for the E8400 but I just read that Half Life 2 Episode 2 will utilize multiple cores and that should really make a difference in that game. A couple of other games were listed that will be written to do the same and I would expect more to follow.
This isnt an easy decision guys!
Message edited by englandr753 on 02-28-2008 at 02:41:35 PM
If you can find a Wolfdale, DO IT! You can upgrade to the 45nm Quad next year if you want to. If exchanging your chip isn't that big of a deal that is.
I built a new gaming rig a month ago and honestly I haven't done much gaming. I've found the tweeking and OCing more satisfying at this point. Now that I have my E2160 @ 3.2GHz, running that Wofdale up to 4.0 sounds like a good time.
there's no wrong answer here. you'll have a blazing fast proc either way. do you want to upgrade again in a few months when the new quads come out? fine. I've heard, though, that they won't overclock all that much better than the q6600 due to the fsb requirements. If it was me, i'd keep the 6600 and be happy for a year or more with a processor that will not bottleneck any game (it will run any game out now, and future games will begin to use the additional cores, leaving the bottleneck at the GPU once again)
---------------
They call me crazy for yelling, alone in my room, at the computer screen. They just don't understand the game.
You're right theres no wrong answer and thats what makes it tough! I am reverting my thoughts back to what you said jeremy, I am seeing games to come out that will utilize the 4 cores and thats when it will separate the two chips performances.
They are both great chips, they both have their place of use and would both do the job just fine I believe.
I have the EVGA 8800GTX ANS3 video card and hopefully the Q6600 can help to better utilize this sweet card better for gaming when those multi core based games are release.
I was hitting 11,000 on futuremark06 with this card on my AMD 6000+ X2 setup. I am curious to know what benchmarks I would get with either of these new chips.
I'm thinking maybe around 14,000. Any of you out there have that setup that would know?...
To respond to the 45nm quad core overclocking statement, if they will be based on the same architecture as the current quads then they will be sharing the fbs as well and most likey would have a locked multiplier too. I'm thinking I should be able to get my Q6600 to 3.2Ghz and that should be plenty for a while...
