Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New CPU for Gaming Rig

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2008 4:01:12 PM

Right, so due to the shortage of the E8400 I've now waited well over a month for my "february" package computer. Getting quite annoyed, to be frank. :( 

I've rounded down my options to the Wolfdale, is either of these a -way- worse alternative?

The following:

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB, BOXED
or
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Socket LGA775, 8MB, BOXED

The E6850 costs more than the E8400 so I figured it'd be better, but I hath no clue.. any enlightenment to share? :) 

Thanks!

More about : cpu gaming rig

March 3, 2008 4:26:12 PM

If your going Intel the Q6600 seams to offer the best option atm. It will game decent out of the box and offers future upgrades via an OC. My only question is are you up for OCing that rig in a year to keep up?
March 3, 2008 4:44:59 PM

The only OC'ing I've done in the past was some fooling around with my 800MHz AMD Duron.. If it's easily done with no aftermarket-cooler I could probably OC it a bit, unless it runs too hot on standard cooling?

What about the - Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB, BOXED though, why is it more expensive than E8400?
Related resources
March 3, 2008 5:04:39 PM

The e6850 is basically just more expensive to make, and they won't cut prices a lot because they want to get rid of them. It's definitely not worth more than the e8400, but when I was building and couldn't get an e8400 myself, I considered picking up an e6xxx on eBay. If you can get something in that line for ~$130 - ~$160, it wouldn't be a bad deal. In the end, I found an e3110 (literally the exact same as the e8400, rebranded as a "server" chip, if you can even find them anymore) for $180 on buy.com, but people have since caught on and they're up to e8400 price levels most of the time. Still, another option if you can find one.
March 3, 2008 6:02:46 PM

Is it on par, performance wise with the E8400?

Let's see.. 2050NOK is $395 - For the E6850. Sheesh?
Whereas the E8400 goes for $269. Norwegian webshops are somewhat expensive it appears.
March 3, 2008 6:27:35 PM

If they don't get the E8400 the 7th of March I won't have the PC before after easter holiday.. Damn.
March 3, 2008 6:46:47 PM

It's not quite on par, but it's not far away. In real-life you probably wouldn't notice a difference between them at stock. But the e8400 overclocks better, and has a bigger cache. If the e6850 was slightly cheaper than the e8400 it might be worthwhile, since the e8400 probably won't be readily available for a while. Check out the e6750, it's a step down but was considered the chip to get by many before the e8400 came out. It should be cheaper than both by quite a bit. And the q6600 is very worthwhile depending on the price where you are. Not sure about Norway, but in US dollars the e6750 usually costs around 190, the e8400 SHOULD cost between 190 - 230, the q6600 ~250, and the e6850 I'm not even sure, as I've never really considered it a good value. If you're looking at those two options that you posted, I would go with the q6600.
March 3, 2008 7:26:30 PM

Unlucky you... I ordered my E8400 last Thursday from Novatech when they had 36 in stock and it came Saturday morning (free delivery). Now on the website it says that they have 7 overdue.

My advice: Wait for a few days until they come in stock. Novatech did have 9 overdue last week but they were quick to replenish. It is way worth it to get a 45nm CPU over the older generation 65nm ones, price and performance-wise.
March 3, 2008 8:01:12 PM

I've been waiting since February 1st, so I guess a few weeks more won't hurt.. )=

Thanks for the advice
March 3, 2008 8:13:53 PM

...or you could do what I did: 1) get an e2180 for ~$80; 2) OC to 3.2 GHz (which according to a big Tom's article makes it functionally equivalent to a 6750 or even 6850); 3) Keep it for a couple months until this 45 nm stuff settles out; then 4) eBay it/keep it as a spare.

If you are a gamer, you will not notice much of a difference (GPU is more important). The loss you will incur in selling the e2180 will be less than the amount of money the 8400 will drop once supplies ramp up. E.g., pay $230 now or pay $190 in a month or two.

Why wait any longer? Get that new system rolling--I know you want to! ;) 
March 3, 2008 8:55:38 PM

Buy the Q6600 it is better the E8400 anyhow. You can play EVERY game and only be bottlenecked by the GPU.
Plus with the quad (that you cant do with E8400) you can listen to music, brows the internet looking at some girlies and read your emails while playing your games.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 9:10:50 PM

Yea the CPU these days is not a bottleneck. Its the GPU really. Husky McTa rFlash is right. And by then you could even get a nice Q9450/9550/9300 instead. I would personally go with the Q9450 since it has a higher sock clock(2.66GHz) but either way the 4nm chips run very cool even compared to their 65nm counterparts.
March 3, 2008 10:13:10 PM

grieve said:
Buy the Q6600 it is better the E8400 anyhow. You can play EVERY game and only be bottlenecked by the GPU.
Plus with the quad (that you cant do with E8400) you can listen to music, brows the internet looking at some girlies and read your emails while playing your games.


WTF? CPU speed is still important in a lot of games, I hate it when people make such generalisations. Btw, you can still Alt+Tab out of a game with a dual core and do other stuff, I do that all the time, you just need enough RAM to keep the game running in the background whilst you're on the desktop, CPU cores has nothing to do with it.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 10:21:34 PM

epsilon84 said:
WTF? CPU speed is still important in a lot of games, I hate it when people make such generalisations. Btw, you can still Alt+Tab out of a game with a dual core and do other stuff, I do that all the time, you just need enough RAM to keep the game running in the background whilst you're on the desktop, CPU cores has nothing to do with it.


This is not all true. Yes for gaming CPU speed will boost the lower end of the FPS especially higher clocked CPUs but more cores will allow you to do more. I get bored and try to bog my Q6600 down and it has yet to.

My only advice is depending on 2 things. Do you want to spend $200-$250 now and have to upgrade once more games become multi-threaded or spend $200-$250 now and have your rig futureproofed? Thats what you have to ask since a Q6600 will be better in the loooooongggg run where as a E8400 will be better now and for a while.

Of course it may take a few year for games to be multi-threaded optimized but we are seeing them now and more will start coming this year.
March 3, 2008 10:50:19 PM

jimmysmitty said:
This is not all true. Yes for gaming CPU speed will boost the lower end of the FPS especially higher clocked CPUs but more cores will allow you to do more. I get bored and try to bog my Q6600 down and it has yet to.


FWIW, I'm Alt+Tab'ed out of a game (FIFA 08) as I type this post. I've got around 10 Firefox tabs open, I'm downloading a file, I've got Utorrent running in the background, I've got antivirus and anti-malware software running. To be honest, my biggest 'bottleneck' is my 1Mbps Internet connection which is 'bogged down' by all the background downloads. ;) 

Quote:
My only advice is depending on 2 things. Do you want to spend $200-$250 now and have to upgrade once more games become multi-threaded or spend $200-$250 now and have your rig futureproofed? Thats what you have to ask since a Q6600 will be better in the loooooongggg run where as a E8400 will be better now and for a while.

Of course it may take a few year for games to be multi-threaded optimized but we are seeing them now and more will start coming this year.


Yes, lets wait 2 years for games to finally run faster on a Q6600 than an E8400. If you really want to keep your Q6600 for 3 - 4 years and hope to run games then, it's probably a better choice.

Even in a 'massively multithreaded' game like Supreme Commander, an E8400 outperforms a Q6600 by sheer clockspeed, which compensates for the lack of 2 physical cores. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

A quad core is useful for many things, but gaming is not one of them, and won't be in the near future. In the long term, yes, but we are talking a matter of years, not months.
March 3, 2008 11:11:20 PM

The Q6600 vs E8400 arguments seem to be replacing the AMD vs Intel arguments these days.
March 3, 2008 11:31:20 PM

epsilon84 said:
FWIW, I'm Alt+Tab'ed out of a game (FIFA 08) as I type this post. I've got around 10 Firefox tabs open, I'm downloading a file, I've got Utorrent running in the background, I've got antivirus and anti-malware software running. To be honest, my biggest 'bottleneck' is my 1Mbps Internet connection which is 'bogged down' by all the background downloads. ;) 

Quote:
My only advice is depending on 2 things. Do you want to spend $200-$250 now and have to upgrade once more games become multi-threaded or spend $200-$250 now and have your rig futureproofed? Thats what you have to ask since a Q6600 will be better in the loooooongggg run where as a E8400 will be better now and for a while.

Of course it may take a few year for games to be multi-threaded optimized but we are seeing them now and more will start coming this year.


Yes, lets wait 2 years for games to finally run faster on a Q6600 than an E8400. If you really want to keep your Q6600 for 3 - 4 years and hope to run games then, it's probably a better choice.

Even in a 'massively multithreaded' game like Supreme Commander, an E8400 outperforms a Q6600 by sheer clockspeed, which compensates for the lack of 2 physical cores. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

A quad core is useful for many things, but gaming is not one of them, and won't be in the near future. In the long term, yes, but we are talking a matter of years, not months.


Apparently you can O/C the 6600 to get up to at 3ghz on Air. Food for thought. Which is more important, cores or clock speed? And how do you compare clockspeed of different models? IE, p4 vs Core Duo vs Quad, etc.
March 4, 2008 12:59:55 AM

scyle said:
Apparently you can O/C the 6600 to get up to at 3ghz on Air. Food for thought. Which is more important, cores or clock speed? And how do you compare clockspeed of different models? IE, p4 vs Core Duo vs Quad, etc.


Yes, the Q6600 can be overclocked very high, 3GHz is a no brainer, in fact 3.6GHz should be possible with a good HSF. However, the E8400 can often be overclocked to 4GHz+ as well. Right now, the vast majority of games run best on a higher clocked dual core, as opposed to a lower clocked quad core.

As for P4 vs Core 2, they are leagues apart in terms of performance. P4 does about 1/2 the work per clock, so a 3GHz C2D is equal to about a hypothetical 6GHz P4.

a c 313 à CPUs
March 4, 2008 2:31:48 AM

When the 45nm quads start shipping, I suspect that the Q6600 owners will become unhappy and dump them. The new quads will be faster, clock for clock , run cooler, overclock higher, and cost less. They were supposed to be here by now. That said, any of the good cpu's like Q66/6700, E84/8500, E68/6750 will be about as good as it gets for gaming, assuming you have a good vga card. There is no futureproofing here, in a year or so, any of these options will not be as good as the same priced nehalem. In the coming year, I do not see any major increase in quad core games. Those games like flight simulator X know they are cpu bound, and have already taken steps to use more cores. It is not a trivial thing to produce multithreaded applications... What incentive to game producers have to do this if they don't need it? Better graphics performance is where they are developing code.
March 4, 2008 4:58:57 AM

whats the motherboard to go with the e8400? im gonna overclock it to 4.0ghz. is the 780i out of box wolfdale bios?
March 4, 2008 11:34:52 AM

If u are getting a new rig after easter like me the P45 mobos might be out but thats if u want to crossfire if not then go with nforce for SLI.
Also it would take at least 1.5 years for games to be optimized for quad core and by then they would be really cheap because of nehalem so u can get upgrade in the future about 2 years time.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2008 11:39:38 AM

grieve genius ...

Buy the Q6600 it is better the E8400 anyhow. You can play EVERY game and only be bottlenecked by the GPU.
Plus with the quad (that you cant do with E8400) you can listen to music, brows the internet looking at some girlies and read your emails while playing your games.

Waiting for the E8xxx junkies to start the usual high OC dual vs quad rubbish ...

mind you ... the Q OC'd does chew quite a bit more juice ... so may I suggest a quality cooling solution if you want a Q.

March 4, 2008 5:28:23 PM

The new posts added to my already pryofound confusion, waaaa...
Equally many seem to prefer the E8400 to the Q6600 and vice versa, what am I to do? The Tom's Hardware Charts makes E8400 out to be a clear winner when comparing the two, but that's at stock speeds?
March 4, 2008 5:30:33 PM

About the "listen to music while playing"-thing though, I'm already doing that on my 4000+ (or does the plus precede the model number?) singlecore CPU.
a c 313 à CPUs
March 4, 2008 6:21:05 PM

The choice of a quad vs. a dual cpu is determined by what you will be doing.

If you will be doing lots of multitasking of cpu intensive tasks,(like video rendering) then the Quad is better because all four cores can be utilized. If you will be playing a cpu intensive game that has been written to utilize more than two cores(like FSX), then the Quad is better.

If you will be primarily doing one or two things at a time, then a dual cpu is better. This is the case with most games today. A dual cpu is normally clocked higher at a given price point so it is more cost effective for just a few tasks.

The higher your level of multitasking, the more you need ram. You will need enough to keep most of what you run concurrently in ram most of the time.
March 4, 2008 6:24:26 PM

I hope I can trust the webshop guys this time, they said they were confident they'd get their first batch of E8400s the coming friday (about 350 of them)..
March 4, 2008 7:03:36 PM

Wait for the E8400s to come... if you're buying something might as well wait a while and buy stuff thats new, fresh, fast and cool... the q6600 is a quad only for bragging rights... its not..repeat NOT faster than even the E6750 in MOST apps..and moreso if you aren't into overclocking.

Seriously, wait for the E8400s to ship. Patience. :) 
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2008 7:09:22 PM

Yes, it's bad when the BS of quad fanboys come out even though it's PROVEN the quad isn't used in MOST programs and games ppl use/play. There are a few programs that really benefit from quad cpus, but not many ppl use those types of programs, thus the quad is useless. Webbing, playing songs (even a 286 can do that) and other simple tasks, is NOT going to strain the cpu at all, much less dual/quads. As a few charts suggest, there is a benefit to dual vs single, but but much difference having even more cores for normal users.
In a few more years (with NEW cpus and quads by that time), there will be more programs and games that will use more cores (possibly for physics-just for example), but the video card will still be the work engine (except for a few, as one said, like MS flight simulator).
On trick with gaming (I screwed up on) is the resolutions of the lcd monitors, needs alot of video power. With a good 24" lcd, it's really better having dual video cards, or one hell of a single card to keep it at 30fps or higher with full details. And with the video market at a stand still (high end), the only real choice is the dual video cards for now.
March 4, 2008 9:30:36 PM

It's becoming gutwrenchingly awful to wait (I placed the order February 1st), but I shall pull through.. Might even re-order, I'm sure the prices on some of the items have dropped, if only by a few dollars. :) 
March 5, 2008 7:38:25 AM

The fruit of patience is ripe...hehehe...calm down mate, you'll get it don't worry...your wait will definitely be worthwhile. :) 

Wts the config of the rest of your build btw?
March 7, 2008 6:33:04 AM

Well, now it appears they won't get in E8400s till.. uhm.. the middle of May this year..

So I'm going for either E6850 or Q6600.. I will mostly be gaming..
What do I choose guys?
March 7, 2008 7:15:23 AM

I'm -not- waiting another two months, as I've been devoid of a decent desktop for a while now
March 7, 2008 11:56:28 AM

Whats the config of the rest of ur build...mobo,RAM,PSU and GPU
a c 313 à CPUs
March 7, 2008 1:31:24 PM

The E6850 would be better for gaming than the Q6600 because of the higher clock speed. If overclocking, a duo should overclock higher than a quad, and be cooler.

That said, I would not do it. The E8400 is cheaper, faster, and cooler. Find a place to buy one. You will probably have to pay a premium because of scarcity, but it should still cost less than a E6850. Look at E-bay, or at some sites that you might not have used before. Start a post on where to find one. If you can find a E8500, that would be even better.

Consider getting a cheap cpu while you wait, then selling it on e-bay later.

Why are the E6850's still so pricey? They are still in demand for those without a mobo that can handle a E8400.

If you really want a E6850, I have one available. It is on my backup machine, and I plan on putting it on e - bay soon.
March 7, 2008 2:54:48 PM

I'm buying a package, so I can't go looking for CPUs on ebay..
Ordered a PC with E6850 now, to hell with waiting.
March 7, 2008 3:48:36 PM

Well I recently bought an e6750 and set it to 3.2 GHz (8x400) @1.26V on my DS3L with the stock cooler :kaola: 

45nm processors are great, but very hard to come by right now. I decided to stick with Conroe for this build and maybe upgrade to a Yorkfield at some point if I feel the need for more speed.
March 7, 2008 4:27:31 PM

**** A!
March 8, 2008 5:19:12 AM

Antec Nine Hundred sort miditower,
Asus P5K, P35, Socket-775, DDR2,
Corsair Powersupply 550W Bulk, black,
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz
Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2, 4096MB CL5,
Western Digital Caviar SE16 750GB SATA2
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Fatal1ty
NEC DVD-brenner AD-7200S Black
Microsoft Digital Media PRO Keyboard,
Logitech G5 Laser Mouse 2007


-

is the rest of my impending rig
March 8, 2008 8:22:26 AM

If you can justify spending $100 more for a paltry 340MHz more, then get the E6850... otherwise stick with the E6750...... it overclocks really well and is a great choice for gaming. There's no difference between the q6600 and the E6750 in gaming performance... (in fact the E6750 performs better in some games and most apps).....it should be a while before games take advantage of 4 cores. Good luck with your build. Cheers!
March 8, 2008 8:34:06 AM

Thing is I don't want to overclock at all.
March 8, 2008 11:09:28 AM

I would say go Quad-Core but most games do not take full advantge of a Quad-Core. The newer games like Crysis can handle the 4 threads of both of AMD's Quad and Intel's.
March 8, 2008 12:50:37 PM

I seriously can't understand why the E6850 costs $100 more than the E8400, and as much as the E8500. Granted, the latter two cannot be procured, but STILL. WHAT THE FSCK!
March 8, 2008 1:05:45 PM

Geesh... if you can find an E8400 or E8500 (I guess) then get it. If you really want SoMeThInG now.. then go for the Q6600.

You really can't go wrong on either. Each will have its pro's and con's, but if you ask me, speed isn't everything. Chances are, if your addicted to speed, you may try to get more out of it, which could mean the end of that processor (over volting it, to get more then 4ghz).

Also, to me, pushing it to 4ghz doesn't really justify in my mind that the E8400 is better for some more FPS (5-30 fps?). I mean how much FPS do you need in order to play the game smoothly? Or is that more bragging rights? :oops: 
March 8, 2008 1:57:33 PM

Grimmy said:
You really can't go wrong on either. Each will have its pro's and con's, but if you ask me, speed isn't everything. Chances are, if your addicted to speed, you may try to get more out of it, which could mean the end of that processor (over volting it, to get more then 4ghz).

Amen to that
March 9, 2008 9:34:43 AM

Since I will likely have the computer for three years without upgrading nor overclocking, the E6850>E6750.. Don't know where you pull your "addicted to speed" thing from, as the only overclocking I've done is on a socket A machine.
March 9, 2008 12:43:18 PM

Well... if you ever get your machine put together, and it has over clocking features, you wouldn't even try?

Why not just buy a dell?

The reason for the price difference between E6850 and E8400:

1.) E6850 is the 65nm, which came from a waffer that can only yeild so many cores. the larger the die, the lest they produce out of a waffer of silicon.

2.) The E6xxx series is prolly being phased out, meaning they are not making them anymore, so limited supply brings the cost up.

3.) The E8400 is the 45nm die, so they can produce more out of the same waffer.

4.) The E8xxx series are replacing the E6xxx series I believe.
March 9, 2008 7:53:33 PM

blackpanther26 said:
I would say go Quad-Core but most games do not take full advantge of a Quad-Core. The newer games like Crysis can handle the 4 threads of both of AMD's Quad and Intel's.

Yep aslong as you paly at low res with low to medium settings and high end cards they sure do help you get into the 80 - 100fps.

For whatever reason you may want tob e there.


Supreme Commander would be a much better example.
March 9, 2008 9:43:28 PM

Ellaren said:
Antec Nine Hundred sort miditower,
Asus P5K, P35, Socket-775, DDR2,
Corsair Powersupply 550W Bulk, black,
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz
Corsair TWIN2X 6400 DDR2, 4096MB CL5,
Western Digital Caviar SE16 750GB SATA2
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Fatal1ty
NEC DVD-brenner AD-7200S Black
Microsoft Digital Media PRO Keyboard,
Logitech G5 Laser Mouse 2007


-

is the rest of my impending rig

Graphics card?
March 11, 2008 7:37:09 AM

8800GTS (G92).

Thing is I don't want to wait, I'd definitely choose the E8400 if I weren't in for a 2 month wait. No need to elaborate on the differences for me, I'm painfully aware I'm paying $100 more for petty differences. That's just how it is, alas.
!