Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help - E8400 vs Q6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share

E8400 vs Q6600

Total: 134 votes (28 blank votes)

  • E8400
  • 43 %
  • Q6600
  • 50 %
  • i have a better suggestion so im going to tell you =]
  • 9 %
March 20, 2008 2:07:34 PM

Hey guys,

Im guessing you get the jist of things by the name of the thread.

Just want to a few things clear though, the computer I am building will be for games, school work and general use. Im looking at playing Crysis, COD4, Assassins Creed and others. Im hoping to get a good lifetime expectancy out of this computer with minimal upgrades, however after about 4 months of purchasing this computer I will get the best CPU fan I can find. So which is it to be.

E8400 - 2 Cores - 6MB Cache - 3.0 GHZ
Q6600 - 4 Cores - 4MB Cache - 2.4 GHZ

And PLEASE guys, dont list saying just get the next Q**** CPU, unless it will come out pretty much the under $300 AUD, because I cant really spend the extra money. *im broke as it is*

Thanks

More about : e8400 q6600

March 20, 2008 2:29:29 PM

Q6600 - 8MB - L2 cache

If you are broke. Food and Shelter are a priority.
If you have to wait four months to buy a heatsink fan, you really need to rethink your monitary priorities. You don't need a cpu. You need a job.
March 20, 2008 2:32:35 PM

My vote, E2160 and a good aftermarket cooler now. Total price is 1/3 of either of your options, and seeing the FSB to 333 will give you the E8400 with only less cache. You said money is an issue, so I think that's your best option. The money saved can get you a mobo and RAM.
Related resources
March 20, 2008 2:37:44 PM

scottoliver said:
Hey guys,

E8400 - 2 Cores - 6MB Cache - 3.0 GHZ
Q6600 - 4 Cores - 4MB Cache - 2.4 GHZ

And PLEASE guys, dont list saying just get the next Q**** CPU, unless it will come out pretty much the under $300 AUD, because I cant really spend the extra money. *im broke as it is*

Thanks


Go with Q6600(has 2x 4MB L2 Cache) if you plan to keep this system for a while.
E8400 may be a better choice for current games, but it's not going to last as long as a Q6600 based system.
March 20, 2008 3:20:32 PM

With Intel and M$ getting together to expand the usage of mulithreaded apps and programs, itll be here eventually heheh, I mean we are talking M$ ya know
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 3:28:19 PM

I'd get a E2180 and a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 cooler, then spend all the remaining cash on the best possible video card.
March 20, 2008 5:10:51 PM

Hi, this is my first post here and would like to say that this is a very controversial debate.
Based on all the other Q6600 vs. E8400 threads I've seen, the question really boils down
to what you use your PC for. If you are into benchmarking, video encoding, editing, then I'd
suggest going with the quad core. If you are doing HEAVY multitasking (one guy was running
four instances of World of Warcraft on 4 different accounts), then go with the Q6600.

For general purposes and gaming, I would recommend the E8400.

I personally bought BOTH :na:  :na:  :na:  a G0 Q6600 and an E8400 and I'm selling my Q6600
as of this moment. Reasons: I am primarily a gamer and use my PC for my classes, I could overclock
to 4.0Ghz on a 90 dollar motherboard, Runs nice and cool, I could run at 3.6 with only 1.2VCore if I wanted.

Both CPUs will be comparable in gaming performance- it'll rely on your GPU a lot more.
One thing I noticed was that the Q6600 seems to handle COD4 a lot smoother, perhaps because
it supports the usage of all four cores. There is virtually no bottleneck from either chip.

The reason why I would pick the E8400 is that by the time you need more than 2 cores for gaming,
there'll already be cheaper and better quad core solutions than the Q6600. As of now, the low
number of games that support quads does not justify the extra heat and power consumption of the Q6600.

If you game and hardly use the 2 extra cores, what's the point? That's my justification for the E8400.

Then again, the E8400 is extremely hard to come by (I got really lucky with buying the LAST one from
a Local PC shop). I got the Q6600 for $210 at MicroCenter, E8400 for $250. Although I paid 40 more for a
dual core, I figure I'll be saving about $10 / month in the electric bill, so in the long run, the cost to me will be less.

Get the E8400 if you can for ~$200. If you can't, Q6600 G0 is still an excellent choice that will
last you a long, long time.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 5:45:37 PM

I voted for the E8400. But, if you can't find one, then you should opt for a Xeon E3110 as it's essentially the same chip but just binned as a server chip rather than a desktop chip; plus most on-line retailers sell the Xeon E3110 for $20-$30USD cheaper than the E8400.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 6:40:52 PM

Q6600. You get more cores and about the same cost. If you do some video editing,etc. the Q6600 will be a real help.
March 20, 2008 6:43:06 PM

Q6600. more cores more future proof good investment.
March 20, 2008 7:29:50 PM

I imagine you will be disappointed with dual core within a year. Quad core is the only road to go for value and performance, and you won't second guess yourself for having one.
March 20, 2008 9:51:51 PM

If youre planning on gaming, go with the 8400. The problem with future proofing on these quads today is, in a years time, theres going to be a socket change (Nehalem) and its a dead end. Performance wise, the 8400 is a better solution for gaming. Other uses like vid encode etc, then yes a quad will supercede the usage of a dual core, which are both dead ends as soon as Nehalem comes out
March 20, 2008 10:49:07 PM

Thanks for all your inputs. Im still unsure about the CPU at this point in time because there are alot of good points from either side.

As for the votes. I cant actually see the results because it just tells me that my vote has already been counted so mmm. However i will defo check out that Xeon chip.

Still unsure but I think im looking at going with the Q6600 and a month or so down the line upgrading to the Zalman 9700 and overclocking just to a simple 3.0

Any ideas?
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 11:34:22 PM

The results right now are 6 for E8400, 11 for Q6600, 1 for other.

I would say the Q6600 is your best solution only if the video encoding is something you will do a lot, and only if you have software for it that can use all 4 cores. OK, also if your favorite game is Flight Simulator X. For almost anything else. an overclocked E8400 is better than an overclocked Q6600.

I don't get the part about building the PC now and adding the cooler later. No offense but that's weird. What, waiting to save another $40? Also, some coolers need you to remove the mobo from the case to install them. Also, why bother cleaning the paste and reapplying. Just put the cooler there from the start.

Forget the Zalman 9700, it's expensive and tends to be annoying under load. Get yourself a Xigmatek HDT-S1283 instead.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233003
March 20, 2008 11:35:55 PM

You just said you want to play games and school work. Where do either of those really need 4 cores? Go with a dual core and I'll repeat some other replies when I say, "save for a video card." Forget the cpu. Get a great cheap overclocking dual core for the time being. Until you start video editing and list programs that will take advantage of the extra cores, don't invest in quad just yet. 3GB or ram, a E2_/E4_/or E6_ processor is more than enough for the latest games when coupled with a nice video card like a 9600GT. You don't want to be broke and playing games on an expensive machine that will depreciate faster than the fast food sitting next to you while you wonder why you have to eat this crap every day... been there, done that, wised up and still won't pay more than $1000 for a complete computer.
March 21, 2008 12:47:28 AM

Hey, Im getting the 9800 GX2 at the moment. So i dont really have to save my money to reach for a better video card.

Thanks. Keep the advice coming
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2008 12:51:28 AM

Wow... OK, get a Q9300 or Q9450 or even Q9550. You'll have to wait a bit for them, but they have all the advantages of both E8400 and Q6600 and will last you a long time. A bit pricy, the Q9550, but then so is the 9800GX2. Besides, the 9800GX2 drivers stink right now AFAIK, so you don't lose much by waiting.
March 21, 2008 12:54:11 AM

Then youll want the max you can get from your cpu, to avoid any kind of bottleneck, so 8400
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2008 12:56:48 AM

Celeron!

(Sorry, I just felt like posting to break 400 posts :D  )

If you can afford a 9800GX2, get a QX----.
March 21, 2008 1:04:48 AM

Yeaaaayy LOL 400 wooot
March 21, 2008 3:41:28 AM

Well price is still a factor for me, you may look at this rig and say your getting a 9800 GX2 so you can afford it, but I dont want to get ahead of myself, im selling my laptop for around $2000 and have $400 in my pocket. So that works out for my rig including 9800 GX2 + 4GB RAM + Q6600 + P182 + 850W PSU + 790i Mobo + 22" Monitor

How much will the prices for the new Quad Cores be. If they are <$320 AUD then I can afford to stretch but if there like $400 - $500 then I just cant really stretch.

Also any suggestions on some decent CPU Coolers *in buget material*
March 21, 2008 6:49:19 AM

I went with the E3110 (E8400).
March 21, 2008 11:51:52 AM

id go with the E8400/E3110 (i ordered the E3110 recently) only becuase the performance in games is much better than the Q6600 and can overclock easily 4ghz+ and according to that overclocking review on teh E8400 here it was outperforming the new 45nm quads in some benchmarks.
March 22, 2008 10:14:16 PM

Thanks alot for that last comment, i think im leaning more towards the E8400 because like people have said when a very decent processor for the Quad Core range comes out at a reasonable price and also when they are needed I guess ill pick one up.

Thanks alot for all of your info and please if you have any more suggestions or vital info please post.
March 22, 2008 11:52:37 PM

scott, while I'm a q6600 fan and would recommend it over the 8400, you should probably wait until you can choose between the q9450 that should come out very soon. You'll have the best of both worlds then, for only a little more price.
March 23, 2008 12:35:15 AM

Get my vote for E8400
With HS And Fan OC to 4 and outperform Q6600 OCD to 3 in gaming
I'm not sure of Xeon E3110 cause this a server processor and uses ECC Rams
I'm Afraid you guys will get compatibility issues of Mobo-Ram-Processor
March 23, 2008 1:42:19 AM

The Artic Cooling Freezer 7 pro does a great job cooling for under $30.

Used it till I moved to water, did a fine job taming a B2 stepping e6600 heat beast. Love my GO stepped 6750.

Go with the E3110/8400, for your purposes, the quads just give more heat and require more voltage to hit the higher OC's at a decent temp.
March 23, 2008 3:31:27 AM

kad said:
Get my vote for E8400
With HS And Fan OC to 4 and outperform Q6600 OCD to 3 in gaming
I'm not sure of Xeon E3110 cause this a server processor and uses ECC Rams
I'm Afraid you guys will get compatibility issues of Mobo-Ram-Processor

The E3110 doesnt require ECC Ram, tho its a server listed chip, its still the same as the 8400
March 23, 2008 4:26:13 AM

scottoliver said:
So that works out for my rig including 9800 GX2 + 4GB RAM + Q6600 + P182 + 850W PSU + 790i Mobo + 22" Monitor


OK this is becoming a trend I'm seeing on Tom's, and I don't like it, does not speak well to the smarts of the posters!

DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE SLI!

So unless you plan on purchasing another 9800GX2, DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET!

These chipsets donkey compared to Intel chipsets, but they are REQUIRED to use two of the best video cards on the market in SLI. So unless you are going to SLI don't waste your time with any 680/780/790i motherboards!

About your CPU, I would have to go with the E8400 as you will not be utilizing much on the quad core, and I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of old tech. which runs hot. Bleh!
March 23, 2008 4:32:43 AM

My thermalright keeps mine cool as can be with everything lapped.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2008 5:03:54 AM

aevm said:
I'd get a E2180 and a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 cooler, then spend all the remaining cash on the best possible video card.

On a budget this is one of the best ideas.

Quote:
OK this is becoming a trend I'm seeing on Tom's, and I don't like it, does not speak well to the smarts of the posters!

DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE SLI!

So unless you plan on purchasing another 9800GX2, DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET!

These chipsets donkey compared to Intel chipsets, but they are REQUIRED to use two of the best video cards on the market in SLI. So unless you are going to SLI don't waste your time with any 680/780/790i motherboards!

About your CPU, I would have to go with the E8400 as you will not be utilizing much on the quad core, and I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of old tech. which runs hot. Bleh!

I totally agree here too. Why waste your $ on SLI/Xfire if your not going to use it immediately and for high resolutions. Call me silly, but a 22" monitor isn't going to task a SINGLE high end GPU too much.

Aside from the above comments, if I had to pick, I'd get the e8400/e3110. I'd still just get the e2160 w/the Xigmatech cooler and OC it to 3 ghz and be done with it. Take the extra $ and set it aside for the best s775 quad core late this year or when the prices drop once s775 get replaced.
March 23, 2008 9:26:13 AM

hi
up until recently i was convinced the q6600 was the best, but from everything ive been reading about the e8400, i beats the q6600 on basically everything.
Take a look at toms benchmarks for the q6600 vs e8400, the e8400 beats it by an average of 15% on everything except extreme multi-tasking and software designed especially for quad core
if u also take into account the energy costs, like 1 other person said, u r gonna b saving in the long run (which seems a major issue 4 u)
March 23, 2008 12:57:21 PM

ye. thanks everyone again. you guys are heaps of help.

you also got me questioning my mobo setup so thanks alot. cuz if im getting the top card, there should be NO reason why I would need to go into SLI for a very long time and by the time I need to I can just get a new card or a new chipset may be out etc. So by future-proofing with SLI i may be doing the exact opposite. and if i dont stop ill just keep contradicting myself.

anyway. thanks. keep it coming and thanks PHILLYMAN AKA MICROCENTER <3ER

your mad.
March 23, 2008 4:57:42 PM

Im was trying to decide myself whether to get the q6600 or an e8400 but i decided to wait for the q9450 since i do more video editing then game playing so for me a quad is better

ps "PHILLYMAN AKA MICROCENTER" not sure if you think i work for microcenter or not but i dont. Just letting you know you can get either of them for the same price. Im a Kinkos guy and hopefully a soon to be a powerball lottery winner :) 
March 24, 2008 7:33:10 AM

I was just saying that ur a microcenter lover. <3er = lover.

What price ranges will we expect for the new Q9 series which are soon to be released?

thanks
March 24, 2008 5:43:04 PM

I see newegg has oem q9300 in stock but at 300 bucks ill pass i think the q9450 should be out this week but i cant figure out if its going to be @359 bucks retail or is that retailers price per 1000? Damn these computer companies making me buy new stuff lol
March 25, 2008 11:59:21 AM

Priced the same my vote is the Q6600. Had the e8400 actually been available enough to be lower priced, then I would lean that way. But with that boxed $199 Microcenter price, Q6600 for sure. There are already a couple games where 4 cores pull ahead of higher clocked dual cores. Look at Supreme Commander and updated Lost Planet here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-... . This IMO is bound to increase in frequency and both are currently more than enough for gaming, so why not think toward the future. Also notice in benching other games, even if the dual core (e8400) overclocks higher, chances are the Quad won't need to be OC'ed as high to keep up with it.
March 25, 2008 12:13:55 PM

Thank you^ A person with Logic finally :p 
March 25, 2008 12:34:26 PM

Where I agree that games that use a quad is the way to go if your currently played games are quad multithreaded, but thats very rare. Also , in your link, its using a 6850 at 3.85Ghz against a fully maxxed out 6600. Now, the 8400 is just plain better clock for clock than the e6 series, and itll comfortably oc to 4 Ghz. I know Im knit picking, but even in quad games the 8400 at 4 Ghz and being better clock for clock, would show even or better in those same benches IMHO
March 25, 2008 12:40:36 PM

Also, if you DONT oc, it clearly shows the 6600 as being only a little better against a e6850, which the 8400 is generally 7% all around better than. So at stock speeds, the 8400 is equal to a Q6600 according to the link, projecting the 7% increase in the 45nm arch
March 25, 2008 1:12:15 PM

Well I was just in the same dilemma and I finally went with a SLACR Q6600 and I am happy that I did. It hit 3.2 ghz easily on a EP35-DS3P with ease. In benchmarks it eats the e8400. Sure the E8400 will hit 4 Ghz if you are lucky and don't mind going over the recommended voltages, but hell at 3.2 ghz there is no bottleneck. It screams and it stays within voltage limits and it is reasonable on temps.

I was so worried about low clocks but she clocks just fine.
March 25, 2008 1:21:13 PM

For pure gaming, the 8400 gets the most out of a gpu in most games. In apps, at stock its a toss up. Evenly priced as Paul said, quad qould be a better overall choice for ocing/with productivity in mind. Theres no clear winner overall IMO. And if you upgrade often, yes Nehalem will require a new socket. So either way, theyre a deadend til the new arch comes out
March 25, 2008 1:38:21 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Also, if you DONT oc, it clearly shows the 6600 as being only a little better against a e6850, which the 8400 is generally 7% all around better than. So at stock speeds, the 8400 is equal to a Q6600 according to the link, projecting the 7% increase in the 45nm arch

Sure, most games the extra clock speeds may push the e8400 ahead even. I won't argue that the e8400 could keep up or even beat the Q6600 at stock speeds, or even maxed overclocked. But we are talking CPU scaling settings not real world gameplay. Who is going to game at 1024x768 no fsaa on such a rig? At this level CPU, your gaming experience will be mostly GPU limited once settings are tweaked for actual gaming. So what advantage does the e8400 have?

My point is, both are totally fine for gaming now. So if 1) we already see signs of the quad core shining in some games, like Lost Planet where a 2.4GHz quad beat the 3.85 GHz dual, and 2) neither will shine over the other at real world gaming settings, and 3) the Quad is as cheap or cheaper, then -----> why not go for the Quad? There is no way in the world that the e8400 at 4.0GHz will provide a better gaming experience than a 3.6Ghz Q6600. It's not going to happen, not even with SLI 8800U. So why spend as much or more for an e8400?

IMO if you want max 3dmarks or 10x7 cpu scaling benchies, sure go e8400. You'll own the benchie bragging rights with your 4GHz CPU. But If you want equal gameplay, better multitasking abilities, and to be better set for next year and beyond, get the Quad. Priced the same, I can't understand people flocking to the e8400. It's supposed to be a cheaper chip. It would have been similar to flocking toward the FX-55 instead over the X2 4800+ back when the FX-55 was winning almost all cpu scaling tests vs the lower clocked dual cores. And what happened shortly after that, games started to take advantage of dual cores and the X2 4800+ became way better than the FX-55. I only bought the FX-55 because I got it for half the going price, way cheaper than an X2 4800+. And I'd gladdly buy a sub $200 e8400 too. But If games over the next year or two are coded to take advantage of 4 cores we may very well see similar happen in e8400 vs Q6600. I would actually be surprised if someday in the next two years we don't at least see one or two games where this happens in a big way, kinda like Supreme Commander on a single core.
March 25, 2008 1:51:30 PM

Like I said, I was knitpicking, and maybe the nexr gen cards will require that higher clock, but like you said, even, dollar for dollar, quads more forward looking, at the same price.
March 25, 2008 2:06:51 PM

mrgoodbar said:
Q6600. more cores more future proof good investment.


I agree.

You'll see less performance now with the Q6600, however, for things like Crysis and future games and apps, you're going to want the Q6600.
March 25, 2008 2:07:06 PM

^ (edit : @ jaydeejohn) Yeah, I understand what you are saying and it seems we are of the same thinking on all this. There really is no wrong one to go for, just depends on pricing and desired use/results.

I'm happy at the time I went with the Q6600 over the equal priced e6850. But if I owned both chips (e8400 or Q6600) and could only keep one, I'd probably just sell off whichever I could get the most for at the time. If that amount was about equal though I'd keep the Quad.

Oh, Just so you know I wrote that book and got a phone call before submitting it, so I hadn't read the last couple posts before mine.

And one other thought. I'd be curious as to which does better recording fraps HD video while gaming. I've been having fun doing that with this build as the FX-55 one just wans't up to the task for high res video.
!