E6750 vs Q6600

Hey guys,

First post but long-time reader.

I haven't had a major upgrade since about 2005 and as my AMD 3200+ just died, I thought now would be the best opportunity.

I am interested in some personal (experienced) opinions.

I play some games but just enjoy a fast day-to-day computer... the usual bang-for-buck idea.

Is the E6750 ($225) (with possible o/c'ing when it becomes 'too slow') a better option than the Q6600 ($280).

I was thinking yes - because it has higher FSB and Ghz (as I am not confident with overclocking at all)... or would it be better to go the lower Ghz and lower FSB with more cache Mb?


Thanks in advance for the input!

Kris

Thanks for your reply.

I don't think I can buy from Newegg - I'm in australia so shipping would cost the difference of the product over here anyway.
The prices I wrote were AUD at a pretty good retailer.

If I'm not into graphic design or cutting edge gaming (4 cores) is it worth the extra to go Quad?

Thanks,
Kris

I don't know. It all depends on what software makers do. Right now, most applications are not optimized for quad core (don't effectively use all 4 cores). Once they are, the performance gap between dual and quad cpus will be massive, but right now, there's hardly any. Some people say it'll never happen. So yeah, it's a gamble.

Unless you're doing video editing and image manipulation (which are currently the only common highly threaded desktop apps) then quad core is overkill for the timebeing, stick with the higher clocked dual core and you'll see more of a benefit.

Thanks for the advice.

How does the E8200 go?

I saw it was not recommended as a safe option somewhere on Tom's site due to bugs or problems?

Will the extra 2mb cache make a huge difference?

Upgrading from your 3200+ you will see a major improvement in any of the E8400 or E6750 or Q6600. I would say all 3 are an excellent choice so just buy the cheapest one and put that money toward the next video card up from the one you had originally been considering.

Thanks for all the advice - it's all very helpful.

I'm thinking of going the E8200 if I can get my hands on one over here - they seem to be at shortage!

Otherwise, a 6750 will suffice.

What sort of mobo would you recommend if I plan to run an 8800GT OC 512 and that's pretty much it - no SLi and minor o/clock with 800mhz ddr ram.

I don't know the diff between the P35 or X35 or the nVidia chipsets.

Any tips?

P35 is best bang for the buck if you don't oc or moderately oc. X38 is necessary for high oc. nVidia chipsets don't perform as well, lower fsb oc ceiling, and the cheaper 600s are glitchy and incompatible with many ram. The advantage is they support sli.

I like the Abit IP35, I've run an E6850 on it and it currently has a Q6600 on it and has been very stable so far (since August '07).

@mihirkula I agree with you wholeheartedly, I put forth a similar argument last year before the release of Crysis and had so many people tell me I was wrong, those posters are strangely quiet these days.

See what prices are for e8400.

Gigabyte P35 DS3L is good board and inexpensive, especially if you don't plan on implementing RAID.

Not all games. We already have games where a lower clocked quad beats a higher clocked dual.

Look at Supreme Commander and Lost Planet. The last chart shows Lost planet a 2.4GHz Q6600 stays ahead of a 3.85GHz OC'ed 6850. Then OC the Q and what happens? http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 600_8.html

Plus notice even if the Quad doesn't OC as high, max OC'ed it beats the Dual in every game even at lower clock speed. Now these are 10x7 no fsaa tests, not exctly settings people game at. Tell me one game where an e6850 or e8400 will provide a better gaming experience than a Q6600? Not low res cpu scaling, but high res tweaked to game settings. So IMO the quad is as good now and does indeed have a chance to leave the dual cores far behind down the line somewhere. The FX-55 beat the X2 4800+ back in the day too, which games better now in most new games? How does a single core do in Supreme Commander? Well, two years from now could we see the same in dual vs Quad? Just Something to consider.

Now I agree, when talking a $$$ savings like the e6750, then the situation changes with that variable added. Both are good options.


edit: I see elbert posted the xbit link already.

Hi pauldh, Yes I do hope that very soon we start to see a lot more games that utilize more than two cores, however I still feel that by the time that happens the Q9xxx series will have been superseded and the Q6600 will be little more than a faint memory. I tried NFSMW with one card by the way and the CPU was at 90% on one core and little more than 70% on the second with the game running as smooth as usual (still that odd glitch) but looking really good, firing up the second card however results in 100% on both cores and a good looking slide show.

Lost Planet is one of the first games optimized for all 4 cores, and it shows. Some people say games will never be quad optimized. Those are the same people who say games will never use both cores in a dual core years back. Looking at it now, early dual cores are still fast enough to be useful in gaming, and single cores of the same period are not. Anyway, I ordered a Q6600 for my new rig a few days ago. At $140 more, the Q9450 is not attractive for relatively moderate performance increase at the same clock, and Q9330 perform worse than Q6600 for more money, which doesn't make sense.

FPS more than 60 cannot possibly by registered by the human eye... even in the case of FPS < 60, a difference of 4 to 5 fps will NOT be registered by the human eye or brain or whatnot......

From the xbit link... theres quake 4..theres 173 fps for OC'd q6600 whn compared to 136 regular e6850.......for FEAR its 154 - 147 = 7fps. ..... for COH the quad loses anyways....for sup commander the difference is 2 fps ...(lol at that)....for lost planet the difference is 4 fps.... ....now if theres anyone who will experience a GREAT PERFORMANCE INCREASE with these numbers...well good for him/her/it then.

well i'm doin a major upgrade from an athlon 3200+ single core to a q6600 i did a lot of research on the best bang for buck cpu.
the reason why i chose the q6600 is simple .... 1 its future proof as when things go quad " and they will, we all said the same about dual cores and it happened same about dual gpu.
2 its cheaper than most cpu's with higher clocks and out performs them " duals" and is overclockable at a massive amount " remember the days when the recommened O/C was only 10% correct me if i'm wrong but most ppl still state that so from 2.4 ghz to 3.6 is not 10% O/C even if you get to 3.2 or 3.4 ghz its still a massive O/C from a cheap cpu.
i still use my 3200+ to play call of duty 4 online with high settings and screen at 1280x1024 and it handles it well, as for the quad like i said i could of got a dual for prob around £50 less but settles for the quad because the future is not to far away with the use of quads crisis has apparently released a quad core patch there is also a couple more game optimised for quads and applications are now getting optimised for better usage of more cores.
and i'm not even a quad fanboy yet

the major upgrade has just cost me £1550 and i better see a small increase in speed or else lol

INTEL Q6600 SLACR 2.40GHZ
MAINBOARD ASUS RAMPAGE FORMULA X48
VIDEO RADEON SAPPHIRE HD4870 X2
RAM CORSAIR TWINX XMS-2-8500 2x2GB
HDD 2 X 500GB S-ATA 16MB
THERMALTAKE TSUNAMI VA3000
MONITOR BENQ G2400 24" WIDESCREEN
PSU THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 1000W
VISTA 64 ULTIMATE

from

ATHLON3200+ 64
ASUS NFORCE 3
GAINWARD 7800GS+ 512 ( AGP ) Yes i'm still on AGP rotflmao but only untill saturday when all my bits arrive
BALLISTIX 2 GIG PC3200 RAM 2X 1GB
2 HDD X 250GB SATA
SOME FANCY CASE WITH LIGHTS EVERY WHERE
19" TFT SCREEN MAX OUTPUT 1280X1024
PSU 600W FORGOT MAKE
WINXP PRO


so i may see a little bit of a speed increase i guess