Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 vs Q6600 both oc'd on air cooling for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 14, 2008 10:17:30 AM

As thread title states, both oc'd to their maximum potential, what would yield better price / performance ratio? I am upgrading after 2 years and have fallen out of touch with the latest CPU results for gaming.

- Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 3.00GHz (1333FSB) - Retail - £187.99
- Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - OEM - £140.99

Also, what mobo chipset / mobo would you recommend with both?

Please remember this is a 100% gaming machine.

Thanks,

Callum.
April 14, 2008 11:12:48 AM

I would take a look at the MSI P35 Neo2-FR, Good value with a heatpipe cooler, IHC9R southbridge and all solid capacitor design.

Its basically the same board as the P35 Platinum minus the firewire and a couple of the rear SPDIF connectors
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 11:35:56 AM

With the e8400 you might get 4 GHZ with a good overclock.
I would go with that at the present time, because you are into gaming.
The Q6600 has four cores, but few games are able to use all the cores.
Related resources
April 14, 2008 11:36:28 AM

You have got to be kidding, right? This has been beaten up time and time again here on THG and elsewhere. The E8400 series is faster at present and a great choice for a pure gaming rig but both will OC past the point you can see or feel any real world difference. Why not go for the E8200 for a better price/performance ratio?
April 14, 2008 11:53:37 AM

Yeah This has been beaten up. And maxed overclocked these two actually game about identical right now. At low res cpu scaling settings there are games that both can win over the other. Max OC e8400 probably provides the higher 3dmarks if that's your game. :) 

But really at those prices there is only one good option IMO. Why on earth pay that much more for the e8400? It should cost less not more! Priced the same or less Q6600 for sure IMO.
April 14, 2008 12:03:54 PM

it all just depends. the are both pretty much fast enough to run anything you can install and run. just buy the cheaper one.
April 14, 2008 12:37:35 PM

i just built a PC for a friend and it had a q9300, that a right beast i bilieve that it cost him £180.

if you can find a deal like that i can only reccomend this processor.

The reson i would choose this processor is becasue it has all the new technologies it is both 45nm and a Quad.

i didnt bench it properly, but in a work unit (folding at home) of 5000 it did a fram every 13 seconds, thats fast.

although out of e8400 and q6600 i would go for the e8 becasue the 45nm is FAST-FAST. and operatate at relatively low temps.

hope some of this helps
April 14, 2008 12:44:32 PM

I have the Q6600 and I simply chose it for more future proof as I'm tired of building computers every year.....its fast works great multitasking and plays games great...so the 8400 might beat it out a frame or 2 its still more expensive than the Q6600 and you can get another set of ram in its place...
April 14, 2008 2:08:13 PM

Very true, the last to consider is the E8200
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 2.66GHz (1333FSB) - £117
April 14, 2008 2:14:28 PM

Heh.. I still see the price perspective differently of the E8400 and Q6600.

I did buy mine for $235. E8400 $209. Now I look at it as how much per core:

209/2=$104.50
235/4=$58.75

Then I compare that to my E4400 which I did spend $126 bucks:

126/2=$68

So all in all, I felt I did okay. I guess I could have gotton it cheaper, but then it would be that much longer before I had it in my system. :lol: 
April 14, 2008 2:29:18 PM

Grimmy said:
Heh.. I still see the price perspective differently of the E8400 and Q6600.

I did buy mine for $235. E8400 $209. Now I look at it as how much per core:

Bloody hell do you guys get it easy in the States... your prices are crazy! :lol: 
April 14, 2008 4:43:39 PM

At that price, get the Q6600. Quad applications are coming out fast, and then the Q6600's performance lead over E8400 will be massive. E8400 delivers higher performance on single or dual optimized applications because it can overclock higher, which means better performance on the short term, before applications go quad. If E8400 cost less, it would be a good deal. But at the much higher price you cited, it makes absolutely no sense.
April 14, 2008 5:57:23 PM

I almost chose a Q6600 - but I went with the E8400 instead because of my needs and future-proofing concerns. I need the performance for gaming, and very few games take advantage of quad core processors. The Q6600 is basically the quad version of the old E6600 - since most games aren't quad capable, you're basically getting the same performance as the E6600.

Besides, 2.4Ghz @ 65nm is going to start looking really old and clunky in a few months, even with quad cores and over-clocked. The Q6600 lacks SSE4, and 65nm is starting to look how 92nm did about 15 months ago. There is no way around the fact that the Q6600 is now an obsolete chip.


Personally, I would now get a minimum of a Q9450 if you must have a quad core.
April 14, 2008 6:01:47 PM

Piffffff....

Seems to me dual core is getting old. :p 

I'm soooo happy I got a quad!!

But then I kinda miss my E4400, although I got parts on the way to rebuild it. :lol: 
April 15, 2008 12:09:58 AM

alpine18 said:
There is no way around the fact that the Q6600 is now an obsolete chip.
Way to go, you win First Place. [:turpit:2] ..... best laugh I've had all day. :lol: 
April 15, 2008 11:07:42 AM

Gonna go with the Quad, thanks for your help guys.
April 15, 2008 11:36:06 PM

pauldh said:
Way to go, you win First Place. [:turpit:2] ..... best laugh I've had all day. :lol: 


Thanks.
The sooner you Q6600 fanboys buy out Intel's stockpile Q6600's, the sooner the rest of us can get a sweet deal on a Q9550. See ya'all in a few months when you're upgrading. Make sure you get a 1600Mhz FSB capable motherboard so you can replace that old 1066Mhz FSB Q6600.

:D 
April 16, 2008 12:08:58 AM

:) 

Better yet is the e8400 fanbois that keep the thing way over retail price recommending it no matter what the cost. Just lets us smart people grab the better / more expensive Q6600 for less. :kaola: 
April 16, 2008 12:53:19 AM

I got my Q6600 for $200, oc'd it to 3.6, and it's freakin great. It will encode the crap out of video with all four cores working. I'll keep it until we all have to switch platforms for nehelem next year. Once you go above 3.2, you won't really see much gain with regards to fps in games. Being that Crysis is the only game that my system can't do maxed out, I ran some tests to see if cpu speed matters at 1680x1050. Once you go above 3.2, it doesn't, not on my 8800gtx anyway.
April 16, 2008 2:25:57 AM

CPU never really helped games. It's been the gpu that's made the difference for at least 10 years now. The reason for this is simple; fps are hot stuff and there's only a limited number of things a person can focus on with a gun :)  . Only a few games take advantage of the cpu and they usually have lots of "units" that need to have their stats constantly updated and are all AI thinkers.
I like the dual core but not when a comparable quad is cheaper or the same price.
April 16, 2008 2:51:29 AM

Newegg has marked the E8400 back down to $210...Q6600 is $250
April 17, 2008 5:59:34 AM

kellytm3 said:
Newegg has marked the E8400 back down to $210...Q6600 is $250

Yeah, and that is how it should be. Or better yet would be $190 & $230. When we talk prices like you posted, then I become a huge e8400 fan. Saving, $40 it should be the typical gamers choice of the two. It would get my money.

Of course, I'm just going with those newegg prices. When in reality, there are other sites to consider too. Zipzoomfly has the retail box Q6600 for $229 shipped free and the e8400 for $205 shipped free. Both good options at those prices and I wouldn't fault anyone for buying either one.

Microcenter has the retail Q6600 for $200+shipping which puts the two back at equal prices(not considering possible sales tax depending on the state) if you shop around. If priced the same, I can't justify the e8400 anymore. http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...
April 17, 2008 6:29:00 PM

Frys has the Q6600 for $190 retail G0.
April 17, 2008 7:15:00 PM

Wow, $186.92 shipped. Nice find.
April 17, 2008 7:20:05 PM

This has been covered.... a lot. The e8400 beats the crap out of the Q6600 in almost every test! look at the CPU charts! The only thing things that the Q6600 beats the e8400 in is stuff like Cinema 4D and 3DMark06. Games just started to use 2 core.... let alone 4 cores. If you don't plan on upgrading for the next 3 years, when games can use the four cores, then go for the Q6600, perhaps it will be worth it.

They are both excellent options, and it really depends on the application. Even in between games it depends. Like FPS uses way less CPU then RTS (generally).
April 17, 2008 7:54:39 PM

doomsdaydave11 said:
This has been covered.... a lot. The e8400 beats the crap out of the Q6600 in almost every test! look at the CPU charts! The only thing things that the Q6600 beats the e8400 in is stuff like Cinema 4D and 3DMark06. Games just started to use 2 core.... let alone 4 cores. If you don't plan on upgrading for the next 3 years, when games can use the four cores, then go for the Q6600, perhaps it will be worth it.

They are both excellent options, and it really depends on the application. Even in between games it depends. Like FPS uses way less CPU then RTS (generally).

If you truely followed this as covered you would know the cpu charts do a lousy job of comparing them. The tests were run 6 months apart on different systems for starters. IMO people need to stop treating the cpu charts like they are the Bible. There are plenty of other tests that have been linked that show a lower clocked quad outgaming a higher clocked dual.

For example, Have a look:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

The 3.6GHz Q6600 beats the 3.85GHz e6850 in every game. And on top of that a stock 2.4GHz Q6600 beats the 3.85GHz e6850 in Supreme Commander and Lost planet.

And besides, we are always talking low res no fsaa scaling tests. Crank the resolution and settings to how people actually play, and the GPU is now brought into the equation. At gaming settings the two would virtually be identical in all games. this e8400 kicks the crap out of Q6600 or vise versa bologna is pure nonsense. Stock the e8400 probably outbenches the Q6600. But max overclocked be it 3.6GHz vs 4.0GHz or 4.0GHz vs 4.3Ghz, they are IMO on par with each other for games.
April 17, 2008 8:10:16 PM

And BTW I really don't care which wins the quads or Duals. i just like to explore the situations where each shine. Xbit pits the e8500 vs Q9300 and the e8500 does top their gamign charts in all but UT3. it's just weird, they mention 4 games with good quad core support, but edit: they only test one of thsoe games???? ANyway, would have been nice to see. Besides a surprising 10x7 win in 3dmark06 and UT3, the e8500 owns the 10x7 gaming charts in the actual games they tested. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

Another review that backs up the gaming settings talk. Notice the e8500 beating the Quads at 800x600, but equal or behind once we talk a decent resolution you actually game at.
UT3 - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...
Crysis - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...

!