Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 vs Q6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 26, 2008 12:36:25 PM

ok so i cant make up my mind. for gaming which is better?
i can grab a e8400 retail for $209
but i can grab a Q6600 for $240

which is better. i don't really do any video or photo editing just games and internet. thanks.

More about : e8400 q6600

April 26, 2008 12:51:55 PM

hitman24 said:
ok so i cant make up my mind. for gaming which is better?
i can grab a e8400 retail for $209
but i can grab a Q6600 for $240

which is better. i don't really do any video or photo editing just games and internet. thanks.

Depends on what games and at what resolution you play. Here is a benchmark of crysis with an E8500 v/s a Q6600. The E8500 get kicked around at any resolution at and above 1280X1024.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_9850_black_edition_review/page6.asp
April 26, 2008 1:05:34 PM

1 frame difference that is that bad. is there any reason why i should step up to the quad?
Related resources
April 26, 2008 1:23:20 PM

If you do video encoding, the quad is ~2x as powerful.
April 26, 2008 1:23:28 PM

Q6600 is $240? The retail version is $219 at newegg right now. With that said go ahead and get the quad core, it only performs marginally slower than the E8xx series on single threaded apps and just stomps all over the dual cores on multithreaded apps.

But both are cool and if you want to save some bone, just get the cheaper of the two, you will enjoy the speed of both processors just fine.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 1:23:44 PM

hitman24 said:
1 frame difference that is that bad. is there any reason why i should step up to the quad?

If you do a lot of video encoding or use a lot of programs that have quad core support, then you have a reason and even then the Q9300 would be a better starting point but as you have already stated you don't. As I own and use both CPU's I can tell you from personal experience that you will most likely be happier with the E8400.
April 26, 2008 1:36:58 PM

yea i don't think any programs i have right now use quad core. basically i want to last me 2 years maybe 3 before i do a rebuild. so with the $30 bucks i save what should i buy with it? i was leaning to the 8400 for a long time then the q6600 was so cheap around me i was going to pick iot up but there was none left in stock so i had to wait a week. now the price rose back up.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 1:47:02 PM

hitman24 said:
so with the $30 bucks i save what should i buy with it?

Put towards graphic card (or two).
April 26, 2008 1:50:56 PM

Well, if you are going for a 2-3 year set up then a quad is a better choice. The gaming experience is not penalized with the quad as some would have you believe and more and more apps/games will be going multithreaded sooner rather than later. Both are great chips but the longer term utility favors the quad.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 1:57:18 PM

Craxbax said:
Well, if you are going for a 2-3 year set up then a quad is a better choice. The gaming experience is not penalized with the quad as some would have you believe and more and more apps/games will be going multithreaded sooner rather than later. Both are great chips but the longer term utility favors the quad.

[:mousemonkey:2] Whilst your argument has some validity it's the same as the one being put forth in July/August last year and indeed before that even, so when exactly is this 'sooner rather than later' that you mention?
April 26, 2008 2:30:37 PM

The thing is, right now, both Q6600 and e8400 perform so well that there's no difference. What difference is there between 70fps and 73fps? Not any that you can see.

By the time they are no longer top end, quad optimized applications should have became the norm, and the quad would have a huge advantage.

Basically, now, e8400 perform better, but it doesn't matter. By the time it does matter, q6600 would perform far better. Go for the quad, it makes more sense.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 2:52:42 PM

dagger said:
The thing is, right now, both Q6600 and e8400 perform so well that there's no difference. What difference is there between 70fps and 73fps? Not any that you can see.

By the time they are no longer top end, quad optimized applications should have became the norm, and the quad would have a huge advantage.

Basically, now, e8400 perform better, but it doesn't matter. By the time it does matter, q6600 would perform far better. Go for the quad, it makes more sense.

Surely by the time it matters the Q6600 will have been superseded by something?, say a Q9xxx of some description and even by then very little software will be able to take advantage of four cores.
April 26, 2008 2:55:28 PM

I'd probably also grab the Q6600 for the small price difference right now if you're wanting it to last 2-3 years. Once the Q6600 is OC'd to 3Ghz (ridiculously easy on a P35/X38) or the E8400 to 3.4 or 3.6, you aren't going to notice any difference in games. BUT, in 2-3 years when programs are optimised for four cores it'll be noticeable.
April 26, 2008 3:04:15 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Surely by the time it matters the Q6600 will have been superseded by something?, say a Q9xxx of some description and even by then very little software will be able to take advantage of four cores.

Same can be said for e8400, that is, if they still make cpus with only 2 cores by then.
April 26, 2008 3:06:50 PM

Let put it this way if your going to rebuild within 2 years go with the e8400 but if this build is going to last you alteast 3 to 4 years the q6600 is the better way to go. 8400 is for time being while the q6600 is more "future proof."
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 3:11:12 PM

dagger said:
Same can be said for e8400, that is, if they still make cpus with only 2 cores by then.

And the E8xxx replacement is?, and is available where?
April 26, 2008 3:25:34 PM

I know people keep saying it but its true, as time goes on app, games, and OS will take advantage of more cores. If you want to overclock the e8400 is a great overclocker. You might want to hold off for a few weeks they should be dropping the price on the 8400. Its already down to 189.00 on newegg. They just released an 8300 2.83ghz that will retail for 163.00 and should be out any day. It should lower the price of the 8400 and 8200 as well. It will be out literally any day. My guess would be by the end of the week it should start showing up at e-tailers. If overclocking is your thing and you want a quad, the Q6700 has a better multiplier than the q6600.
April 26, 2008 3:30:27 PM

Mousemonkey said:
And the E8xxx replacement is?, and is available where?

There'll be replacements all over the place in 2 years. Stop arguing. You're not helping anyone, just stroking your own ego.

Why can't you accept the fact that e8400 is better now and q6600 is more future proof? Good for the e8400 to get a fan, but stop pushing it to everyone regardless of individual circumstances. Enough of the fanboyism already. :sarcastic: 
April 26, 2008 3:40:38 PM

based on that benchmark, 30 bucks is not worth 1 Frame lololololol.


I bought the e8400. But I bought a board that will also take the quad, so when they are cheap i am going to step up, but right now, not worth it to me.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2008 3:43:38 PM

dagger said:
There'll be replacements all over the place in 2 years. Stop arguing. You're not helping anyone, just stroking your own ego.

Why can't you accept the fact that e8400 is better now and q6600 is more future proof? Good for the e8400 to get a fan, but stop pushing it to everyone regardless of individual circumstances. Enough of the fanboyism already. :sarcastic: 

which is certainly what you are not doing in regards to the Q6600 eh? :pfff: 
April 26, 2008 3:44:34 PM

victordilorenzo said:
based on that benchmark, 30 bucks is not worth 1 Frame lololololol.


I bought the e8400. But I bought a board that will also take the quad, so when they are cheap i am going to step up, but right now, not worth it to me.

Good choice. Actually, you can't go wrong with either one. Not sure what you meant by 1fps difference. If you're saying the q6600 is 1 frame more than e8400, that's not true, it's the other way around, at least right now. And on single thread applications, the e8400 should be more than just 1 frame more.
April 26, 2008 3:51:16 PM

hitman24 said:
1 frame difference that is that bad. is there any reason why i should step up to the quad?

Given thats an E8500 which is about the same price as a Q6600 I would say yes. Given that an E8400 at 1600X1200 will drop below the cheapest phenom I would say get a quad. Quads are getting more and more support these days but it depends to a degree which games and at what resolution. If you have no need to go beyond 1280X1024 at present then buy a cheap dual core. If you want to stay at 1280X1024 in the next few years or go higher i suggest getting a Q6600 with a reasonable OCing mobo or a Q9450 with highly OCing mobo. I would not suggest the Q9300 as with a reasonable priced mobo its going to be limited by its multiplier to about 3.3GHz and cost $50 more than the Q6600.

If you do OC this is a bit more important because at best the E8400 has 1.1GHz head room, 4.1GHz, while the Q6600 has 1.4GHz, 3.8GHz. The average OC for the E8400 is around 3.8GHz and the Q6600 3.5GHz which again the dual core loss ground from its main advantage.
April 26, 2008 4:18:01 PM

elbert said:
Given thats an E8500 which is about the same price as a Q6600 I would say yes. Given that an E8400 at 1600X1200 will drop below the cheapest phenom I would say get a quad. Quads are getting more and more support these days but it depends to a degree which games and at what resolution. If you have no need to go beyond 1280X1024 at present then buy a cheap dual core. If you want to stay at 1280X1024 in the next few years or go higher i suggest getting a Q6600 with a reasonable OCing mobo or a Q9450 with highly OCing mobo. I would not suggest the Q9300 as with a reasonable priced mobo its going to be limited by its multiplier to about 3.3GHz and cost $50 more than the Q6600.

If you do OC this is a bit more important because at best the E8400 has 1.1GHz head room, 4.1GHz, while the Q6600 has 1.4GHz, 3.8GHz. The average OC for the E8400 is around 3.8GHz and the Q6600 3.5GHz which again the dual core loss ground from its main advantage.



That's an interesting perspective on ocing. I haven't thought about that. :p 
April 26, 2008 4:23:08 PM

I bought a quad last October and I'm very confident it was the best choice. I would ignore the argument which is worthwhile because the other is future proof because with any understanding of what is going on in the industry at all anyone would buy quad.

First AMD have not just themselves produced triple and quad phenoms at low end prices because they only have a low application..IE video editing. Even Intel have reduced the QX6700 to a low end price. Games are usually more GPU intensive and therefore multi core has still to be used properly here and so for the next year dual core is the way to go as game companies still get there heads round multi core.

But because AMD and Intel are determined to cultivate multi core two years down and dual core wont exist for sale, it will be quad minimum and maybe even 8 cores (which the industry is already working on). Game companies will crack the multi core problem. Software creates demands, hardware meets it and software usually gets more demanding but in this case hardware has went one step forward and has told software to catch up because this is the way things are going.

The other most important reason Im happy about my quad core is the fact its a great multitasker. You have the ability to play a game and record a TV programme and download a bit torrent at once.
!