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/hardwar [...] /page6.asp
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.
---------------
Exchange Engineer - Am I working to live, or am I living to work?
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.
---------------
Forums are like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
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.
so with the $30 bucks i save what should i buy with it?
Put towards graphic card (or two).
---------------
Forums are like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
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.
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.
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?
---------------
Forums are like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
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.
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.
---------------
Forums are like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
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.
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.
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."
---------------
Forums are like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
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.
Message edited by cisco on 04-26-2008 at 05:29:23 PM
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.
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.
![[:mousemonkey:2]](http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/images/perso/2/mousemonkey.gif "[: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?
