Hi All. I could really use some advice on my new system. I have worked out everything I want except the processor. My first thought was for the E8400 because the other proceessors where out of my price range. But with the drop in price of the Q6600 and the Phenom X4 9850, I'm not sure.
Would be great to hear from anyone who has one of these processors and what you think.
The PC is mainly going to be for a little bit of gaming but I will also have a T.V. card and will be using it as digital video recorder. The PC is going in the living room on my HD tele. So I guess it would be best described as a media centre PC.
E8400 ... the Q6600 chews a lot more power and unless your planning to soup it up for a high end rig the E8400 will be plenty for a range of applications ... plus it runs a lot cooler and is therefore less of a hassle to maintain.
As an AMD fan I would still not recommend a Phenom because unless it is only for a HTPC (with a 790 IGP mobo) and you got a low power version.
Ask others about the best Intel mobo ... I am not familiar enough with the latest Intel chipsets ... I suggest you don't buy cheap.
I'd recommend the Q6600 for one reason, video encoding, a stock Q6600 will beat a E8400 in multithreaded video encoding any day, and if you're going to use the PC as a digital video recorder you'll be encoding and/or editing video in a daily/weekly basis.
Go for the Q6600 and get an aftermarket cooler (nothing too fancy, just something quiet, or the stock cooler will ruin your movie experience) and you'll be good to go.
As for a mobo, get an ASUS or Gigabyte with a P35 chipset, just in case you feel like overclocking in the future (Asus P5K and Gigabyte DS3R comes to mind)
---------------
-Life is a fight you can't win.
-That doesn't mean you can give up!!!!
Most benchmarks I have seen put the E8400 above the Q6600 in performance, Quads are more power hungry too especially when overclocked. Many will tell you " Quads are the future' well yes they are technically, but why buy an inferior processor in the majority of today's applications? E8400 has more raw speed and better OC ability too, so there's no guarantee a Q6600 will magically outperform it in tomorrows applications, because four cores does not mean twice the performance. E8400 is the clear winner and the Phenon 9850 is not even worth considering.
E8400 ... the Q6600 chews a lot more power and unless your planning to soup it up for a high end rig the E8400 will be plenty for a range of applications ... plus it runs a lot cooler and is therefore less of a hassle to maintain.
As an AMD fan I would still not recommend a Phenom because unless it is only for a HTPC (with a 790 IGP mobo) and you got a low power version.
Ask others about the best Intel mobo ... I am not familiar enough with the latest Intel chipsets ... I suggest you don't buy cheap.
Hope this helps.
Youve got to be kidding. After all the fuss youve put up about the thermal sensors?
The 8xxx and 9xxx(Intel not amd) have SSE4, with the right encoder a 8400 will catch and sometimes beat a Q6600 @ stock. Overclocked and thing get farther apart again.
I do still recommend that Q660(when programs take better use of all 4 cores.), but in the right cases encoding and single threaded apps(most games) the 8400 is ahead.
Overclock the Q6600 and your good to go. be aware the jump from 3.0 to 3.6 = a good 100 watts more. so get a good psu.
EDIT
Also note that digital video recording should be handled by the card it self in hardware. its the encoding to smaller sizer for storage after that needs the power.
Message edited by nukemaster on 05-03-2008 at 11:05:05 PM
I'll never understand why people always include the caveat of "when programs take better use of all 4 cores".
There are still programs that dont make use of 2 cores, much less 4. By the time apps are properly optimized for 4 core use a q6600 will most likely be ancient.
Or maybe I'm off my rocker, but thats they way it seems to me.
I'll never understand why people always include the caveat of "when programs take better use of all 4 cores".
There are still programs that dont make use of 2 cores, much less 4. By the time apps are properly optimized for 4 core use a q6600 will most likely be ancient.
Or maybe I'm off my rocker, but thats they way it seems to me.
The older it gets the faster it will be?
Theres no argument - Q6600 all the way, i went from a E6600 @ 3.2 and the Q6600 at stock felt faster (@2.4).
Gaming only: E8400
Anything Else: Q6600
Space Heater: X4 9850
Get the Q6600 and push it to a lazy 3ghz for best overall - i still dont get why people bother with duals when the quads clock equally and cost so little.
Get the Q6600 and push it to a lazy 3ghz for best overall - i still dont get why people bother with duals when the quads clock equally and cost so little.
Exactly. It's just strange that people hear how "good" e8400 is and then buy e8400 and let it run at stock. A Q6600 oced to 3.6ghz, which is very typical, will wipe the floor with a stock e8400 even if it's running applications that only use one or two of its 4 cores.
Overclocking is the sole merit of e8400, as it overclocks past 4ghz. If you don't intend high oc, don't get e8400. There is no reason to get a dual if you don't oc it at least past a quad.
Speaking of oc, there's absolute overclocking, and then increase in relative oc. E8400 runs at 3.0ghz stock, with typical oc of 4.0ghz, a relative increase of 1.0ghz across 2 cores. Q6600 runs at 2.4ghz stock, with typical oc of 3.6ghz, a relative increase of of 1.2ghz across 4 cores. So it's 1.0x2 compared to 1.2x4. Go figure.
Right now, since gpu is the bottleneck for games, not cpu, higher clock rate may translate to exactly 0 fps increase. 2 years from now, when your cpu is past its prime and becoming a bottleneck, quad applications would be out. Basically, e8400 runs faster when it doesn't matter. Quad runs faster when it does.
True, but when I say "gaming only" I mean it. My FX-60 rig has a minimum XP install and has never been connected to the internet. It ONLY ever runs games. If this is meant to be a everyday + gaming computer, I'd suggest the Quad.
True, but when I say "gaming only" I mean it. My FX-60 rig has a minimum XP install and has never been connected to the internet. It ONLY ever runs games. If this is meant to be a everyday + gaming computer, I'd suggest the Quad.
It doesn't have as much to do with "gaming only" as how many years you plan to keep the system. There are only a few quad games out right now (Supreme Commander, Lost Planet, etc), but they'll be here, just as games went from single to dual. It's inevitable.
If it's gaming only, for less than 2 years, dual will do fine, for 2+ years, get quad.
I'll never understand why people always include the caveat of "when programs take better use of all 4 cores".
There are still programs that dont make use of 2 cores, much less 4. By the time apps are properly optimized for 4 core use a q6600 will most likely be ancient.
Or maybe I'm off my rocker, but thats they way it seems to me.
I say this because as we speak valve is working on an update for all source games to use 4+ cores and most video software and photoshop do use 4 cores(SSE4 is more icing on the cake in the future apps. Its like the first big jump since SSE and MMX came out). 4 Cores also has an advantage when running lots of apps. You are not off your rocker(providing you upgrade yearly), there is always something better around the corner, but in general 4 cores is the way to go. For me compressing my MCE recordings the quad is the only way to go.
Exactly. It's just strange that people hear how "good" e8400 is and then buy e8400 and let it run at stock. A Q6600 oced to 3.6ghz, which is very typical, will wipe the floor with a stock e8400 even if it's running applications that only use one or two of its 4 cores.
Overclocking is the sole merit of e8400, as it overclocks past 4ghz. If you don't intend high oc, don't get e8400. There is no reason to get a dual if you don't oc it at least past a quad.
Speaking of oc, there's absolute overclocking, and then increase in relative oc. E8400 runs at 3.0ghz stock, with typical oc of 4.0ghz, a relative increase of 1.0ghz across 2 cores. Q6600 runs at 2.4ghz stock, with typical oc of 3.6ghz, a relative increase of of 1.2ghz across 4 cores. So it's 1.0x2 compared to 1.2x4. Go figure.
Right now, since gpu is the bottleneck for games, not cpu, higher clock rate may translate to exactly 0 fps increase. 2 years from now, when your cpu is past its prime and becoming a bottleneck, quad applications would be out. Basically, e8400 runs faster when it doesn't matter. Quad runs faster when it does.
Some people simply don't need 4 cores, how hard is that to accept? Some build for today, not tomorrow. Many applications today still only take advantage of 2 cores at most, and a higher clocked dual core will outperform a lower clocked quad in such instances.
By the way, did it ever occur to you how much more power a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz uses when compared to an E8400, especially when overclocked? Some people run SFC PCs, and an overclocked Q6600 @ 150W is simply not feasible in such cases.
I don't think you can lose either way. The e8400 is a great chip with excellent performance. The Q6600 is a strong performer as well and if you do video encoding, its excellent. I own the Q6600 and find it to have plenty of power at the stock settings. Its one of the few processors that I have owned that is not overclocked. I'm sure I will be running it overclocked as time goes on, but for now it doesn't feel like a bottleneck in my system. I can say the Intel and Microsoft have created a joint venture and invested $20 million to improve multicore utilization with applications.
