Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X4 9850 Vs E8400 Vs Q6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 3, 2008 1:58:47 PM

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.

More about : 9850 e8400 q6600

May 3, 2008 2:09:31 PM

what are you going to be using your system for?
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 2:37:41 PM

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.



Related resources
May 3, 2008 4:10:38 PM

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)
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 4:28:44 PM

^Agreed. For HSF look at:
Xigmatek HDT-S1283
May 3, 2008 8:43:58 PM

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.
May 3, 2008 8:56:06 PM

Reynod said:
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?
a c 125 à CPUs
May 3, 2008 9:03:36 PM

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.
May 3, 2008 10:21:47 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.
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 11:39:11 PM

rfatcheric said:
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).
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 11:42:36 PM

Gaming only: E8400
Anything Else: Q6600
Space Heater: X4 9850
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 11:50:23 PM

EXT64 said:
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.
May 3, 2008 11:59:09 PM

apache_lives said:
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.
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2008 11:59:48 PM

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.

edit: I see your point. Get the Quad.
May 4, 2008 12:02:34 AM

EXT64 said:
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.
a c 125 à CPUs
May 4, 2008 2:16:36 AM

rfatcheric said:
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.
May 4, 2008 3:29:49 AM

dagger said:
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.

May 4, 2008 3:48:13 AM

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.
May 4, 2008 3:49:26 AM

epsilon84 said:
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.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2quad-q9300/power-1.pnghttp://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2quad-q9300/power-2.png


I disagree on the idle consumption. My system currently does not consume anymore power then my old E4400, simply because I use speedstep. The only real hungry component I have is the 8800GTS 320MB video card.

I use a P3-kilo-watt meter to measure power drain:

E4400 - 160W idle
Q6600 - 170W idle

So your not going to have allot of power consumption unless your actually using all 4 cores continuously, but then that is a given since your using 4 cores vs 2.
May 4, 2008 3:58:00 AM

Thats nice, but when i chose the components for my computer, how much power it used was never a issue. I mean come on, its gonna add what, the same amount of power to my electric bill as another light bulb? Please lets be real here, if your a gamer, and a comp enthusiast, were not gonna let such a thing as power be the reason why we choose one proccessor over another. Duel core is old, its getting older. Why people feel the need to defend a old chip, that is going to the byways, and is going to give you the same performace as a single core, i dont know. OCing isnt going to make a huge diffrence unless your worry about your bench mark score looking impressive, and i dont buy that, it is just a representative mark to show off, ive never seen a bench mark make the deciding factor in real life applications. My Quad plays all games without any problems, and i mean any. I would really like to see a dual core system that shows me a noticable performance diffrence with the games i play, and by notable, i mean im gonna SEE the diffrence, not benchmark it to show off to everyone.
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2008 4:13:07 AM

epsilon84 said:
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.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2quad-q9300/power-1.pnghttp://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2quad-q9300/power-2.png


Care to share the performance involved in the high power consumption?

You are comparing a 65nm to a 45nm cpu, and if you were building a pc with power/heat issues, you would spend more $$$ on a 45nm cpu, since you would have more money because you were buying more expensive and slimmer cases, quiet components etc.

Quads don't just offer better performance in apps and benchmarks, because you have more cpus to handle background apps (antivirus, downloads etc) while your foreground apps arnt interrupted.

Multi core is the future.

Hey why dont you just use a celeron 420m? its single core and more efficent then your dual core? apps dont use more then one core, right? :lol:  :lol: 
May 4, 2008 4:24:10 AM

I had both. I do a ton of video and digital work, CS3 etc. The E8400 couldn't hang with the Q6600 for my type of work.
May 4, 2008 4:49:19 AM

Spider-man can kick Batman's ass, and you would have to be a moron to disagree! I love seeing how fired up some people get over trivialities. You would think we are fighting over something important here--like AMD vs. Intel or something!.

This is so subjective and use-dependant, I can't see how anyone thinks that there is necessarily a definitive answer here.

a c 125 à CPUs
May 4, 2008 5:34:00 AM

Grimmy said:
I disagree on the idle consumption. My system currently does not consume anymore power then my old E4400, simply because I use speedstep. The only real hungry component I have is the 8800GTS 320MB video card.

I use a P3-kilo-watt meter to measure power drain:

E4400 - 160W idle
Q6600 - 170W idle

So your not going to have allot of power consumption unless your actually using all 4 cores continuously, but then that is a given since your using 4 cores vs 2.

Agreed. I was surprised that my power use did not go up much at all from my E6600(a new efficient power supply offset it completely)
If the quad stays at full load for a shorter time then goes back to idle the dual may actually use more power to do that same thing.
May 4, 2008 5:52:43 AM

Quote:
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.


That's not necessarily true though. A 3.6GHz Q can hang with a 4GHz Dual.

Fear is single threaded, yet a 3.6GHz Quad can beat a 3.85GHz Dual in it:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

And look at Lost planet at the bottom...it's a whoopin.


And one problem we always deal with is looking at 800x600 or 1024x768 cpu scaling tests and pointing to the CPU that shows more raw power. But what does that equate to playing games at a typical GPU demanding setting. Example, the 4.17GHz e8500 OC is a beast taking most low res tests by a good margin(against stock clock competitors), but notice in how many games a stock 2.4GHz Q6600 matches or beats it once we talk a 16x12 gaming res. I don't see a big advantage to either to be honest.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...

e8400 and Q6600 are both excellent gaming chips, especially if we talk overclocking. Comes down to many factors, pricing for starters.
May 4, 2008 6:57:40 AM

If you intend your system with multi-tasking or graphic / movie editing, go with Q6600 for quad core. For general application or 3D Games go with E8400 for newer technology and higher frequency.
May 4, 2008 11:15:13 AM

All I have to say is here we go again.
May 4, 2008 11:29:30 AM

i aint stealing this thread to the op or anything. i just dont wanna start a whole new and thread, and it seems you guys know your intel processors well.


im planning to buy an e8200 2.66 and oc it to e8400 3.0 speeds, just to make myself feel good. because from where i come from. a dollar 50 separates them (e8400 and q6600 have the same price)..

will the STOCK COOLER let me do it? because if it wont i'll be spending a litte more money again to buy an aftermarket cooler which i do not intend to do (it'll cost around 50$ right? a good cooler?)--budget constraints.

im saving the 50bucks for cod4. which is the whole point why im buying this new system.
May 4, 2008 12:31:19 PM

Yes, a stock cooler will be sufficient for such a small overclock.
May 4, 2008 1:32:10 PM

^ agreed (on the stock cooler) for a small OC.
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2008 2:06:38 PM

wh3resmycar said:
i aint stealing this thread to the op or anything. i just dont wanna start a whole new and thread, and it seems you guys know your intel processors well.


im planning to buy an e8200 2.66 and oc it to e8400 3.0 speeds, just to make myself feel good. because from where i come from. a dollar 50 separates them (e8400 and q6600 have the same price)..

will the STOCK COOLER let me do it? because if it wont i'll be spending a litte more money again to buy an aftermarket cooler which i do not intend to do (it'll cost around 50$ right? a good cooler?)--budget constraints.

im saving the 50bucks for cod4. which is the whole point why im buying this new system.


stock cooler could reach even ~3.4 as long as the case ventilation is aok and low v's
May 6, 2008 9:01:36 AM

Hi all

Thanks for the great response. It has been a huge help. I going to go for an Intel processor and I'm leaning towards the Q6600.

Thanks Again
May 6, 2008 2:20:17 PM

im curious about the 9850 BE also..

im in the same boat.. debating if i should upgrade...
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2008 12:25:22 AM

ducker19 said:
Hi all

Thanks for the great response. It has been a huge help. I going to go for an Intel processor and I'm leaning towards the Q6600.

Thanks Again


you wont regret it! :D 
June 1, 2008 8:17:10 AM

take q6600 it have a good overclock too ,you can overclock it over 3.4
June 1, 2008 2:58:38 PM

I'm happy with my Q6600, and it's running Vista 64 with no problems, but not to mention I had to work out some things. :lol:  . o O(Still have my XP as a backup just in case)

Nothing wrong with 2 extra cores. As a matter of fact, if you like Eye Candy on Vista, it will use up more CPU cycles to fill the Eye Candy needs you may get addicted to.

I ran different Dream Scape wall papers, and depending on what fits your fancy, it can use up all 4 cores (10-30%) and still run pretty smooth. Heh, glad I did get 4GB of ram, 33% (1.33gb) of it is being used on normal stuff.

I think I did make a good choice that should last me as long as my old P4 northy did, and then some. :D 
!