Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 or Q6600 or Q9300 for pure gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 20, 2008 12:35:18 PM

which CPU should I get if I plan on just using the PC for gaming E8400 or Q6600 or Q9300?
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2008 12:42:25 PM

E8400 or Q6600...

Its quad if you want it to last longer and dual if you want more performance now
June 20, 2008 12:45:26 PM

amdfangirl said:
E8400 or Q6600...

Its quad if you want it to last longer and dual if you want more performance now


Completely correct. I would also recommend reading this article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ibuypower-game-computer,1952.html from the main page. It shows realistic performance differences between the 2 chips. Sure they are pretty overclocked but it's still relevant.
Related resources
a c 139 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2008 12:48:40 PM

+1
June 20, 2008 12:54:30 PM

What do you mean the quad will last longer? Do you mean that in the future it will give much more performance than the E8400?
June 20, 2008 1:02:18 PM

Well, more apps and games will be optimized to take advantage of quad in the future.
June 20, 2008 1:03:50 PM

Q9300 or Q6600 which is better
June 20, 2008 1:13:35 PM

^ I have no idea what you meant
June 20, 2008 1:19:35 PM

ragingazn628 said:
^ I have no idea what you meant

if you clock the FSB you can get 12 GB/s. That is the speed for DDR2-800.
PCI Express 2.0 x16 is 8 GB/s, two is 16 GB/s
Quad's on intel need to synchronize threads through the FSB also.

When games (the newest games are scaling well to more cores), the FSB on intel is the bottleneck.


June 20, 2008 4:52:02 PM

So I should get the Q6600?
June 20, 2008 5:16:39 PM

kassler said:
if you clock the FSB you can get 12 GB/s. That is the speed for DDR2-800.
PCI Express 2.0 x16 is 8 GB/s, two is 16 GB/s
Quad's on intel need to synchronize threads through the FSB also.

When games (the newest games are scaling well to more cores), the FSB on intel is the bottleneck.


Actually, It's not a bottleneck.

If you read real-world memory performance tests, you see that there FSB adjustments have little impact in real world performance.

It takes massive increases to see very small increases in performance.

It may be a bottleneck in the future, but it is not currently.
June 20, 2008 10:26:01 PM



So I should get the Q6600?
June 20, 2008 10:42:40 PM

E8400 can reach 4Ghz on air.....
Q6600 can reach around 3.6-4GHZ on air/water

Id personaly get the Q6600, as i render, game, defrag, watch videos and general shizzle alot and more or less at the same time.

Get the Q6600, make sure its the SLACR version, less wattage, less heat, better overclock and also energy efficent!!!

kkthanksbye
a c 114 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 20, 2008 11:02:05 PM

Preclude said:
Completely correct. I would also recommend reading this article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ibuypower-game-computer,1952.html from the main page. It shows realistic performance differences between the 2 chips. Sure they are pretty overclocked but it's still relevant.


Whoa.

That doesn't compare a q6600 with an e8400. It compares an e8400 with a $1,500 Core 2 Extreme QX9770 clocked at 3.52 GHz.




Not to mention 2x8800gtx and 780i for the e8400 versus 2x9800gtx, 790i, RAID bandwidth and faster ram for the QX9770.

Code will be optimized for SSE4 long before programmers totally rewrite software programs to run multiple parallel threads across four cores.

It would be much more fair to compare the CPUs on Tom's Charts:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/unre...


+1 for the e8400


June 21, 2008 12:20:59 AM

Actually, you're wrong. Keep in mind, the e8400, as tested, is oced to 4ghz. That chart is only listing stock clock rate, not clock rate as tested.

Also, 9800gtx runs on the same g92 core and 128sp as 8800gts, which means it's about the same as 8800gtx. See benchmark:
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/evga_geforce_9800_gtx/pag...
June 21, 2008 12:44:52 AM

dagger said:
Actually, you're wrong. Keep in mind, the e8400, as tested, is oced to 4ghz. That chart is only listing stock clock rate, not clock rate as tested.


Keep in mind the chart from the article lists the tested speeds below each of those chip's normal speeds.

The E8400 is a natural born OC'er.
June 21, 2008 4:07:28 AM

+1 for Q6600
June 21, 2008 9:07:20 AM

Pure... Gaming?

Hmm... if this guy could get a dual socket to run 2 E8400.. then he'd have a quad... sorta. :oops: 

+1 for as many GPU's he can sqeeze on the MB. :D 
June 21, 2008 2:25:55 PM

Grimmy said:
Pure... Gaming?

Hmm... if this guy could get a dual socket to run 2 E8400.. then he'd have a quad... sorta. :oops: 

+1 for as many GPU's he can sqeeze on the MB. :D 



Lol, or get 2 quads and you get an octo. :na: 

Multithreading is the future. The future is coming no matter what you do. A quad will at least stand a chance against octo core Nehalem, a dual does not stand a chance.
June 21, 2008 2:46:44 PM

zenmaster said:
Actually, It's not a bottleneck.

If you read real-world memory performance tests, you see that there FSB adjustments have little impact in real world performance.

It takes massive increases to see very small increases in performance.

It may be a bottleneck in the future, but it is not currently.


- If you run one application that use much memory (databases, browser etc) it is a major bottleneck
- If you run games that use a lot of memory and/or have much communication with the GPU's it is a bottleneck
- If you run many applications that are working it is a bottleneck

If you run one application and don't interfere, this will not be as noticeable.
Buying memory faster than DDR2-800 can't be used at maximum speed


June 21, 2008 5:22:24 PM

So far E8400 and Q6600 is tie =X
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 22, 2008 4:21:12 AM

kassler said:
- If you run one application that use much memory (databases, browser etc) it is a major bottleneck
- If you run games that use a lot of memory and/or have much communication with the GPU's it is a bottleneck
- If you run many applications that are working it is a bottleneck

If you run one application and don't interfere, this will not be as noticeable.
Buying memory faster than DDR2-800 can't be used at maximum speed

So why do the slower FSB CPU's not have a significant disadvantage in games compared to the faster ones? Could it be that it isn't really a bottleneck except for on large, server style workloads?
June 22, 2008 11:30:31 AM

cjl said:
So why do the slower FSB CPU's not have a significant disadvantage in games compared to the faster ones? Could it be that it isn't really a bottleneck except for on large, server style workloads?


Here is why:
Max speed for PCI Express 2.0 x16 is 8 GB/s
Crossfire that use two is 2 x 8 GB/s = 16 GB/s

Games don't use that much memory but as the games will be more advanced they are probably going to use more memory. And even if they don’t use much they are using memory. So on besides transferring data to GPU it needs to handle memory transfers

Games today don’t use that much thread synchronization and they aren’t that threaded either. It’s just the latest games that are using threads more extensively.
I think that Racedriver GRID are using 4 cores and can scale the load pretty well, Unreal Game Engine will also use at last three cores but don’t need more than two (the third doesn’t matter now).
I have read that the nest Unreal Game Engine (4) could take advantage of 8 cores if it exists that many on the processor.

The FSB hasn’t been a problem but now when GPU’s are faster and games are using more memory it could be a big problem.

Oveclocking the FSB can get you almost 13 GB/s.
June 22, 2008 1:26:19 PM

kassler said:
Here is why:
Max speed for PCI Express 2.0 x16 is 8 GB/s
Crossfire that use two is 2 x 8 GB/s = 16 GB/s

Games don't use that much memory but as the games will be more advanced they are probably going to use more memory. And even if they don’t use much they are using memory. So on besides transferring data to GPU it needs to handle memory transfers

Games today don’t use that much thread synchronization and they aren’t that threaded either. It’s just the latest games that are using threads more extensively.
I think that Racedriver GRID are using 4 cores and can scale the load pretty well, Unreal Game Engine will also use at last three cores but don’t need more than two (the third doesn’t matter now).
I have read that the nest Unreal Game Engine (4) could take advantage of 8 cores if it exists that many on the processor.

The FSB hasn’t been a problem but now when GPU’s are faster and games are using more memory it could be a big problem.

Oveclocking the FSB can get you almost 13 GB/s.


You are forgetting several things.

The latest multi-gpu setups tend to use bridges to increase bandwidth.
Each pair of cores on intels mcm processors can communicate through the L2 cache.

Both reduce the need for fsb bandwidth and make the bottleneck a theoretical thing that only rears its ugly head in extreme or synthetic situations.
June 22, 2008 1:28:10 PM

Q9300 isn't good overclock able because of the 7.5 multiplier.
Go for the E8400 if you want good performance for now or the Q6600 for good performance in the future since most games only support 1 core or 2 cores.
June 22, 2008 3:26:18 PM

Slobogob said:
You are forgetting several things.

The latest multi-gpu setups tend to use bridges to increase bandwidth.
Each pair of cores on intels mcm processors can communicate through the L2 cache.

I am "forgetting" a lot of things on the Intel AND the AMD, it isn't meaningful to go through the details how the processors work internally because that would need a book. Just pointing out the main problem here. How they have constructed the cache synchronization in detail on the Intel Quad I don’t know, but remember that there has to be some sort of intelligence that one thread knows if another thread has the same memory. There is much more complexity doing this for four cores than two. And how does one pair know what memory is in the other pair?
Maybe they play safe and do synchronization even if it isn’t needed.
June 22, 2008 5:09:02 PM

Q6600! I mean its 3.0ghz.. with QUAD CORE. Long-lasting.
June 22, 2008 7:20:05 PM

kassler said:

Maybe they play safe and do synchronization even if it isn’t needed.

I hope they have done something smart about it. As a matter of fact, i'm almost certain they did. Just take a look at the latest nvidia chipsets and the way they try to ease the burdon on the CPU and bandwidth by intelligently synchronising between two SLI cards for example.

One of the major factors that actually eases the bandwidth problem is the general utilization of the CPU cores. Even the mighty Core 2 processors have cycles where they do nothing but add zeros on zeros waiting for some slower part of the computer - like the memory or data from hdd or another process to be finished. In unoptimized (read usual) applications that is and will always be the case which leads to the FSB not being fully utilized either.
Intel and AMD both will improve and see to it that their CPUS are kept busy but right now and even in the next few years only synthetic applications or really small code snippets will be able to push the FSB with enough traffic to create bottlenecking problems.
With CPUs that are more efficient it would become a major problem. If a CPU could do more instructions at the same time for example it could become handicapped by a bad bus system.
June 26, 2008 4:23:42 AM

I was also originally thinking about the Q6600. But then read about the Q9300 and went with it instead. I just ordered the parts for my build which will be a multi-media pc. I'm a pc gamer. But the Q9300 beats the Q6600 and E8400 most everything, but the Dual Cores still beat the Quads in gaming. Reason that I went with the Q9300 is that it is newer, features higher fsb, and 45nm technology. I'm also going to OC. But E8400 if it is just for gaming. But the benchmarks don't show that it is a huge difference.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 26, 2008 4:26:56 AM

It has a smaller cache and lower multi though. The 9450 is what I would go for, though it is admittedly a significant bump in price. You should be quite happy though - it should be a solid performer for quite a while.
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2008 4:38:48 AM

Why get Q6600 or Q9XXX for pure gaming? By the time enough games utilize quads, you'd have moved on to Nahelam already.
June 26, 2008 3:28:35 PM

flyin15sec said:
Why get Q6600 or Q9XXX for pure gaming? By the time enough games utilize quads, you'd have moved on to Nahelam already.


Or buying and AMD quad and use it for 3+ years
June 27, 2008 5:40:41 AM

Just my .02....

Would you rather have a E6600 or a E8400 for gaming?

Then add to this question the fact that most games use a single core, some 2 cores, and VERY few will use more than 2. Some people argue that quad will future proof your system, but by the time most games use 4-cores, the Q6600 will look like the P4 does today.

If you get a Q6600, most games will run about like a E6600.

I like the Q6600 for its multi-tasking performance. I have both Q6600 and a E8400, but the E8400 (E3110 Xeon) is my primary gaming rig.

Sure, yeah, most people will say the video card makes the difference in games, but the E8400 does provide better game performance for me over the Q6600.
June 27, 2008 8:05:58 AM

Heh..

Well... the things is, when you run any C2D, whether it's a dual or quad, at a same speed, they perform similar, for example, getting them all to run at 3.0ghz. Also, I should mention, the 45nm vs 65nm at 3ghz, if I remember correctly, the 45nm does 7% better, clock for clock.

If your talking at stock, where there will be a difference, especially when you use sites that show benchmarks at stock speeds.

How high you can OC would be another difference.

My E4400 can perform as well as a reg E6600 when the E4400 is OC to E6600 speed. That was the reason I got it, back in the day since it was cheaper to get the E4400 when it first came out.

I mean come on people. If you don't want 4 cores... thats almost like saying.. I don't want Blue Ray... its not main stream. Or running 4gb of ram on a 32 bit OS, since it will only use 3gb.

The only thing that should really matter, is if your building a machine from the ground up with a specific budget. Hell a phenom would do just as well in gaming, but it really has factors on other things, namely the GPU, resolution, monitor HZ, and not last but least... the OS, 32bit/64bit.

So just about anything on intels side, should keep you happy. Only the higher bin CPU will just give you something to brag about in my opinion. :lol: 
June 28, 2008 7:44:22 AM

For pure gaming without overclocking go with the E8400. For pure gaming WITH overclocking, go for the E8400. It's fast, and will serve you well for a couple of years, and by then, rock a Nehalem or an AMD, if they have anything competitive by then (*crosses fingers*).
June 28, 2008 1:09:30 PM

kassler said:
Or buying and AMD quad and use it for 3+ years


are you suggesting that the phenom's L3 cache will play a major role in the future?
June 28, 2008 11:05:38 PM

The E8400 kicks ass in current games and overclocks very well indeed.
June 28, 2008 11:57:28 PM

As long as you run your resolution/IQ at better than "looks like mud" settings you prob won't see a difference between either cpu in games.Just get the cheaper one.
!