Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

q6600 vs e8500 benchmarks only

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 28, 2008 7:21:05 PM

I don't want to start a debate on which is better. I've seen countless threads around the net about it. Q6600 is probably better all-around and in the future, but e8500 is better for games out now and other applications that don't utilize the 4 cores. Anyway, does anyone have any benchmarks of the two on games and other things. I want to see how much better the e8500 is on games out now.

TY

p.s. please don't start the fight lol...ive heard it all. benchmarks!

More about : q6600 e8500 benchmarks

a c 122 à CPUs
July 28, 2008 7:30:31 PM

The E8500 on a clock per clock should be about 10% better in games. That plus it clocks higher which games love. As for benchmarks for just those two it would be hard to find really.
Related resources
July 28, 2008 7:33:24 PM

jimmysmitty said:
The E8500 on a clock per clock should be about 10% better in games. That plus it clocks higher which games love. As for benchmarks for just those two it would be hard to find really.


if you just planning on gaming get a 8500 if you plan on working with a lot of media files and demanding programs get a q6600

July 29, 2008 5:20:25 AM

Here are some benchies, but unfortunately they don't OC the Q6600. Either one is a great gamer Overclocked, at stock speeds I'd rather be on the e8500. Notice, at high resolutions (typcially what you would be gaming at) the Q6600 has no problem keeping up with the GPU and matching the e8500. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...
July 29, 2008 10:59:40 AM

Im running the e8500 it's a great chip, i have it running at 3.8ghz (game stable*) without a voltage change

With a 4870 at 1680x1050 i get 30 fps minimum 40-50 average on crysis (using ccc ultra mod, no aa)

on Cod4 with max settings including AA and antis, i get 50-60 (without aa i get 150fps)

i had the same debate before i bought the E8500, cause im a gamer and not a programer/editor i went Dual core, havn't looked back either.. for games it kicks ass.

(* i say game Stable because it crashes Orthos in about 2 minutes, but i can play Crysis for 4hours plus without a single glitch or system crash... stable enough for me!)

Hope this helps in your choice
July 29, 2008 4:24:23 PM

The fact of the matter is, more and more games are becoming multi-core optimized (Age Of Conan is one example). Right now I have to agree with you without a doubt the the E8500 performs better in games. The future will without a doubt completely transition to multi-core solutions. So sure, the E8500 performs better by about 10% on average in games now, BUT we are coming into an age where everything will soon be multi-core optimized and the quads will most definitely out perform the duos. So if you like a fast solution to increase your processing speed it games right now, Go for the E8500. If you want something that will deliver without a doubt, better results in the very near future and for years to come, Step up to the quad cores (def with Nehalem coming soon).


If and one disagrees, well ill pinch you a loaf salad right now and you can just eat IT! jk
July 30, 2008 2:36:34 AM

edifyingkarma said:
BUT we are coming into an age where everything will soon be multi-core optimized and the quads will most definitely out perform the duos.



Soon, when that day and age comes, I'll be ready with a new motherboard and a new cpu that's much faster than a q6600.
July 30, 2008 3:54:10 AM

Blah.. the only way to avoid a debate is not post anything about it. Just get what you want, whether its a Q6600 or E8400 or E8500. Or BE Phenom on a MB with a SB750, is not left to be out. Geesh.

If your not in to OC'ing.. well your limited.

If your into OC'ing.. then you have options.
a c 203 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 5:27:52 AM
a c 203 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 5:33:12 AM

edifyingkarma said:
BUT we are coming into an age where everything will soon be multi-core optimized and the quads will most definitely out perform the duos.
If only that were true.

Software company A: "My product runs just fine as a single threaded program"
Software company B: "Why should I have to pay my expensive programmers to stop working & go back to learning to code programs for multi-threading?
Software company C: "How much extra will I earn if I make all those multi-threading changes? "

July 30, 2008 5:45:52 AM

one-shot said:
Soon, when that day and age comes, I'll be ready with a new motherboard and a new cpu that's much faster than a q6600.



Kinda has, Age of Conan is multicore, Mass Effect is multicore, Supreme Commander is multicore, Bioshock is multicore, Assassin's Creed is multicore, Gear of War is Mulitcore, UT3 is multicore.

As to a response to WR2, You must not have payed attention much to my original post where I said that the better option is the E8500 right now. I just said that a better option for future proofing is a quad core processor.

Your logic could have come into play when the transition from single core with higher bus speeds, to duo core went into effect. Sure games back then ran just fine on the single core, then software companies needed a source that would supply more processing power. By optimizing to duo core, they achieved that very effectively.

If you cant see how that is the exact same thing that we are dealing with now, then guess your blind.

They had the pay their expensive programmers to learn to code programs for duo core

How much extra did they earn from single to duo core changes? Not much, applicable here as well.

Multicore optimization is coming very soon, as it is already in play with quite a few mainstream titles now. Its how things work, until we can free ourselves of transistors all together, this patern will continue.

True or not?
September 24, 2009 5:59:29 PM

Ok so from my experience, I have had a q6600 for over a year now i usually oc it to 2.6 or 2.7 most i want to do with the stock cooler right now. My girlfriend just got a e8400, and in css it blows my cpu away. I have a q6600 2.6 with a 4870 512mb visiontek. She has a 3.0 wolfdale e8400 with a 4850 512mb and it beats the pants off of my computer. But one thing I have noticed is that I believe my computer runs windows 7 more smoothly. We both recently upgraded to windows 7. She gets a solid 130fps in css where as mine will drop down to 75? And she hits a max fps of 305 where i get a max of 250? I am going to upgrade to the 8500 and a 5870 as soon as possible. :lol:  So from what I gather... windows 7 shows me that yes multicores even a q6600 not a true quad core has the ability to be better than a faster dual core. I hope we can just get a good gaming quad in the next year hopefully intel makes one because im not buying a new mobo mine supports crossfire and im sticking with it! They called me crazy, but I think im sitting pretty good. Btw F mushkin they sent me back replacement memory that wasnt even what i ordered, for 120 dollars and 2 months later it cost 30 bucks.... bastards.... OCZ for life. Gskeil is also dope. :heink: 
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2009 9:30:36 PM

Why upgrade if you already are performing at a level higher than your monitor can display (>75FPS at all times)?
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 12:33:47 AM

why not just get a 30$ cooler and overclock your q6600

mine hit 3.6ghz easy before i backed it up to the everyday speed of 3.2ghz
!