Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I am going nuts! q6600 or e8500?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 13, 2008 8:24:46 PM

Hey guys,


Now i know there are a ton of questions like this but I can't seem to make up my mind...

I have an Asus P5Q pro mobo with 4gb of G Skill ram so far for my rig.

I would like to heavily game (Crysis, TF2, COD4) and use Photoshop CS3 extensively.

I would also like to use Firefox simultaneously with PS CS3.

Should I go with with a Wolfdale e8500 or a q6600?

How will photoshop and games perform on either? Is there a better or a worse?

Please guys, help me make my decision.

Thanks!

More about : nuts q6600 e8500

August 13, 2008 9:13:18 PM

if your going to use photoshop alot go with a quad like the q6600 or the 9550. PS can use all the cores you give it so youll see a big difference
August 13, 2008 9:24:57 PM

photoshop = Q6600 all the way. Gaming = e8500... sort of more often than not, but q6600 still does job well, especially when OC'd
Related resources
August 13, 2008 9:36:42 PM

i just bought an e8500 out of the box it eats any game , nearly all games are optimised for single or dual core , not many take advantage of the extra cores the 6600 has ,overclocking the e8500 will reach 4gz on air with cood ram and a good cooler , the stock one is no good , however if your looking at editing and stuff im sure you may very well use all 4 cores , for gaming ,in my opinion there is no other choice than the e8500 at the moment
August 13, 2008 9:44:03 PM

I have not seen evidence of a huge advantage for photoshop going from 2 core to a 4 core setup. I have seen some benches showing that Duo's are faster then quads and others showing quads are faster then Duo's.

There is a decisive advantage for 3D rendering aps and video codecs that are optimised for many threads, but as far as I know the current Photoshop CS3 is not optimised for more then 2 cores.

Since the wolfdale has more cache per core it performs 10% faster then the Q6600 at the same clock cycle.

I have not seen a bench showing a Q6600 beating a E84-8500 at photoshop just the newer wolfdale based Quads.

You should be able to get a higher overclock and have better performance with a wolfdale over a Q6600 for gaming and photoshop.

August 13, 2008 9:47:28 PM

From what you've said, you should get a Q6600. It'll run ps cs3 faster. And if you oc it to at least 3ghz or higher, games should run fine as long as you have a good gpu.
August 13, 2008 10:16:24 PM

I've also been wondering the same.. I got all hyped up about games being multithreaded.

but if you look at benchmarks, the E8500 beats the Q6600 in Supreme Commander, which is supposed to utilize multiple cores...

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/supr...

In which case, higher clock speeds still win. I would think E8500 is the better choice. And if you're really worried about future proofing your computer, your Q6600 will be outdated in about a year with new quads, so either way your CPU will go out of date, it all depends if you want good performance now vs mediocre performance later.

But if you are into heavy multitasking and big multithreaded apps, then that's a different story. the 2.4 q6600 loses to the 3.16 E8500 in the majority of benchmarks, I think it will be the same if they are 3.2 and 4 Ghz respectively.
August 13, 2008 10:17:54 PM

I own an E8400 and a Q6600. The Q6600 is more of a work computer, and the E8400 is my gaming computer. The Q6600's specs include a 7900GS and 4GB DDR2-800. I have noticed that the Q6600 performs very near that of the E8400 (even with the 7900GS) in Supreme Commander maxed at 1440x900 (4xAA VSYNC off) This means that the Q6600 is picking up a ton of slack. However, it doesn't do the same in TF2, other source games, and performs like crap in CoD2-4 engine based games (which use barely any CPU). File transfers are a bit faster on the quad, boot ups are a tad faster (and the quad is on Vista, which is obviously slower then the XP E8400) What I've also noticed, is ALT-Tabbing is extremely fast on the quad, way way faster then the E8400. I think this may be partially because of the HD4870 in my E8400 system does not like alt-tabbing.

Hope this gives you an idea of the advantages.
August 13, 2008 10:21:23 PM

Quote:
I own an E8400 and a Q6600. The Q6600 is more of a work computer, and the E8400 is my gaming computer. The Q6600's specs include a 7900GS and 4GB DDR2-800. I have noticed that the Q6600 performs very near that of the E8400 (even with the 7900GS) in Supreme Commander maxed at 1440x900 (4xAA VSYNC off) This means that the Q6600 is picking up a ton of slack. However, it doesn't do the same in TF2, other source games, and performs like crap in CoD2-4 engine based games (which use barely any CPU). File transfers are a bit faster on the quad, boot ups are a tad faster (and the quad is on Vista, which is obviously slower then the XP E8400) What I've also noticed, is ALT-Tabbing is extremely fast on the quad, way way faster then the E8400. I think this may be partially because of the HD4870 in my E8400 system does not like alt-tabbing.

Hope this gives you an idea of the advantages.


Are your procs OCed?

And would you say the difference between procs is big, or slight?
August 13, 2008 10:50:14 PM

get the Q6600. sounds to me like you're gonna do a lot more than just game on your computer.

the experience in windows on a quad using multiple programs at once is much better than a duo. everything is so much faster.

ask yourself this, honestly, how many hours a day do you game compared to the amount of time you're on windows doing other stuff?

if anything, just OC the Q6600 to 3.0+ and you're good to go.
August 13, 2008 10:59:38 PM

plagasx said:

I would like to heavily game (Crysis, TF2, COD4) and use Photoshop CS3 extensively.

I would also like to use Firefox simultaneously with PS CS3.

Should I go with with a Wolfdale e8500 or a q6600?

Sounds to me like work for a quad... Go with the Q6600.

If at all possible go for a larger quad, like a q9300 - $270
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I know this is over $100 more... I fell it is worth the cash is what i would buy if i were getting a new processor.
Q9550... No question! $335 :(  2.83 GHZ Quad
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2008 11:04:17 PM

I wouldn't get the Q9300 because of the smaller cache - the 9450 or 9550 are the next logical step up from the 6600 IMHO.
August 13, 2008 11:04:54 PM

Quote:
ask yourself this, honestly, how many hours a day do you game compared to the amount of time you're on windows doing other stuff?


While this is true, I am on an old AMD platform right now and do not mind the windows environment as much as gaming.

Windows runs perfectly fine, opening programs and doing stuff on the desktop, whereas in gaming, I start to notice performance more.
Again, unless you are doing some very heavy multi-tasking, or are into pro video and multimedia development then definitely go for the quad.

But if you're like me, a casual gamer and regular computer user (coding/editing and encoding videos once in a while) then the dual will suit you better.
Then again this is just my opinion. So get whatever you feel is best for you! :D 
August 13, 2008 11:11:07 PM

Sam191 said:
Quote:
I own an E8400 and a Q6600. The Q6600 is more of a work computer, and the E8400 is my gaming computer. The Q6600's specs include a 7900GS and 4GB DDR2-800. I have noticed that the Q6600 performs very near that of the E8400 (even with the 7900GS) in Supreme Commander maxed at 1440x900 (4xAA VSYNC off) This means that the Q6600 is picking up a ton of slack. However, it doesn't do the same in TF2, other source games, and performs like crap in CoD2-4 engine based games (which use barely any CPU). File transfers are a bit faster on the quad, boot ups are a tad faster (and the quad is on Vista, which is obviously slower then the XP E8400) What I've also noticed, is ALT-Tabbing is extremely fast on the quad, way way faster then the E8400. I think this may be partially because of the HD4870 in my E8400 system does not like alt-tabbing.

Hope this gives you an idea of the advantages.


Are your procs OCed?

And would you say the difference between procs is big, or slight?


Everything stock. Recent patches have made the multi-threading much more efficient.
August 14, 2008 1:11:59 AM

lococol said:
i just bought an e8500 out of the box it eats any game , nearly all games are optimised for single or dual core , not many take advantage of the extra cores the 6600 has ,overclocking the e8500 will reach 4gz on air with cood ram and a good cooler , the stock one is no good , however if your looking at editing and stuff im sure you may very well use all 4 cores , for gaming ,in my opinion there is no other choice than the e8500 at the moment



My head is spinning also but I was thinking of either the E8600, Q9550, Q9450. I like the E8600 being over 3GHZ but I'm also thinking having a Yorfield Quad will keep me happy even after Nehalem is released and until prices come down. I was thinking of pairing one of these with a 4870 or a NVidia 280. I havent had a NVidia video card since my last one exploded in my Alienware 51m. Now the Alienware does a good job as a coffee table. But I see that the 280 does better than the 4870. I also have the 9800gx2 in the back of my mind but I also have the 4870x2 and 4850x2 that look very tempting. Can I go wrong with either the processor and gpu that I mentioned?

MY system is only a gaming machine. I have FSX but I don't play it much because I dont have a joystick..yet. I'm going to buy one soon. I also plan on going back to MMORPG ( I miss City of Heroes). I plan to get Star Trek ONline when its released. I've gotten bored with WoW type of MMORPG were you kill monsters, press a button, and live in a mythical world. I was also watching for Jumpgate 2. Does anyone know if Sims3 will be optimized for multiple cores?
August 14, 2008 1:15:46 AM

Alright thanks guys.

I think I just might end up with the e8500. I'm sure it'll work fine with PSCS3 from the sounds of it.

Also, i'm not talking heavy mulitasking here. If i'm not gaming, i'm Photoshoping with about 3-5 tabs open in firefox or watching some apple movie trailer in HD(720p). I mean, is that heavy?

My current P4 could handle it pretty decently...So i guess the e8500 should have a dramatic effect.

How would you guys say the multitasking is with e8500? Is it that bad?
August 14, 2008 8:26:50 AM

if anyone is thinking of getting an e8500 , buy oem , i bought the retail and ended up buying a 3rd party cooler aswell ,as i said the stock intel cooler isnt very good ,so buy oem and a decent cooler (about £15) ,i multitask a lot and my cpu always keeps up .to the guy wondering about graphics cards , i am also wondering which one to get , i think at the moment the best performance/price card is 4870 , the 4870x2 is very powerfull but it eats a lot of power and is in my opinion priced too high , i would recomend get a 4870 or if you want a 4870x2 , wait for the dust to settle after the hype
August 14, 2008 2:55:56 PM

plagasx said:
Alright thanks guys.

I think I just might end up with the e8500. I'm sure it'll work fine with PSCS3 from the sounds of it.

Also, i'm not talking heavy mulitasking here. If i'm not gaming, i'm Photoshoping with about 3-5 tabs open in firefox or watching some apple movie trailer in HD(720p). I mean, is that heavy?

My current P4 could handle it pretty decently...So i guess the e8500 should have a dramatic effect.

How would you guys say the multitasking is with e8500? Is it that bad?


I think e8500 will be fine... but there is no question a Q9550 would own...
CS3 can use those cores.
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?external...

August 14, 2008 3:17:00 PM

A E8500 can multitask fine, I have a e8400 @ 3.5 Ghz and photoshop CS2 works fine with a firefox window open with many tabs, e8500 still has 2 cores which allows it multitask fine. I can have a video running listen to music and have multiple browser windows open and CS2 dosnt seem to be any slower. I have not used a quad core so I cannot say how much faster that setup is at a similar clock speed.

If you had the extra money a Q9550/Q9450 would be best for sure, providing more mutliprocess headroom but I think for your needs a e8500 should be fine and cheaper.
August 14, 2008 3:31:17 PM

Still going nuts?

Here's some more:



Just don't go too crazy... :oops: 
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2008 3:37:42 PM

Q6600. The first quad optimized games (lead by Far Cry 2) are comming out later this year. Starting next year, most games will be better optimized for multiple cores.
August 15, 2008 3:56:39 AM

lococol,

I am bought a e8500 I plan on OC'ing to 4ghz for my gaming machine. The processor hasn't come yet, and I haven't ordered the CPU cooler yet. Which cooler did you go with (or would you recommend)? I am using air cooling, don't plan on water cooling anytime soon.
August 16, 2008 3:19:54 AM

lococol said:
if anyone is thinking of getting an e8500 , buy oem , i bought the retail and ended up buying a 3rd party cooler aswell ,as i said the stock intel cooler isnt very good ,so buy oem and a decent cooler (about £15) ,i multitask a lot and my cpu always keeps up .to the guy wondering about graphics cards , i am also wondering which one to get , i think at the moment the best performance/price card is 4870 , the 4870x2 is very powerfull but it eats a lot of power and is in my opinion priced too high , i would recomend get a 4870 or if you want a 4870x2 , wait for the dust to settle after the hype



Yupp I was thinking of getting the 4870 because the 4870x2 was over $500 but I am keeping an eye on the 4870x2. I'm also watching, i think i read in one thread that the Yorkfields are going tohave new additions to its family; higher than 9550. A 3.0GHZ Yorkfield....yummm!
August 16, 2008 3:22:38 AM

Grieve....off topic. Love your pic! That's my favorite show.

How come no one is mentioning the E8600?

Can you go wrong with either a E8600 or Q9550 paired with a 4870 for a gaming machine?
August 16, 2008 4:39:18 AM

plagasx said:

I would like to heavily game (Crysis, TF2, COD4)


I was also pretty confused between Quad-core and Dual-core. For running today's games, go Dual Core. They have a higher clock speed than Quads at the same price. If you want to encode videos, burn DVDs or Multi-task, go Quad. Unfortunately, games which support Quad core are a long way away.... But Quad core is the future... You could wait for Intel's Core i7 processor which will be released early next year... They are even talking of 8 cores in the near future..

And for games your graphics card is more important than your processor. Go for Geforce 9 series and your games should be blazing fast even in High Graphic settings.
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2008 7:44:12 AM

Graphics card makes more difference in games but many get bottlenecked by CPUs in the high end...

Soon I'll pair up a 8800GT with my Athlon X2 @ 1.7GHz

hehe
August 17, 2008 5:25:20 AM

rags_20 said:
I was also pretty confused between Quad-core and Dual-core. For running today's games, go Dual Core. They have a higher clock speed than Quads at the same price. If you want to encode videos, burn DVDs or Multi-task, go Quad. Unfortunately, games which support Quad core are a long way away.... But Quad core is the future... You could wait for Intel's Core i7 processor which will be released early next year... They are even talking of 8 cores in the near future..

And for games your graphics card is more important than your processor. Go for Geforce 9 series and your games should be blazing fast even in High Graphic settings.




What's better? 9800gx2, 280, 4870, or 4850x2. (Im debating the 4870x2 and the 4850x2).
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 10:44:13 AM

Do you game, fold or both?
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 11:34:55 AM

amdfangirl said:
Graphics card makes more difference in games but many get bottlenecked by CPUs in the high end...

Soon I'll pair up a 8800GT with my Athlon X2 @ 1.7GHz

hehe

[:mousemonkey:2] Should be an interesting upgrade.
!