Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ahh q6600 or e8400

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 12:59:28 AM

Hi guys my budget allows me to pick either e8400 or q6600. I heard both oc well and that what I will do to stretch my dollar. Question is if I mostly game is the 4ghz oc of dual core still better than going quad core? Like I heard Far Cry2 will use quadcores and Grid already does. My concern is witch cpu will future proof me better.

More about : ahh q6600 e8400

August 17, 2008 1:17:36 AM

alvine said:
Hi guys my budget allows me to pick either e8400 or q6600. I heard both oc well and that what I will do to stretch my dollar. Question is if I mostly game is the 4ghz oc of dual core still better than going quad core? Like I heard Far Cry2 will use quadcores and Grid already does. My concern is witch cpu will future proof me better.

Q6600. Quad core is more future proof. Most major future game titles will be quad optimized. In quad optimized applications, quad will have a large performance gain over dual.

Also, what you should keep in mind is that the myth "higher clocked duals outperform lower clocked quads on non multithreaded games" is not always true. It depends on how much higher clocked the said dual is compared to the quad. See benchmarks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
Of the 5 games, 2 are quad optimized, 3 are not. Yet teh quad core's performance often supassed that of the higher clocked dual core's.

When you have spare cores, background/supporting processes gets moved to spare cores instead of competing with the loaded cores. Higher clocked dual core cpus will outperform slower quads on non quad optimized programs, but only if the difference in clock is big enough.
August 17, 2008 1:29:22 AM

I agree with Dagger here, I myself often think about just this question. 2 slightly more advanced cores VS 4 pretty darn good ones.

I like the idea of 4 cores myself even if programs are not made for them just for the fact that at any given time there are a lot of processes going on in a persons PC.
Related resources
August 17, 2008 2:05:25 AM

i'm actually going to say..... for future proofing q6600, but thats not a certainty and the better performing CPU for games out NOW is the e8400 (which also needs a bit less power)
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 3:49:59 AM

so q6600 or q9300?
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 4:28:26 AM

If you OC, Q6600 is better bang for the buck.
August 17, 2008 6:11:20 PM

aevm said:
If you OC, Q6600 is better bang for the buck.

I'd say q6600 is slightly better bang for the buck even at stock. Q9300 (2.5ghz stock) performs average 7% better than q6600(2.4ghz stock), but usually cost more than 7% more. Sse4 helps q9300 performance, but smaller l2 cache hurts it.

When oc is factered in, it's no competition. It overclocks horribly due to low 7.5x multiplier compared to q6600's 9x and q6700's 10x. You'll need a good motherboard capable of high fsb and good high speed ram to be able to provide the bus rate to oc q9300 to any reasonable degree. Both tend to be more expensive.
August 17, 2008 8:47:21 PM

Q6600 is so cheap now days, it's well worth the money. My Q6600 overclocked with ease to 3Ghz and I'd imagine it could go further, but it's just soo fast at 3Ghz, I'm more than happy.

Which ever you choose, if you plan to overclock it's well worth buying an aftermarket cooler. The supplied Intel coolers are pretty awful.
August 18, 2008 5:11:56 AM

speebird,

what motherboard do you have?
August 18, 2008 2:42:58 PM

blackbox said:
speebird,

what motherboard do you have?


MSI P35 Neo2-FR
!