Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

q6600 oc to 3.6 or e8500 oc to 4.33 ?? heavy resource user

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 10, 2008 5:59:07 AM

Ok im sure this question has been asked over and over
but couldnt find an answer to this dilemma

coming from an e4300 oc 3.3 to a q6600 oc to 3.6 is breathtaking


I know i hear if you are gonna game get the e and encoding get the q.
but my main comp use is having anywhere from 20-50! web pages open all day
not only that i use 4-5 different browsers

Im happy with my oc q6600 but hearing all the e8500 oc to 4.3 gets me salivating..

i need them on all day

ie about 10-20 tabs
firefox 4 tabs
chrome 10 tabs
opera about 15 windows
steam
i play pretty much
crysis warhead
and cs source only
calculator
aim
msn
a few word docs
few excel docs
a couple notepads wordpads


will a e8500 come to crawl with all this open?
or will the huge mhz difference make up?
thanks

October 10, 2008 6:23:01 AM

I would think with all those web pages open with different web browsers would be limited to the internet connection as well as the amount of memory on your system, and some what on the OS on performance, since I've seen CPU threshold differences on XP vs Vista 64bit. Quick note on that would be, on XP it seems you need 100% usage on one core before the other core takes on other tasks, while on Vista 64bit, it more loose and it seems to be more flexible on my Q6600.

Running games on top of that, CPU usage would be taken more on to the games. But then again, depending on the games detail or eye candy, it would be based on the amount of physical memory you have. If you don't have enough, then it would be slowed down from HD swappping files. You really shouldn't see too much CPU resources being used by web browsers, calculator, docs, notepads, ect.

So all in all, I doubt you'd see any real difference in what you do with the above apps in changing out the CPU for faster ghz. I would say the amount of RAM would be more important depending on the OS. (XP limited to 3gb)
October 10, 2008 7:42:45 AM

q6600 no brainer if you multitask or video encode or 3d apps/ graphics

if you have cooling issues or a small case then the dual core
Related resources
October 10, 2008 8:37:07 AM

Grimmy said:
I would think with all those web pages open with different web browsers would be limited to the internet connection as well as the amount of memory on your system, and some what on the OS on performance, since I've seen CPU threshold differences on XP vs Vista 64bit. Quick note on that would be, on XP it seems you need 100% usage on one core before the other core takes on other tasks, while on Vista 64bit, it more loose and it seems to be more flexible on my Q6600.

Running games on top of that, CPU usage would be taken more on to the games. But then again, depending on the games detail or eye candy, it would be based on the amount of physical memory you have. If you don't have enough, then it would be slowed down from HD swappping files. You really shouldn't see too much CPU resources being used by web browsers, calculator, docs, notepads, ect.

So all in all, I doubt you'd see any real difference in what you do with the above apps in changing out the CPU for faster ghz. I would say the amount of RAM would be more important depending on the OS. (XP limited to 3gb)



"Quick note on that would be, on XP it seems you need 100% usage on one core before the other core takes on other tasks"

not true i have the Q6600 and they all turn on and work together. as of now with all my stuff running each core is running about 2-4%
October 10, 2008 8:37:49 AM

It is not worth it to switch the already 3600 MHZ q6600 with an 4.3 ghz dual core(if you are out if luck than 3.9-4 ghz). Multitasking is much better with quad core, and for gaming you dont need more than 3 GHZ for now (with the faster dual you would probably see 3-4% improvement in gaming if the game uses 2 cores or less)
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2008 11:38:25 AM

IMO, you will be better off with the quad core.
As it is capable of working on more threads at the same time, it should be a little better keeping your system smooth than a slightly faster dual core. I doubt the E8500 would "come to a crawl", it probably will perform not to far off from what you have now. In my eyes, it would be more of a waste of cash than anything else.
October 10, 2008 11:39:45 AM

@OP

I don't understand why you have enough money to jump between cpus that often, but still buy a budget quad core?
If you just have to run two games while having 4 different browsers open, all at the same time, all day long, I'd stay with the quad core and wait for Nehalem.
The cpu usage for webpages depend heavily on what type of pages, so it is really impossible to tell what is needed for everything to run smoothly.

I can understand people not caring about the environment, but deliberately **** on it confuses me.
October 10, 2008 5:33:16 PM

tvsocks said:
"Quick note on that would be, on XP it seems you need 100% usage on one core before the other core takes on other tasks"

not true i have the Q6600 and they all turn on and work together. as of now with all my stuff running each core is running about 2-4%


Thing is, I haven't used my Q6600 on XP. I only have my E4400 system which is a backup system, which is a dual boot of XP and Linux, both 32bit.

For example, if I run Super PI (single threaded app) on XP, my E4400 only gets one core loaded to 100% or 50% total. If I run Super PI on Vista 64 bit, my Q6600 acts different when I watch the loads switches around all 4 cores.

So, does that happen on your Q6600 on XP? or does one core get loaded at 99-100%?

I've asked before if anyone could tell me, but never got an answer. Perhaps you could show or let me know?
October 10, 2008 6:55:04 PM

thanks for the replies. I guess i will stick with this proc for a few months
Im in the tech business and a tech nut
I have been overclocking since the athlon 1ghz days and am a speed freak?


DasKrabbe

the 800-1000 for a top of the line proc isnt a good deal in my opinion because the q6600 performs so well for so less. Don't get me wrong I've ordered top of the line procs before( for clients) but seeing benchmarks
the q6600 is too good to pass up.

October 10, 2008 7:04:03 PM

I did a quick movie. Again my camera isn't all that great, and photo bucket converts it, so its kinda blurry:

XP-dual core / Vista - quad core

I have my 2 systems on a kvm switch. The first part is on XP, then you see me switch to Vista.

Just trying to demonstrate what I'm seeing. That is why I'm basically assuming (<- I know I shouldn't :sweat:  ) that the CPU usage threshold is different between XP and Vista. Ever since I got Vista, it just made me wonder why Super PI doesn't put one core under full load since its a single threaded app like on XP.

I can however set the affinity to any core or cores, for example, if I set the affinity on 3 cores, all 3 cores I choose will have a load on them except the core I left out, which is weird and kinda cool at the same time. :lol: 

But I did ask if anyone could verify if a Quad acts just as different on XP. Perhaps the OS uses a dual or quad differently.

I guess if anyone with a dual CPU on Vista 64bit, could also run Super PI to see if the core usage bounces around on both cores or if it still pushes one core to 100%.

Just something interesting that I'd like to know, even though I'm just too lazy to really screw around with installing XP on my Quad system. :whistle: 
!