Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Quad Q6600 Vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 - Electricity Bill

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 13, 2008 11:36:44 AM

Hey people, I’m planning to buy a new machine very soon. Have put the specs, Please fell free to comment. Anyways I’m not an avid gamer but I’m not sure I do play occasionally, if it’s a good shooting game like Call of Duty 4.

Now I’m not planning to upgrade for at least the next 3-4 years. So would want to know whether I should go for the Intel Quad q6600 or Intel Core 2 Duo E8500.

My problems:
1. Power Consumption – Electricity:
Have heard that the quad core consumes far more power as compared to the e8500. Now is it very expensive to maintain, especially on my electricity bill. Will the difference in the bill be massive as compared to the dual. BIG CONCERN. If it is marginal then good.

2. Future Proof:
Will the machine last me at least 3-4 years if I opt for the Dual e8500 over the Quad or no.

3. Suffer:
How much will I suffer on programs and applications if I opt for the e8500. Sometimes I do a little home video editing from my handycam and very rarely do use photoshop. Other wise surfing and watching movies, music and gaming, but a few titles like cricket and call of duty for now.

Please please please please please uys help me out. I’m stuck and don’t know what to do. Big concern Quad Q6600 - Power Consumption – Electricity Bill Shouldn’t Kill Me.

MOTHERBOARD: INTEL DG35EC
RAM: 2 GB DDR2
HDD: 320 OR 500 GB SATA WESTERN DIGITAL CAVIAR
DISPLAY: NVIDIA 8600GTS
SPEAKERS: ALTEC LANSING MX 5021
MONITOR: DELL ULTRASHARP 2208WFP (STILL CONFUSED)
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 11:52:07 AM

I started to answer this, but you know there must be 500 threads that ask this very same exact question.
Electricity use? If you live in the US, the difference between a quad and dual core CPU, if you leave the PC on all the time is going to be like $1.50 per month. If you are worried about your electric bill that much, you don't need to be spending money on a PC in the first place.
October 13, 2008 12:09:18 PM

QFT jitpublisher.

It's like ordering 2 large fries, a double cheesburger, a double scoop chocolate sundae... and a diet coke.

Damn it. Now I'm hungry.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 12:11:36 PM

^^ Agree with above.

If you don't plan to upgrade for at least 2-3 years, get a decently clocked quad (a Q9450 or Q9550 would be a better bet than the Q6600 in a year or so, unless you OC it). In normal windows tasks, there is a clear diffrence, and games will start to use quads better in a year or two, when they will really start to shine.
October 13, 2008 12:18:55 PM

If I were you, I will opt Q6600, because quad core will universal in few years
October 14, 2008 2:29:43 AM

I disagree with most of the replies above. I live in SoCal and our power is on a tier system. We end up paying 10X the rate if we use too much power that month. The E8500 uses 65watts versus 105/95 watts for the Q6600. Combine that with an 80%+ efficient PS, EPU MB, reasonable video card, etc and the saving start to make a serious difference in my bill. There is that whole environment issue too....ah, nevermind....it just saves me money.

BTW- the E8500 is faster than a Q6600 in every way that I actually use my computer (moderate gaming, moderate multitasking). And by the time that isn't the case, when mainstream programs begin fully utilizing four cores, then I won't be happy with any 775 CPU.

October 14, 2008 2:40:21 AM

One more thing: My CPU/MB run very cool with one 120mm case fan and the stock CPU cooler (both set to silent mode). I can't tell my machine is on right now without looking at the screen. The only time it makes noise is during boot up when the fan control hasn't kicked in yet.
October 14, 2008 2:42:55 AM

California is an exception to this. There are 49 other states that are more important. No offense, just a knock at Cali's long-gone unanswered power grid issues.

As far as the chip decision itself goes, dont sweat over pennies.
October 14, 2008 2:57:11 AM

Cali isn't the only place were energy costs are soaring.

For small bucks, I got better performance, saved electricity, and have a super quiet system.

Maybe the Q6600 will overtake the E8500 in many apps in the future, but by then, none of us will be happy with either of these CPU's, so it's a moot point.

BTW- you be one ugly dude. :kaola: 
October 14, 2008 3:06:00 AM

Lol. Not a picture of me
October 14, 2008 9:23:36 AM

hey guys, thank you so much for your help. K. just a few things. i'm much more clear now. still, was trying to ask like eg. is the electricity consumption very high as compared to E8500? like is it a 100% increase? The reason i ask, i'm from India and the billing system is a bit strange. So asked.

And is the e8500 good or should i stop this thinking and just settle for a quad once and for all, as there ain't that much of a difference.
a c 159 à CPUs
a b å Intel
October 14, 2008 10:25:19 AM

The e8500 will outperform the q6600 at the default speeds; overclocking the q to the same speed as the e8500 uses more energy.
October 14, 2008 5:56:30 PM

Quote:
still, was trying to ask like eg. is the electricity consumption very high as compared to E8500? like is it a 100% increase?


An E8500 is rated at 65W and Q6600's are rated at 105/95W. An overclocked CPU will use more than one running at stock speeds. So, all things being equal, an overclocked Q6600 uses about twice as much electricity as an E8500 on stock settings.

But CPU power usage is only part of the equation.

A high efficicientcy power supply makes a big difference, especially over cheap ones that are included with bargain cases. So does an EPU MB that will throttle down under light usage (like typing stuff on a discussion board). So does going with a moderate graphics card instead of those monster boards in SLI that can double as space heaters in the winter.

Turning off the machine when you don't need it saves the most. I've seen a lot of posters who say they leave their machines on 24/7. IMHO, they are just foolishly wasting money. They could at least put the darn thing in standbye mode. What, it takes four seconds to wake up?



October 14, 2008 10:43:16 PM

Leaving the PC on 24/7 is preety stupid. Mine is usually on around 8 hours a day, I turn it on when I get home around 4:30 and turn it off around 12am.
!