Core 2 Duo E8600 OR Quad Q6600????

[Spitfire7]

I have looked at the specs for both of these and apparently the E8600 has much better gaming performance, but the Q6600 is better for Windows based programs. I am mostly using it for games anyways.

So heres my question. Obviously the E8600 is much faster because of the 3.3Mhz speed and the 1333FSB even with only 2 cores. So couldn't I just easily buy the Q6600 and bump it up to those specs or somewhere close and it would just supersede by a great margin with 4 cores?

 

[NewLCD123]

Uh you can overclock the e8600 to over 4GHz and no quad core will touch that.

 

[rubix_1011]

No offense, but the Q6600 often OC's to 3.4-3.6 very easily as well. I realize the E8600 might have a faster raw speed, but with 4 cores at 3.4 or 3.6 you will also get pretty dang good performance as well. Just make sure you have a good CPU cooler on those suckers. Its simply a matter of preference and use, many games like faster duals right now and quads are great multitaskers, esp when OC'd.

 

[Spitfire7]

I also do a lot of FSX too. Anyone have a Benchmark for FSX on these processors?

 

[Spitfire7]

Uh you can overclock the e8600 to over 4GHz and no quad core will touch that.

Thats the thing I am trying to figure out.... If I OC the Q6600 to 3.3GHz give or take and 1333MHz FSB will that just completely outdo the E8600?

 

[NewLCD123]

And you have >95% chance of 4GHz(400x10) with e8600 and 50% chance of 4.4GHz(440x10) ive read testimonals and people are hitting 4GHz easy on stock cooling without raising the volts. Only go quad core if you run lots of multithreaded apps. By the time games are programmed for quad core, youll be upgrading again anyway.

 

[Jim_L9]

If you run FSX it loves a quad core.

 

[aevm]

You should definitely get a quad for FSX. It makes a huge difference. I recommend the Q9550, and overclocking.

For other games, read this:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=5

 

[Spitfire7]

You should definitely get a quad for FSX. It makes a huge difference. I recommend the Q9550, and overclocking.

For other games, read this:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=5

I want to get the Q9550 so badly, but apparently because of my stupid mobo the nForce 680i that CPU is not compatible. So I have to look for CPU's with a 65nm rather then the higher 45nm. There are only a few with the 45nm that are compatible though. So the best for my budget would be the Q6600 or the E8600.

So do we have an overall consensus that because I play FSX a lot, that I should get the Q6600 and overclock it up to about 3.3GHz? I also play Crysis, CODMW, Half Life 2, and will be playing GTA4 and Far Cry 2 when they come out.

Is GTA4 going to be a quad demanding game?

 

[KyleSTL]

E8600 is 45nm. I would double-check the manufacturer's website for a CPU compatibility chart for your motherboard. There is no reason a motherboard should support a 65W 45nm 1333FSB dual core and a 95W 65nm 1066FSB quad core, but NOT a 95W 45nm 1333FSB quad.

 

[aevm]

All right, get the Q6600 then. FSX will love it, and the other games care more about the graphics card(s) than the CPU.

I assume you've got some nVidia card for that 680i MB. Consider adding another if you're not getting enough fps. What kind of video card and PSU do you have?

 

[Spitfire7]

E8600 is 45nm. I would double-check the manufacturer's website for a CPU compatibility chart for your motherboard. There is no reason a motherboard should support a 65W 45nm 1333FSB dual core and a 95W 65nm 1066FSB quad core, but NOT a 95W 45nm 1333FSB quad.

I know, stupid huh? I did check and here's what they gave me. I also called.

http://www.evga.com/support/mbcpu/nForce_Intel_CPU_List.pdf


What is the 45nm and 65nm? Is that a big thing to look for in performance? I am still undecided between the Q6600 and the E8600.

 

[Spitfire7]

Here are my current specs.

My Specs:
Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
EVGA 8800GT Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
2GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12)
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
eVGA 680i Mobo
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Windows XP

 

[Spitfire7]

Quick side question.

Couldn't I just buy the E8400 for $170 at 3.0GHz and manually overclock to the specs of the E8600 at 3.3Ghz which is $270 and it would be exactly the same? Is that all they did or does it not work like that?

 

[Spitfire7]

All right, get the Q6600 then. FSX will love it, and the other games care more about the graphics card(s) than the CPU.

I assume you've got some nVidia card for that 680i MB. Consider adding another if you're not getting enough fps. What kind of video card and PSU do you have?

I hear ya, but am not completely convinced because of the benchmarks. I also haven't heard a complete hands down opinion either that show the facts, which leaves me still undecided. The benchmarks say the E8600 blows the Q6600 out of the water in all games at default OC's. (Haven't seen one for FSX yet)

So here is the deciding factor that I haven't really heard from anyone yet:

Can I safely and stably run that Q6600 at 3.3MHz as soon as I buy it with my Arctic Freezer Cooling fan and be equivalent if not better then the E8600 without damaging it or running unstable? If it will be unstable then I should just get a 100% stable CPU right out of the box with the E8600. No one has really been able to answer that yet, maybe because we all dont know, but someone must out there.

 

[kelfen]

You can always upgrade your mother board to a solid x48 or the lastest NIVIDIA board that supports dd2. I would personally go with a quad core for these reasons. Your loading times will be faster, in the future games are bound to start supporting quad for better fps, and if you use it for games and talking on msn and youtube definitly a win for overal use too give quad more value.

 

[aznguy0028]

to answer your question, YES you can get a Q6600 to run stable at 3.3ghz, if you have experience in OC-ing, it shouldn't be difficult to get it stable. it will be 100% safe IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE doing.

the E8600 will be 100% safe for sure, but why bother with that when your using FSX, you're better off with a quad...and 3.3ghz is very realistic expectation and is do-able.

+1 for the Q6600

 

[aevm]

You've got a good combo there with 680i/8800GT/700W PSU. You can add a second 8800GT and get something very competitive. That should help a lot in games like Crysis. You can find benchmarks easily. E.g 30 fps with two cards instead of 21 fps with one, at 1280x1024.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,753.html

Add 2 more GB of RAM, there's a big difference between 2 and 4.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1


If the Freezer doesn't work well enough for you, spend $30 or $40 on a Sunbeam Core Contact or Xigmatek HDT-S1283. Give it a try first, see what kind of temperatures you get.

I'll try to find you some benchmarks for FSX. Anyway, we've had threads in the past where some people reported 80% more fps from going from E6600 to Q6600. That's 2 cores at 2.4 GHz replaced with 4 identical ones.

 

[aevm]

About the 8800GT SLI idea. I should have mentioned, sometimes it doesn't work. Here's a benchmark where FSX actually does a little better with one 8800GT instead of two. That's because the SLI just wastes CPU cycles and the game needs the CPU cycles more than anything. It is not normal behavior as games go.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...008/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-X-SP2,784.html

It's not really a problem - you can just turn SLI on for Crysis and off for FSX, or leave it on because FSX is not hurt noticeably. It's just that FSX doesn't benefit from SLI, while most other games do.

 

[Spitfire7]

About the 8800GT SLI idea. I should have mentioned, sometimes it doesn't work. Here's a benchmark where FSX actually does a little better with one 8800GT instead of two. That's because the SLI just wastes CPU cycles and the game needs the CPU cycles more than anything. It is not normal behavior as games go.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...008/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-X-SP2,784.html

It's not really a problem - you can just turn SLI on for Crysis and off for FSX, or leave it on because FSX is not hurt noticeably. It's just that FSX doesn't benefit from SLI, while most other games do.

Thanks for all of the good ideas and help. So, I hear most games are still NOT using more then 2 cores. So would i even notice a difference at all on these 2 core games with the Q6600? Everything seems to be exactly the same as my E6600 other then the 2 additional cores. Well if the games aren't set up to use it, then will I see any improvement going with a Quad? The reason now that I am not fully convinced is because I just got more bad news about my Mobo dealing with Quads.

Ok so I called EVGA today and they said my board will support the Q6600, but if I OC anything over the default settings it will crash. When my version of 680i which is the AR version came out, Quad cores weren't out yet. So after Quads came out they realized this problem and immediately put out the new line of 680i boards (A1, T1) that will support Quad core overclocking. So I may have to RMA my Mobo and will be sent a new 680i A1. Thats pretty time consuming though.

But let me know if I will notice any difference at all on these games not fully using the 4 cores. So if I will still see some improvement with these games then I think I will got with the Quad, but if I dont notice any difference at default clock speeds, then I might as well go with the 100% stable very fast E8600 right out of the box to notice a huge increase right away without any OCing. The idea is to get the Q6600 and OC it right away to about 3GHz. So if I cant and its not using its full potential on most games, then whats the point. You feel me? Any thoughts or ideas?

 

[aevm]

OK, if you're not comfortable with overclocking, stick with a higher-clocked dual-core. That way you won't risk frying things. You'll get less performance in FSX, but more everywhere else.

Now, are you sure the E8600 works on your motherboard? That, the one you actually have, not the A1 or T1? If you haven't asked eVGA about that call them again You might need a BIOS update.