Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8500,Q6600 OR Q9300

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Games
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 15, 2008 7:23:03 AM

Hi im looking to get a CPU for my new PC build and dont know what to get either the E8500 or Q9300 im certain that the Q6600 is discounted and there is no more stock.

Question is do i go for Core Duo or Core Quad for gaming.
I know at the moment that games benefit more with a Core Duo CPU and that games are not even close to be using them full. They are no where near 100% when playing the latest games. And ive seen some game benchmarks where you get massively lower FPS with a Q9300 vs a E8500.

So what do i go for a Core 2 Duo or a Core to Quad? Can some 1 find me a link showing me that a Q9300 out preforms a E8500 like on a graph. I couldnt find any.

Also how long do you think before Quad cores become mainstream and have a clear advangtage over Core 2 Duos? 3 years?

Thanks

More about : e8500 q6600 q9300

December 15, 2008 7:26:28 AM

Just get the cheaper one. The performance difference is negligable.
December 15, 2008 7:28:24 AM

What if I were to say I wasnt going to upgrade my CPU for 2+ years, a minimum of 2 years
Related resources
December 15, 2008 7:36:22 AM

The performance of the processors aren't going to change... They are already in production.
December 15, 2008 7:38:51 AM

Sorry I dont know what you are saying.
December 15, 2008 7:47:36 AM

I am saying that it makes no difference if you plan to keep your computer for 2 years or not. A quad isn't going to make that much of a difference on a home computer. Unless you plan to stand that dude up as a microsoft exchange server or something where it will be needing to multithread quite often.

BTW I would recommend a quad over a dual, at even a higher price, if you plan to play FSX, other than that I can't think of anything besides using yoru computer as a server.

2 years isn't a very long time either, but with the timing that you have if you plan to puchase now, in 2 years intel may very well be phasing out the socket they are moving to next.

Bottom line, just get the cheaper one, you'll be plenty impressed with the performance either way.
December 15, 2008 7:58:26 AM

K as you said "BTW I would recommend a quad over a dual, at even a higher price" was that just meaning for FSX?

Do you really think that games are going to be so much more quad core benefitual then Duo core in the next 3 years? As i said games are not even using near 100% usage of Duo cores, but then again you get a few games that are more designed for quad cores, such as GTA IV (very Quad multi thread dependent) Lost planet and Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance. I dont wanna get a Duo core and then next year the really good games ( which im likey to play) will get more FPS on a Quad core.
December 15, 2008 8:00:48 AM

It won't matter either way, if the performance difference now is causing you to not be sure of which to get, that isn't going to change in the future.
December 15, 2008 8:15:28 AM

yea but wat happens if games start being developed for the quad cores multi threads and therefore you would see a major performance difference with a major increased FPS's resulting in a better playing experience for quads and puting say a 10-30 FPS difference between the Quad core and the Duo core

Right now that is the opposite if you play games with a quad core instead of a Duo core you can get a loss of 15,20 or even 30 FPS. But then again there are those 1 of games such as GTA IV were you need to over clock your E8500 to 3.6GHz for it just to stand up and get the same FPS with a Q9300 not overclocked one bit.
December 15, 2008 8:23:35 AM

What you just stated will never change, some apps will always run better at a higher clock speed on one core, and some apps will always run better because they are multithreaded. It will be the same 10 years from now too.
December 15, 2008 8:29:53 AM

So your saying that in 10 years from now 90% of the time we will still be using two cores for gaming? I understand what your saying BUT what happens if games move more to 4 core multi threading. Do you agree that 1 core games are going to be phased out sooner or later? If so what im saying sooner or later 2 cores will be. Because the games will be so demanding and need more cores then 2 to run them, therefore a quad core is used.

How do you know that more then half of the games in say 2 years will be as demanding as GTA IV on PC if not more, and we can see from benchmarks that the game runs better on a 4 core multi thread CPU, because you get more FPS

EDIT i think i said the first stentences wrong. Games will be more better being developed for multithreaded CPUs
December 15, 2008 8:41:41 AM

Your not listening very well, your just defending your indecisiveness as if I'm attacking you.

1. I never said that 90% of games will only use any type of any core. I referenced applications in general, and never gave you an absolute percentage. I merely stated that there will always be single threaded apps, and multithreaded apps, and that isn't going to change, ever.

2. I don't agree that single threaded games will be phased out, they will always exist to a certain degree. Will your super demanding games become multhreaded... well duh.

3. I'm not sure I get your last point but I don't know what the gaming community will bring you in 2 years, but I can assure you that the performance difference between a Q9300 and an E8500 will be negligable, specially by then when both processors will be considered obsolete in terms of benchmarks and new technology.
December 15, 2008 8:45:08 AM

Between the E8500 and the Q9300, the Q9300 is not worth the extra money.
Between the E8500 and the Q6600, it doesn't even make a big difference even in applications optimized for 4 cores (see: Supreme Commander).
December 15, 2008 8:46:58 AM

^^ Exactly.
December 15, 2008 8:48:29 AM

"Will your super demanding games become multhreaded... well duh. "

What im saying especially to this is that for me to play these Super games the 4 cores will be better then 2. And I dont know what CPU to get if we see these super games take over the non super games.
December 15, 2008 8:56:12 AM

icyicy http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q...

yet the game isnt fully developed for 4 cores. Only slightly and the Quad cores beat the Duo cores. But what happens if games actually start been focussed a little more on 4 cores.. then the fps you would get with a Quad core would be even far greater.
December 15, 2008 8:57:26 AM

I feel like your trying to get the members of the forum to tell you definitevely that the gaming community will drastically change and your going to benefit greatly from buying that quad core.

If your that bent on getting it, then just buy it. I don't know how else to tell you that the difference is not that big. Your money would be better spent on well... just about anything else. But it's your decision.
December 15, 2008 9:00:13 AM

Well if there are a couple of examples of games that are more better on a quad then it makes me think.. im just worried that ill get a E8500 and the difference will get bigger and bigger.
December 15, 2008 9:02:19 AM

I was just browsing the chart you posted, maybe it's because I'm tired but the Q9300 isn't even benchmarked. The E8500 is a whole 3 FPS lower than the Q6600 as well. I don't see that as a decisive argument by any stretch of the imagination.
December 15, 2008 9:04:26 AM

yea but what happens if that gap widens greatly in the development of games?
December 15, 2008 9:05:14 AM

Well answer this question to yourself and then go get the benchmark... "What is my favorite game that I will play the crap out of over the next year, maybe 2?" Then go get the benchmark for it, and buy the processor that has the best price/performance ratio. I can guarantee that whether it be a dual core, or quad, the peformance difference will still be quite small.
December 15, 2008 9:07:03 AM

Hello213 said:
yea but what happens if that gap widens greatly in the development of games?



Dude seriously, your killing me. When, in the course of history, has there ever been a major improvement in video gaming that DID NOT coincide with a major improvement in hardware. They go hand in hand.
December 15, 2008 9:14:09 AM

Well thats what i mean, do you truely believe that quad cores arnt going to do much in gaming ever?
December 15, 2008 9:17:13 AM

I never said that...

But when intel and amd start to phase out dual cores, and go with quads... and what are they dreaming now... 8 virtual cores or something? , then your video game industry will follow along.

PS for some reason that chart you just posted is blocked by my proxy at work (unlike the first one which is strange) so i can't access it.
December 15, 2008 9:25:26 AM

I'm interested in seeing other peoples opinions for a couple reasons.

1. I can't see what game benchmark you most recently posted, which may very well influence your quad/dual decision.

2. I am not going to be able to watch the video until i get home from work, which means I won't be able to comment on the video until tonight sometime, provided I remember... LOL sorry but it's true.
December 15, 2008 9:27:30 AM

Its gta IV ive also heard alot of comments that its probaly the most Quad demanding game
December 15, 2008 9:31:23 AM

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=362187

without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable. For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage and only with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but GTA 4 nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used. The Phenom X4 9950 easily passes the Q6600 and theoretically is on the same level as the Q6700 (not included in the benchmark)

A single-core CPU is unsuitable and only reaches single-digit results and additionally the game freezes and the animations of the characters is running in slow motion sometimes. Increased L2 cache results in about 8 percent more fps.

GTA 4 (PC) - Processor benchmark review: Conclusion
GTA 4 benefits from quad-core CPUs as no game did up to now. Even a 4.0 GHz E8500 is not able to compete with a quad-core that has 25 percent less core frequency. Both, the K10 and the K8 architecture are doing quite well.
December 15, 2008 9:35:45 AM

I don't know anything about whether GTA IV is or not, but if it is... then it just took the title from FSX. My primary video game is FSX so I chose the Q6600, keep in mind this was almost a year ago before the Q9xxx was released. I am very happy with it. My wife got me Crysis for christmas this year and she gave it to me early (she wanted one of her presents early LOL) and I installed it, the video settings defaulted to "high" across the board. I think there is one setting higher, like max or something but to be honest I haven't even looked.

BTW I'm running:
Q6600
8GB DDR2 800
Gigabyte P35 (forget model, it's the popular one)
EVGA 8800 GTS G92
Vista x64
Zalman 750 PSU
hmm, coolermaster case, the one below the 830, but the model prior to E-sata being a port on the front. I forget the model.

I have my Q6600 O/Ced to 2.8GHz.

I get an average of 40 FPS in FSX with most everything maxed except for AI air traffic, it's on hmm 50% or something.
December 15, 2008 9:38:30 AM

Is GTA IV something you plan to play quite often... if so then that's going to be your purchasing decision. I bought a quad because the game I play is multithreaded and outperforms O/C'ed duals at stock speeds.
December 15, 2008 9:44:42 AM

Na I have GTA IV on ps3, but I only seem to get the best of games or the most hardware demanding games. Like im diffently gonna get crysis which i also hear is good with a quad. Yet http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q... shows the E8500 with 138 fps and the Q6600 which is about the same as a Q9300 is only 126
December 15, 2008 9:55:31 AM

Seriously though, are you using an LCD monitor? which I would nearly bet at least $25 that you are, you are only seeing approximately 60 FPS anyway, specially if you have (dang i forget the name of the setting) but nVidia cards have a check box you can check to lock your FPS at 60. Anway my point is the difference between 138 and 126 FPS is nowhere near worth buying a more expensive processor over. Now if there were a 12 FPS difference between say 15 and 27, then your talking nearly double the frame rate....
December 15, 2008 10:04:37 AM

yea but i want to get the most bang for my buck. A Q6600 is comparable to wat Core Duo a E8600. And since the Q9300 has replaced the Q6600 it is comparable to a E8600?Talk to you 2morrow :D 
December 15, 2008 10:09:00 AM

True, I would feel the same way trust me. Hopefully we have sparked a good debate for some other viewpoints. Thankfully (it's 5:30am here) I am leaving work in about 30 minutes. I will check back after I am awake and moving tonight.
December 15, 2008 9:38:56 PM

Just found out that alan awake been released feb 2009 can only be played on a multi threaded cpu can only be played with Direct X 10 and only on vista as well Programmed for Quad Core, One core was used for the graphics thread – preparing graphical information for processing by the GPU – another was used for game logic – AI and whatnot – a third for physics, and the last for anything else the computer needed to do..
December 15, 2008 10:10:35 PM

So a Q9300 is virtually a Q6600 right?(it has replaced it, as the Q6600 is discounted) and a Q6600 is compare able to a E6600??? If so for far cry 2 the E6600 gets a average of 44.2fps while the Q6600 get a average of 54.2 fps - a 10fps difference, with that i expect you could raise the resolution and increase the graphics if not at the top and still have smooth game play.

These are the games so far ive found with better FPS on a Quad core comapred to a Duo core, in which the cpus from both are both comparable ie a Q6600 and a E6600, or a Q9300 and a E6600

Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance 6.79FPS difference - better the quad

GTA IV 9.8 FPS difference - better the quad. A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. You need to overclock it up to 3.6 GHZ for it to perform better then the stock Q6600 at its origninal 2.4GHZ!.

FAR CRY 2 10 FPS differnece- better the quad

Lost Planet couldnt find a E6600 vs a Q6600 so its a E6850 instead - difference 19fps.

Alan Awake - Yet to be realease but as I said that game is probaly going to be the game that most benefits from the quad over the duo one core for the graphics thread, one core – preparing graphical information for processing by the GPU – another core for the game logic – AI and whatnot – and a third for physics.
It cant even be played on a single core and needs DX10 and vista to run it. Games may be taking adavantage of Quad cores faster then you think.

And a few more games I havent said yet. If this is how many games benefit from quad cores over duo cores just in 2008 then how many games do you think will be better on a quad in 2009?
!