Closed Solved

E8400 vs q6600 for gaming

Hello,

I am planning to buy a cpu .. Which Cpu will be better buy for gaming nowadays?

I have only 2 choices

E8400 vs Q6600


My current Rig:

e2160 1.8GHZ
Asus P5K-VM Mobo
4 GB DDR 2
500GB WD
GTS 450 1GB
500W PSU
20 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about e8400 q6600 gaming
  1. The Q6600. When you're using old, underpowered chips like that, dual core just doesn't cut it any more. You can also overclock the chip some to make up for its relative lack of power.

    You should be able to find the Q6600 for around $100 on eBay. I wouldn't pay a cent more than that, it is six years old after all.
  2. Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.50GHz @ 1333MHz 45nm LGA775 Quad-Core CPU - $80.00 USD Shipped within North America

    http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165289


    Older CPU'S will handle gaming fine but you want something that can be O.C to at least 3ghz. If you read the min specs of most games out now a Quad @2.5 is pretty common.
  3. willard said:
    The Q6600. When you're using old, underpowered chips like that, dual core just doesn't cut it any more. You can also overclock the chip some to make up for its relative lack of power.

    You should be able to find the Q6600 for around $100 on eBay. I wouldn't pay a cent more than that, it is six years old after all.


    I beg to deffer most games aren't multi-threaded enough to take advantage of more than two cores, so the E8400 with superior IPC and overclocking ability (4+GHz I've heard) make it a better gaming CPU in 80-90% of games.
  4. whooleo said:
    I beg to deffer most games aren't multi-threaded enough to take advantage of more than two cores, so the E8400 with superior IPC and overclocking ability (4+GHz I've heard) make it a better gaming CPU in 80-90% of games.

    And I beg to differ as somebody who used an E6600 until about four months ago. You get a lot of stuttering with the old dual cores that just isn't present with quads.

    My E6600 was clocked at 3.5 GHz. Nothing was smooth except older games. Got great frames in Crysis 2 with high res textures and DX11 using my 6950, but every several seconds the game would stutter.

    Replaced the E6600 with an X3210 and the stuttering stopped immediately. The X3210 was clocked at only 3.2 GHz. Also tried it at the X3210's default 2.13 GHz clock, and it was still smoother than my E6600 @ 3.5 GHz.

    Same story in every new game I played. Get roughly the same framerate with the dual core, but it stutters. Skyrim, SWTOR, Crysis 2, BF3, all of them stuttered.
  5. willard said:
    And I beg to differ as somebody who used an E6600 until about four months ago. You get a lot of stuttering with the old dual cores that just isn't present with quads.

    My E6600 was clocked at 3.5 GHz. Nothing was smooth except older games. Got great frames in Crysis 2 with high res textures and DX11 using my 6950, but every several seconds the game would stutter.

    Replaced the E6600 with an X3210 and the stuttering stopped immediately. The X3210 was clocked at only 3.2 GHz. Also tried it at the X3210's default 2.13 GHz clock, and it was still smoother than my E6600 @ 3.5 GHz.

    Same story in every new game I played. Get roughly the same framerate with the dual core, but it stutters. Skyrim, SWTOR, Crysis 2, BF3, all of them stuttered.


    As I said 80-90% of games and plus that's an E6600 not an E8400 with 6MB of L2 and a wofldale core @ 4+GHz....
  6. Difference in performance between an E6600 and an E8400 is pretty small, only about 10%. And you ignore the fact that a quad core clocked a full 1.4 GHz lower fixed the issue.
  7. again my same question... which one should i buy?

    My main purpose is gaming.. and I have only 2 choices

    E8400 or Q6600
  8. Quote:
    overclocking or not.?

    (as I ask for the third time.!)

    yes i will
  9. nowaday, most games uses 4 cores which mean quad cpu is best at this position, dual core cpu is still good but when it come's to multiple GPU technology you'll be worst with dual core cpu and as a result bottleneck appear, quad cpu also have quad thread's which make's your other application run more better than dual core cpu.
    E8400 4ghz can't beat q6600 3ghz and this is fact..
  10. Best answer
    Oh for goodness sake there is an awful lot of posturing in this thread, it's like you're all peacocks.

    @arfarsh: The benefit either way is completely reliant upon what games you are running.

    IE: an older game that only runs on 1 core (Think: Far Cry), will benefit from the high clock speed.

    A newer game that is multithreaded (Think: BF3) and designed to make better use of the Core iX series from intel for instance will be vastly faster on the Q6600.

    But, you also must have the resolution to actually be worrying about quad vs dual core.

    So for the smartest questions in this thread:

    What size/resolution is your screen?
    And..
    what games do you want to run?

    Edit: Either way, they'd both beat the crap out of your existing E2140 CPU. Personally, I would go for the Q6600 in a heartbeat. I went from a..

    8800GT + dual 3ghz = 25fps on BF3 to a..
    8800GT + quad 3ghz = 35fps on BF3 to a..
    8800GT + Hex 3.8ghz = 40fps on BF3

    Upgraded the 8800 to a 6870 and now it's 60-70fps on high settings.

    So go with the q6600, it's better in the long run, as it also won't bottleneck a newer graphics card when you decide to upgrade that too. A dual core in 2 years would be utterly laughable and ancient.
  11. @malmental

    If you honestly believe overclocking is more important than having extra cores you are frankly exceptionally short sighted, and I worry about the level of advice you are giving to the people on these forums.

    As for being overruled, I said go for the q6600, you are AGREEING with me.
  12. teh_gerbil said:
    Oh for goodness sake there is an awful lot of posturing in this thread, it's like you're all peacocks.

    [...]

    So for the smartest questions in this thread

    Pot, meet kettle. He says you're black.

    Arguments are common in hardware discussions like this. If you're going to get self righteous every time people disagree on a forum, I suggest you find another way to spend your time.
  13. I just think it's funny that he calls us all peacocks then declares his own post to be the smartest in the thread. Irony, thine name is Teh_Gerbil.
  14. It's how I roll. Glad to see the humour is not lost on some. :)

    Edit: Ok, in retrospect, that was an incredibly arrogant thing to say, I was just frustrated by the toing and froing without actually finding out what the OP was actually doing, as both CPU's have their merits.

    @Op, my apologies for hijacking this thread a tad. May I ask what CPU you are leaning towards?
  15. Best answer selected by arfarsh.
  16. Thank you everyone for your quick and great response.
    Now personally I have decided to go with Q6600 and I will overclock it. As you guys already said that new games are require more cores for gaming and q6600 is the best choice for me.


    So for the smartest questions in this thread:

    Q: What size/resolution is your screen?

    A: 1024x768

    And..

    Q. what games do you want to run?
    A. New generation games. Today's world like BF3, GTA IV, MAX Payne3 etc!!!!


    Btw I would like to thanks to you people who gives their best opinion on my question.

    Teh_Gerbil , malmental and xtreme5 !!!
  17. @Melmental:

    I actually showed the customer why the q6600 is better using my own example. You have to instill confidence in what you are saying to any customer, as it's their money, it's not your right to say "Buy this one cause I said so." You have to back it up with fact's/figures or personal experience.
  18. @op you're welcome anytime online..
  19. This topic has been closed by Rubix_1011
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Gaming Western Digital Overclocking