PDA

View Full Version : Worth selling my Q6600 for a E8400?


ATOJAR
02-06-08, 03:01 AM
Ive been wondering would it be worth me selling my Q6600 and buying a E8400?

All i do is play games, ive heard these things can clock up to 4.2GHz on air! ... like to see what i could get with my 120-eXtreme. :)

For pure gaming would the E8400(i would overclock to around 4GHz) be better for me or should i stick with the Q6600?

Revs
02-06-08, 03:43 AM
It's all about the FSB speed IMO. What can you get with the Q6600?

Feyy
02-06-08, 04:17 AM
Pointless imo?

ATOJAR
02-06-08, 07:20 AM
I can get this Q6600 to around 3.4GHz stable! well it decent temps\voltage .... i know those E8400's can easily clock to 4.2GHz and above.

I just think that clocking one of those E8400's to over 4GHz would result in better performance in games! ... i reckon for me a Q6600 is just ovekill .... i just dont need a 4 core cpu i wouldent say! ... by the time that a 4 core cpu is needed there would be a better one out for cheaper!

Not sure what to do ......

verboten
02-06-08, 07:45 AM
I can get this Q6600 to around 3.4GHz stable! well it decent temps\voltage .... i know those E8400's can easily clock to 4.2GHz and above.

I just think that clocking one of those E8400's to over 4GHz would result in better performance in games! ... i reckon for me a Q6600 is just ovekill .... i just dont need a 4 core cpu i wouldent say! ... by the time that a 4 core cpu is needed there would be a better one out for cheaper!

Not sure what to do ......

If you have the money to burn why not. I just switched from a Q6600 @3.4GHZ to the E8400. I have yet to overclock it. I am happy with the switch.

Revs
02-06-08, 07:47 AM
If you can already get a 450+ FSB with the quad there will be little gain. But alot less heat. That's my reason for choosing the E8400 over the Q6600.

ATOJAR
02-07-08, 12:15 PM
As you can see from my sig i have 3.4GHz thats on 1.4v ..... i can push it higher i just dont like the load temps went stress testing (Small FFTs) with prime95.

slivski
02-09-08, 07:13 PM
if you switch your cpu for that one, and overclock, you will see MAYBE a 1-2 fps difference in gaming. waste of money
it's not about the cpu when it comes to gaming, it's about the gpu. why don't people understand that? as long as it's not an old processor, you won't see a difference between the two.

but it's your money, go on, buy it. :thumbdwn:

conroejoe
02-09-08, 08:19 PM
With a quad at 3.4Ghz, your bottleneck is all GPU for games. Someone had benched and proven that ~3.4Ghz on C2D was all that was needed. Anymore and games didnt take advantage.

What you will lose... all the UT3 based games that use the quad for physics. Quad or Duel? Quad all the way. Sure a few games might be faster with a 8400 @ 4.2 Ghz, but as games start taking advantage of 4 cores you will want a quad. Stick with what you have already.

Eliminator
02-09-08, 10:21 PM
dont do it... quad will be more beneficial in the future

Muppet
02-09-08, 10:24 PM
dont do it... quad will be more beneficial in the future
Agree there. The Quads are great and there usage will only increase in the future, when more apps support them.

$n][pErMan
02-09-08, 10:41 PM
How is this even a debate? Reminds me back when it was single core vs. dual core. Obviously the Quad will do you more good seeing as you already have it at 3.4Ghz. Keep the quad man.

DeusGear
02-09-08, 11:48 PM
Don't bother. Wait for the next line.

ATOJAR
02-10-08, 12:45 AM
Thanks guys, you have helped me make up my mind ... ill keep my quad! :)

slivski
02-10-08, 11:39 AM
good choice!