PDA

View Full Version : Q6600(G0 stepping) or E8400?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

MUYA
03-02-08, 10:51 PM
I know, I know, sorry for another thread.

but those in the know I would like your collective thoughts from my esteemed fellow nvNews members!

I am in the process of buying a new CPU, but, am so undecided about the two choices I have, the Q6600 or the E8400!

I have a watercooling setup ready to go and I will be primarily be shooting for a moderately insane overclocking gain..more than my current one with the E4400 at 3 Ghz from 2Ghz. :p Not demanding much! :D

Having said that, I am a gamer primarily and do not engage in encoding and such. Therefore, in your humble opinion which would be best?

Q6600 or E8400?

Answer and logic please....thank you in advance!

CaptNKILL
03-02-08, 10:56 PM
Honestly, I still think dual core with higher clocks is where its at.

That E8400 will probably overclock like crazy and keep pretty low temps.

jcrox
03-02-08, 11:00 PM
I would go for the E8400, I just ditched my Q6600 yesterday to some kid for $300 and went back to the E6600... It was a fun experiment messing around with the quad core but I personally really didn't notice any difference between the 2 performance wise.

Amuro
03-02-08, 11:01 PM
E8400, it overclocks to 4.0 easy if you don't mind exceeding the max 1.3625V stated by Intel.

amk21
03-03-08, 12:21 AM
E8400 for sure

Harnagel
03-03-08, 01:02 AM
I would imagine with a water cooling setup you would have little issue hitting 3.6 with a G0. I don't think you would notice a big improvement in games with more Mhz than that on a dual core. Then you can run FaH in the background and put those spare cycles to good use :)

XxDeadlyxX
03-03-08, 01:13 AM
Certain games like UT3, Lost Planet and MoH:Airborne use Quad core quite well, and quad is very good for watching BD/HD, CPU usage stays very low.

Bottom line though is both are very good and you won't be disappointed with either.

Lfctony
03-03-08, 01:33 AM
Well, I do a lot of encoding here, and just went from an E6600 to a Q6600. I'm certainly not sorry, the difference is huge. Games will not take advantage (most at least) of the 2 extra cores currently. I still think a Quad core is the only way to go if building a new system and can afford it, or like in your case, buying a new processor. Also, the Q6600 hits 3ghz relatively easy, so it's not like you'll be stuck at 2.4.

nekrosoft13
03-03-08, 07:47 AM
depends

Dual core at higher clocks will run games few frames faster (5-10 FPS higher). But that not always the case, pretty much all UE3 games (Airborne, Stranglehold, UT3, Vegas, Gears etc..) will run better on quad.

if you do any video editing, encoding, do heavy loads in photoshop or any other high resource program, quad core is no brainer.

$n][pErMan
03-03-08, 05:56 PM
Quad +1 :)

Lenin
03-03-08, 06:01 PM
Take the quad, or you'll be sad! :D

hokeyplyr48
03-03-08, 06:23 PM
quad +2
no regrets here. just overclock it and you won't know the difference, except for the 2 extra cores of course

Feyy
03-03-08, 07:04 PM
Why 2 when you can get 4? :D

Zapablast05
03-03-08, 07:09 PM
Why 2 when you can get 4? :D

Why 4 when you could wait for 8? :D

ViN86
03-03-08, 10:45 PM
i had the same problem. if youre a gamer, the extra 2 cores wont really help you. however, higher clock speeds on the two cores will.

the E8400 will probably do 4GHz on air, the Q6600 will not. so, i went with the E8400.

Libertysyclone
03-03-08, 11:19 PM
I went through the same dilema.....

I already had my Q6600 (g0) and thought REALLY hard about the E8400.

In a current situation I would buy the Q6600, because:

1) your going to pay the same price
2)its REALLY hard to find a E8400
3)its really hard to find a E8400 at a reasonable price


I personally have mine @ 3.825Ghz on water

MUYA
03-03-08, 11:53 PM
I went through the same dilema.....

I already had my Q6600 (g0) and thought REALLY hard about the E8400.

In a current situation I would buy the Q6600, because:

1) your going to pay the same price
2)its REALLY hard to find a E8400
3)its really hard to find a E8400 at a reasonable price


I personally have mine @ 3.825Ghz on water
What CPU voltage do have the CPU running at? That seems a dream overclock!

The E8400 is US$20 lower than the Q6600! I have searched for Q9450 but cannot get hat anywhere....for a reasonable price and delivery time.

Toss3
03-04-08, 05:57 AM
I'd say get the q6600! It's bloody fast coupled with an intel chipset and is more "future proof". Remember to get the boxed version of the slacr because most of the oems have higher vids, which sometimes result in a lower max oc.

Shocky
03-04-08, 09:18 AM
Not sure it matters which you use right now, no games are really cpu limited at the high settings we tend to use, but it would be interesting to see a E8400 and Q6600 overclocked compared in games that use quad core and see if the clock advantage actually makes up for the lack of two cores, i'm guessing it doesnt, so quad core for me is the better buy.

BronzeGod
03-04-08, 11:40 AM
Quad core. You can overclock to 3.5 to 3.6 on air and you have the benefit of 4 cores for superior multitasking and encoding chores. Gaming is NOT a problem either. It's deadly fast. Its nice to be able to frag and nt have bittorrent lag up the games. Then again I have 8 gigs of ram so its all good :-)

hirantha
03-04-08, 11:45 AM
E8400 is no where to be found (the Retail version), anyone know when it will be available?

mullet
03-04-08, 12:01 PM
Q6600 and don't look back. its a no brainer.

Blacklash
03-04-08, 06:12 PM
Q6600 G-0 if you want to buy and be set for a very long time.

If you upgrade fairly frequently get the E8400. Eventually games will make use of the quad core, and there are applications outside of gaming that already do.

3.6GHz should not be problematic with a Q6600 G-0. Here's an OC database from XS for Quad users-
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2410961&postcount=2

If you can wait a little while a Q9450 would be worth considering. They will run a tad cooler than the Q6600 and have a performance edge. Of course they will carry a higher price tag at release.

If I were buying right now I'd still get the Q6600 G-0, or I might wait on the Q9450. Personally, I don't plan on returning to dual core.

ATOJAR
03-04-08, 07:22 PM
Well i chose the Q6600 simply becasue it will last alot longer ....

Yeah a E8400 may run at 4GHz+ overclocked but it still only has two cores and when apps start to come out that use\need more than two cores the 8400 will be buggered regardless of the clock speeds! ... im my eyes im made the best choice, for me it was a no brainer, ill admit that for me a q6600 at the moment is total overkill but as stated above i know it will outlast a 8400 regardless of the speeds you clock the 8400 to .... i can get my q6600 to 3.4GHz no problem with decent temps(below 70c prime95 Small FFTs load) ... for me theres no need to overclock this quad core just yet! ... in a long time when it struggles ill maby add more juice. :)

My opinion...... go with the quad core.

Shocky
03-04-08, 08:34 PM
Eventually games will make use of the quad core,.

Quite a few already do.