PDA

View Full Version : E8400 vs Q6600


Pages : [1] 2

WaterPartys
04-10-08, 11:02 AM
Which one would you pick? same price ;)

Revs
04-10-08, 11:04 AM
I bought both as I couldn't choose either. I settled on this E8400. Less heat, higher CPU and FSB clocks, better performance in most games.

ATi
04-10-08, 11:55 AM
E8400:)

verboten
04-10-08, 12:05 PM
I have both. Gamer PC has the E8400 and my media center PC has the Q6600. IMO, both are great chips

jcrox
04-10-08, 12:12 PM
Both are great and which is better depends on what you want to do with it. I'd take the 8400 and it's higher clocks over the Q6600 for current gaming. If you're not planning on buying another CPU for 2 or 3 years, get the Q6600.

mullet
04-10-08, 12:16 PM
Quad Core.

+1

mailman2
04-10-08, 12:37 PM
Quad, I ran some tests alot of games are smoother. Anything UT3 based uses quad for physics (bioshock doesnt use havok though, still smoother). Assassin's Creed uses quad and I found it to be faster in cities than my 8400, much more CPU work when there are alot of NPCs on the screen. Games will start to take advantage of the quad more in the near future..

Also, the 45nm are fragile clockers, stable one day, not the next. You can kill them with more than 1.45v. They seem to degrade fast too as alot of people are complaining of loss of OC speeds within a few weeks to a month. Honestly it just made me nervous. Orthos was stable one minute and not the next, they were kinda flakey overclockers. I had an 8400 and E3110. Went back to my G0 @ 3.7 Ghz.

nemecb
04-10-08, 01:22 PM
I say quad, but then I do stuff that utilizes a quad, so that may not be right for everyone.

Zapablast05
04-10-08, 01:26 PM
Quad Core.

+1

It's the way of the future. Why else would Intel be working on these and 8 core CPUs?

ViN86
04-10-08, 01:48 PM
i said E8400. if you game, it's a better choice.

higher clock speed, higher OC potential, better game performance.

evox
04-10-08, 02:07 PM
Q6600.

Multicore game engines are becoming norm; Q6600 really helps in games like Lost Planet, DiRT, UE3 based titles etc.

unirions
04-10-08, 02:58 PM
i said E8400. if you game, it's a better choice.

higher clock speed, higher OC potential, better game performance.

Spoken like a real noob. Most GO Q6600's will run in the 3.4-3.6ghz range on air without much trouble and you are kidding yourself if you really think that you will get any improvements with anything clocked much higher than 3.6ghz.

Most high end gamers game at a high enough res with enough AA and AF enabled that the bottleneck is on the GPU, not the CPU.

And just remember one thing, games that take advantage of quad core like LOST PLANET will crap all over your dual core even when you have a much higher frequency.

There is no replacement for those 2 additional cores when they are properly used, I dont care what you say.

XDanger
04-10-08, 03:09 PM
the quad core advantage becomes irrelevant at the speed the 8400 can reach with regard to encoding and the like if you are lucky and don't break it
so ,I don't know.

E8500

puregamer
04-10-08, 03:19 PM
the quad core advantage becomes irrelevant at the speed the 8400 can reach



Thats not true at all. When Quad core is truley taken advantage of it spanks the dual core and LOST PLANET is a prime example of this potential and advantage that the extra two cores can make.

Running Lost planet on an Nvidia 8600 card, the 2.4GHz quad system was able to outperform the 4GHz dual core system - and the heavily overclocked 4GHz quad kicked the butt of both of them.

Running on an 8800 GTX, the results put a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo at 50 frames per second, a 4GHz C2D at 80, 2.4GHz Quad at 84 and the 4GHz Quad at a stonking 129.


So here we have a stock clocked Quad core out performing a 4ghz dual core cpu. Once you factor in the fact that the Quad core can also be overclocked you can forget about it. You will not be hitting frequencies high enough on the dual core to over come the extra two cores of the overclocked quad core in this type of scenario.

Uberpwnage
04-10-08, 03:58 PM
Inconclusive polls ftl, was 13 to 12, made it 14 to 12 :). Quad Core makes your entire system run smoothly, sure, most of your games probably won't run quite as fast as higher clocked dual core, but you can basically do whatever else you want in the background and still play games. Basically all modern games make good use of dual core, so if you're doing anything remotely intensive in the background, your fps will suffer. I couldn't go back to dual core simply because I've gotten used to the multitasking and being able to run all those extra processes without hurting my fps.

XDanger
04-10-08, 05:05 PM
Thats not true at all. When Quad core is truley taken advantage of it spanks the dual core and LOST PLANET is a prime example of this potential and advantage that the extra two cores can make.

So here we have a stock clocked Quad core out performing a 4ghz dual core cpu. Once you factor in the fact that the Quad core can also be overclocked you can forget about it. You will not be hitting frequencies high enough on the dual core to over come the extra two cores of the overclocked quad core in this type of scenario.
Which Dual Core,e8400?

but still Lost Planet isn't really a clincher for me.

I was referring to a comparison of an overclocked qx9650 or some such and overclocked e8500 i'd seen where encoding is slightly better with the qx
Very exhaustive benchmark set where e8500 came out top on quite a few testsThen again they probably would have blown the e8500 after a month, Where the hell is that now?

im thinking more about e8500 vs q9450

ViN86
04-10-08, 06:01 PM
tbh it depends on the game. most games dont utilize multi core, or at least dont utilize it very well.

XDanger
04-10-08, 06:08 PM
If Far Cry 2 is 100% going to utilize quad then that will help me with my own choice.

Revs
04-11-08, 03:19 AM
I will aventually go for a quad, but not until the 'pros' outweigh the 'cons'.

+1

It's the way of the future. Why else would Intel be working on these and 8 core CPUs?

Interesting question Zapa. Quads have been out for a good while now and I bet you could still count the games that fully use all four cores on one hand. The only benefit IMO would be for compression software.

Even on Crysis, I get better overall performance with this E8400 due to the higher FSB. The only thing I noticed with the Q6600G0 is that the physics were running at a slightly higher frame rate, the overall FPS was lower. Of course if I could get a Penryn quad with the same 9x multiplier as this E8400 for less than 200 I would go for it, but at current prices I can't justify it.

MikeC
04-11-08, 06:20 AM
It's the way of the future. Why else would Intel be working on these and 8 core CPUs?Intagraytid grafiks :)

crainger
04-11-08, 06:27 AM
Intagraytid grafiks :)

Reported.

jcrox
04-11-08, 07:42 AM
Intagraytid grafiks :)

hahahah Mike made a funny



















:wtf:

BCKator
04-11-08, 09:18 AM
Today, for min pwr, max OC, and max gaming (my gams), 8400 (or actually 8500 if/when I can get one). If/when the games & stuff I want to do run significantly better w/ quad, I'll go quad. Now, if I were building a system to hold me for >3 years, then I would probably go quad.

nemecb
04-11-08, 09:53 AM
Intagraytid grafiks :)
Oh no! Kevpla hacked MikeC's account!:headexplode:

:D

ViN86
04-11-08, 10:55 AM
Yea, just like Crysis was supposed to use all 4 cores too...and I don't count balancing 25% on each core as quad usage, that's merely lessening the burden on a dual core.
actually, xp/vista will split the load across multiple cores for you, as long as you dont have affinity set.