PDA

View Full Version : Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700


Kain
03-31-07, 01:58 AM
Both are roughly the same price but which is better for gaming?

jAkUp
03-31-07, 01:59 AM
A x6800 is better for most games now a QX6700 is better for SupCom and future games that take advantage of 4 cores.

Personally, if you want a quad core CPU, I would just wait for the 45nm's.

Kain
03-31-07, 04:22 AM
How much longer till games support quad cores?

crainger
03-31-07, 04:30 AM
How much longer till games support quad cores?

SupCom supports 4 now. Alan Wake is inbound, other than that. Not many. Few games even support 2 cores. Still, if you can wait do what jAk said and go for the new 45nm units. If not, a nice Core2Duo should handle any game for the next year or two. All you'd need to worry about is the video card. :D

Dazz
03-31-07, 04:56 AM
I would have to say the QX6700 myself. It's more future proof. If you want a dual core CPU then get the E6600 or E6700 save the money and overclock slightly. Should hit 2.93GHz with stock voltage. The price premem for the X6800 simply not worth it. The QX6700 is worth it as the FSB for quads can't overclock that well so the unlocked multiplire is more improtent.

hokeyplyr48
03-31-07, 06:28 AM
crysis is supposed to be able to use multi-cores...
that would be my reason for completley upgrading my computer :D

fasedww
03-31-07, 07:44 AM
I would have to say the QX6700 myself. It's more future proof. If you want a dual core CPU then get the E6600 or E6700 save the money and overclock slightly. Should hit 2.93GHz with stock voltage. The price premem for the X6800 simply not worth it. The QX6700 is worth it as the FSB for quads can't overclock that well so the unlocked multiplire is more improtent.
Thats hitting the nail right on the head(nana2)

kevJ420
03-31-07, 11:27 AM
I actually think the q6600 is the best buy when it drops in price.

Just my own .02.

fasedww
03-31-07, 01:04 PM
I actually think the q6600 is the best buy when it drops in price.

Just my own .02.Doesn't have a unlocked multi though.:)

kevJ420
03-31-07, 01:40 PM
Doesn't have a unlocked multi though.:)

What do you mean by that?

Why would they market the q6600 as a quad-core processor, if it doesn't have multi-core support?

But I guess I could be thinking of something else.

$n][pErMan
03-31-07, 01:46 PM
A x6800 is better for most games now a QX6700 is better for SupCom and future games that take advantage of 4 cores.

Personally, if you want a quad core CPU, I would just wait for the 45nm's.
I love SupCom..... I forgot how much i missed TA till I played this :D Runs smooth as butter too! :D

fasedww
03-31-07, 02:19 PM
He talks about the Multiplier. The Q6600 multi is locked at 9xyeah locked:thumbdwn:

Madpistol
03-31-07, 05:21 PM
What do you mean by that?

Why would they market the q6600 as a quad-core processor, if it doesn't have multi-core support?

But I guess I could be thinking of something else.

Oh geeze.... :rolleyes:

It is a quad core processor, but quad-core support is a function of the motherboard and software, (and it's guaranteed that if the motherboard supports the Core 2 Duo, it is designed for a multi-core apps). They're talking about games currently. Very few support multi-core processors, but they are slowly leaking onto the market. Supreme Commander is one of those titles that supports multi-core processors.

Amuro
03-31-07, 08:31 PM
If you just can't for native and/or 45nm quads from Intel or AMD, wait for the Q6700 or QX6800 as they will be available soon.

Bearclaw
03-31-07, 08:34 PM
If you just can't for native and/or 45nm quads from Intel or AMD, wait for the Q6700 or QX6800 as they will be available soon.
...They are available.

DiscipleDOC
03-31-07, 08:36 PM
What? No love for the QuadFX? :(

Amuro
03-31-07, 08:37 PM
...They are available.
No, not yet. They will be availabe in Q2 or 3, after price drop.

CaptNKILL
04-01-07, 05:55 AM
What? No love for the QuadFX? :(
:lol:

Probably not since its pretty much the most useless platform available right now.

Twice the heat, twice the power consumption, two heatsinks (with two fans), requires a new motherboard with a new socket, as well as 2 new CPUs (you can't just use an old CPU and add another to it for quad), and after all of that it isn't faster than anything from Intel.

Quad FX is probably going to be obsolete by next year. :o

Amuro
04-01-07, 06:36 AM
The Q6700 and the QX6800 aren't 45nm chips. Yorkfield will be the first Quad Core in 45nm.
I know they aren't 45nm. I was saying if he can't wait for the 45nm chips (Q1 2008), then get the Q6700 or QX6800. No point in getting the QX6700 now since the QX6800 is coming out very soon and will be at the same price.

Slammin
04-01-07, 08:53 AM
I would have to say the QX6700 myself. It's more future proof. If you want a dual core CPU then get the E6600 or E6700 save the money and overclock slightly. Should hit 2.93GHz with stock voltage. The price premem for the X6800 simply not worth it. The QX6700 is worth it as the FSB for quads can't overclock that well so the unlocked multiplire is more improtent.


Thread could have ended right there since you make perfect sense and anything beyond this is just 'noise'.

uOpt
04-04-07, 10:40 AM
The X6800 would be the better chip in theory, since it is

higher clockspeed, thus bad smp scaling apps such as game are better
unlocked multi (QX6700 has it too)
less heat, thus should overclock better


In practice, however:

Pricing the X6800 as it is is a total joke. Only insane people would buy it.
The unlocked multiplier and the less heat don't buy you anything since recently delivered dual-cores don't overclock much if any.
It is only 2.93 GHz, when e.g. Woodcrests are available with 3.0 GHz. Joke.