nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   CPUs, Motherboards And Memory (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700 (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89038)

Kain 03-31-07 02:58 AM

Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Both are roughly the same price but which is better for gaming?

jAkUp 03-31-07 02:59 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
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 05:22 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
How much longer till games support quad cores?

crainger 03-31-07 05:30 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain
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 05:56 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
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 07:28 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
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 08:44 AM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dazz
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 12:27 PM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
I actually think the q6600 is the best buy when it drops in price.

Just my own .02.

fasedww 03-31-07 02:04 PM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kevpla1@cox.net
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 02:40 PM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fasedww
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 02:46 PM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jAkUp
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 03:19 PM

Re: Intel X6800 vs. Intel QX6700
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by slaWter
He talks about the Multiplier. The Q6600 multi is locked at 9x

yeah locked:thumbdwn:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.