E6850 or Q6600

[fretman]

Cannot make a decision on the E6850 or the Q6600.

Here's what I plan on doing and not doing....based on this info maybe you all can help me make up my mind. Thanks.


1. Don't plan on overclocking
2. Want to play the latest and greatest games today and tomorrow
3. Don't plan on upgrading computer for the next 3 to 5 years

 

[cmdrdredd]

Will you be doing any video work or any professional apps that use 4 cores? If just games then the higher clocked E6850 will be better for you. If you will use 4 cores with your apps like distributed computing, then I'd say maybe Q6600.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Search is your friend. This exact topic has been asked at least 1/2 dozen times already.

 

[Markfw]

Also note... If you don't increase vcore, and have aftermarket cooling, a small OC like 2.8 is almost a lock, and you will notice a difference in games. Otherwise, if you just won't OC at all, get the 6850.

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, if it's just games with absolutely no oc at all then go for e6850. the problem is that you can probably undervolt both of those chips and bump them up 300-400 mhz. I think I went up to 3.2 on an e6750 before having to add volts, and my chip takes a LOT of vcore to run stable at decent speeds.

 

[zach0624]

I disagree with caveman, mark and bryan on this point I think that if you aren't going to upgrade for 5 years you should get a quad core because future games are coming out in the next 18 months will start using up to four cores. Since you won't upgrade for a while and I would buy the quadcore as many programs will start taking advantage of quad core processors thus giving you (theoretically) 9.6ghz instead of the 6ghz of the e6850. If you don't need to upgrade right know though I would recommend waiting for penryn which will have higher clock speeds than today's quadcores.

 

[fretman]

Truely appreciate everyone's responses. Only thing I find upsetting is that the Q6600 is only 2.44 and the E6850 is 3.00. That seems to be a huge difference especially since I don't know how to OC.

Right now, I'm running an AMD 1700+. I have Ad-aware scan going and it took me 15 seconds to open a word document.

Is this where dual and quad core would come in handy?

 

[LightningRider]

Yes, for sure.

I'd recommend the Q6600, since you're not going to be upgrading for a few years. Quad Cores will be used more in programs then, so while you only may be able to use 1 or 2 cores in 1 application now @ 2.4Ghz, later on more apps will use all 4 cores @ 2.4Ghz. Plus you can't deny the great multitasking advantages it gives you.

I'd go for the Q6600. E6850 will be faster today, and the Q6600 will probably be faster tomorrow.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: fretman
Cannot make a decision on the E6850 or the Q6600.

3. Don't plan on upgrading computer for the next 3 to 5 years

Fretman, in this case, it's not even a contest. Anyone who recommends a dual core in the wake of advancements in multi-threading in the next 3-5 years is just short-sighted.

 

[A554SS1N]

For longer term, yeah, quadcore is probably best, plus if you ever did want to overclock *in the future* you could do, whereas you can't just add more cores.

 

[drakore]

e6850 would be the better choice...

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N
For longer term, yeah, quadcore is probably best, plus if you ever did want to overclock *in the future* you could do, whereas you can't just add more cores.

exactly.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: drakore
e6850 would be the better choice...

no, and in every thread I see where someone is looking at quad you say they shouldn't.

 

[slyydrr]

Because of the simple fact that you don't want to upgrade again for another 3-5 years, get the Q6600. I was stuck in the same predicament that you were, and chose the Q6600 because of what someone else mentioned. Games like Alan Wake will really need 2 cores to function well... In 2-3 years, I highly suspect that a good portion of games will recommend at least 2 cores, if not 4 for best performance.

 

[imported_rod]

Originally posted by: fretman
1. Don't plan on overclocking
2. Want to play the latest and greatest games today and tomorrow
3. Don't plan on upgrading computer for the next 3 to 5 years

1) Doesn't matter.
2) Today, the E6850 may be better. Tomorrow, the Q6600 will be better. Some games (i.e. SupCom) can already utilise quad-cores.
3) Definitely the Q6600. In three years time, a dual-core will seem positively ancient.

 

[Electricview]

Please keep in mind the alan wake demo seen recently in the presentation from intel, was on a Quad core q6600 overclocked by 1ghz with some pretty hard core cooling.. Whats that mean? Well if the developers are using a quad core, alan wake is definately going ot use more than just a dual core..

I was in the same boat, i JUST pulled the trigger on a quad core.. Why?

1. I play to rip it up in Crysis, Thats been said to use MULTIPLE cores (over 2 even)
2. ID tech 5 (now titled Rage) will most DEFINATELY use multiple cores, carmack has even expressed no interest in PPU's *physics processing units* and intends to just off task that particular item to an available core in a multi core processor
3. Even half life 2 episode 2 will use up to 4 cores (For weather effects and such)
4. Many other games, including UT3 and others, are going to be using Quad core in the next 6-8 months if they ship on time)

5. I like to play WoW while i do other things like surf up to 10-15 other websites, Watch movies while i grind, download in Emule and other such things.. having 4 cores mean i have a dedicated core to the game, maybe a dedicated core to watching a movie, and left over processing power for whatever may need it..

I feel i made a good choice. (i have not built my system yet, parts still coming). I feel the q6600 is a better choice than a bit more speed.. Look at the benchmarks for something like Lost planet in the cave demo, the q6600 spanks the 6850 hard core.. yes true in all other benchmarks for games that do NOT use the multiple cores over 2, the 6850 has a pretty good lead on the 6600, but its never anything more than 10-12fps.. which yes is a good amount, but its not EARTH shattering. and IF those games ever get multi (3+) core support, i expect those ratio's to swap in favor of the q6600..

i'd advise the 6600 for your prediciment.

 

[Shimmishim]

if you can wait JUST a tad bit longer, the penryn (wolfdale/yorkfield) will be out very soon.

i say get an X38 board + yorkfield (quadcore penryn) and you'll be set for a long time. rumor has it though that yorkfield will only be released at 3.33 ghz and will be an extreme edition chip which means mucho dinero...

it's a tough call right now... long term future i say Q6600.... short term "i wanna have fun" chip i say E6850.

i like e6850 and it's o/c ability and benching possibilities hence why i got one over the Q6600. i plan to stay with 6850 until penryn comes out then it's time for X38 + DDR3 woohoo!

 

[Amaroque]

If you're not upgrading for 3-5 ys, I'd have to say Q6600 hands down.

 

[Pumcy]

Originally posted by: Electricview
Please keep in mind the alan wake demo seen recently in the presentation from intel, was on a Quad core q6600 overclocked by 1ghz with some pretty hard core cooling.. Whats that mean? Well if the developers are using a quad core, alan wake is definately going ot use more than just a dual core..

I was in the same boat, i JUST pulled the trigger on a quad core.. Why?

1. I play to rip it up in Crysis, Thats been said to use MULTIPLE cores (over 2 even)
2. ID tech 5 (now titled Rage) will most DEFINATELY use multiple cores, carmack has even expressed no interest in PPU's *physics processing units* and intends to just off task that particular item to an available core in a multi core processor
3. Even half life 2 episode 2 will use up to 4 cores (For weather effects and such)
4. Many other games, including UT3 and others, are going to be using Quad core in the next 6-8 months if they ship on time)

5. I like to play WoW while i do other things like surf up to 10-15 other websites, Watch movies while i grind, download in Emule and other such things.. having 4 cores mean i have a dedicated core to the game, maybe a dedicated core to watching a movie, and left over processing power for whatever may need it..

I feel i made a good choice. (i have not built my system yet, parts still coming). I feel the q6600 is a better choice than a bit more speed.. Look at the benchmarks for something like Lost planet in the cave demo, the q6600 spanks the 6850 hard core.. yes true in all other benchmarks for games that do NOT use the multiple cores over 2, the 6850 has a pretty good lead on the 6600, but its never anything more than 10-12fps.. which yes is a good amount, but its not EARTH shattering. and IF those games ever get multi (3+) core support, i expect those ratio's to swap in favor of the q6600..

i'd advise the 6600 for your prediciment.

I 100% agree wiht this statement. as well as the one up higher about anyone recommending a dual core for such a long period is short sighted.

I just got my quad and will never ever turn back. The speed is unbelievable. Everything loads flawlessly. i can still surf while running prime95 at 100% on all cpus. it crazy!

as mentioned above, new games and software will begin to take advantage of quads soon enough. multi core is the future. just look at what AMD has in store. they are planning Octocore setups soon.

at 2.4Ghz, this CPU can litterally handle whatever you throw at it. Sure you may get a slightly lower FPS than an e6850 would, but what you can do at the same time makes up for it big time. You could render a Divx movie while playing some of the latest games with very little if any at all slowdown.

Down the road, in a year or 2, running multithreaded apps will be run of the mill and anyone holding onto the e6850 pipe dream should wake the hell up.

Even on the overclocking front, Q6600's are pulling 3.2 - 3.6Ghz. ive seen some as high as 4Ghz on water.
I haven't seen a whole lot faster coming out of the e6850 camp. I think average seems to be 3.6Ghz. i've seen as high as 4.3Ghz, but those are extreme cases.
I'd rather have a 3.4 - 3.6Ghz quad over a 4Ghz dual any day of the week.

 

[masteraleph]

I agree with running with the Q6600 here. The E6850 will give you, in some apps, a max of 15-20% improvement. In many apps the difference is <10%. Either way the quad cores will make enough of a difference with multithreaded apps down the road to be better than the E6850.