e8400 to q6600 quad

[magnumty]

I have the e8400 on a gigabyte ds3l mobo, can I just drop in a quad Q6600 and be good to go? Or will my xp machine have to bee formatted?

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: magnumty
I have the e8400 on a gigabyte ds3l mobo, can I just drop in a quad Q6600 and be good to go? Or will my xp machine have to bee formatted?

no, you will be fine.

 

[Denithor]

But why would you take a step backwards like that?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Yes and no.

 

[nerp]

Yeah, it's not that simple. If you're gaming, that Q6600 is going to be a step backwards. No quad can OC quite as well as the E8400. And unless you're doing serious rendering, ray tracing or hard core encoding, the dual is more than sufficient.

 

[Kraeoss]

i say build another rig around the q6600 lol.... it's better than the trade off u are thinking about

 

[magnumty]

I do alot of video encoding, so I'm sure it would be faster for that. Maybe I will wait for a quad til I build a new rig..

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: nerp
Yeah, it's not that simple. If you're gaming, that Q6600 is going to be a step backwards. No quad can OC quite as well as the E8400. And unless you're doing serious rendering, ray tracing or hard core encoding, the dual is more than sufficient.

Actually, if you do any rendering, any ray trcing, or any encoding (besides something petty like an occasional DVD), the quad is vastly superior. For gaming, though, the E8400 is superior, unless FSX is your main focus.

 

[Mango1970]

Just on a side note, when i went from my dual to a quad on the same box... when it booted (and it booted just fine)... I got a message saying -- new processor detected, yada yada and I had to restart the system with default settings. You probably did this already (should have set it to default before you pulled out the original CPU) but just make sure you remember all your settings if they are specific to ram timings, volts etc.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: DSF

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Yes and no.

I suppose it's yes and no in much the same way when talking about a Core 2 being superior to a Pentium 3.

 

[vj8usa]

If you're just changing the CPU, you'll be fine. If you end up changing your motherboard for whatever reason, though, you'll have to reactivate Windows.

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: DSF

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Yes and no.

I suppose it's yes and no in much the same way when talking about a Core 2 being superior to a Pentium 3.

There's more to it than just 2 cores vs 4. The E8400 only has half the cores of the Q6600, but each core is faster than each core on the Q6600. For applications that can't make good use of more than 2 cores, the E8400 will be faster (significantly faster in some cases, especially if you OC the CPU). For applications that can use 4 cores, the Q6600 has the potential to be much faster than the E8400.

Comparing a Core2 to a P3 is completely different, since a single core of any Core2 will be faster than any P3 (disregarding ridiculous over/underclocking ).

 

[dguy6789]

Comparing a dual to a quad is really simple. A quad is superior to a dual, nobody debates this except fanboys or jealous people.(Does anybody debate that a single is better than a dual?) The only argument that exists is if someone needs the extra performance or not. Wasn't speaking about specific models, this is in general.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.

For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.


Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.

You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.

9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.

 

[tim924]

This is not a health related forum,we are talking about technology,and as a matter of fact im sure 99.9% of people will agree that 4 people working at the same time will be more beneficial than having only 2 people with 10% more efficiency than each of the 4,face the reality while a Q6600 can overclock to 3.6GHz,there is not a single game or program that it will not run as smooth as the E8400 at 4.0GHz,but in some cases,when you have loads of apps or games that would be more optimized with more cores,that's when the Q6600 advances way ahead,so overall having a 4.0GHz E8400 over a 3.6GHz Q6600 will only grant you some higher number in your system profile as most people would address that as "eye candy",but realistically less effective in certain situations.
A better example of your false "pregnant" example in technology would be:If you are to lift a 50 pound-object,im sure 2 people with 10% more strength will come up with the same result as 4 people having 10% less strength each.You may call them "more efficient" per person,but fact is they both can lift 50 pounds the same way.But what if you are to lift 500 pounds,I guess your so called "more efficient" man will have a hard time,then they would probably start asking more men to complete the task,my example might not be the best,but I think it contradicts your false "pregnant" example perfectly as it rather belongs to the hospital's forum.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: tim924
This is not a health related forum,we are talking about technology,and as a matter of fact im sure 99.9% of people will agree that 4 people working at the same time will be more beneficial than having only 2 people with 10% more efficiency than each of the 4,face the reality while a Q6600 can overclock to 3.6GHz,there is not a single game or program that it will not run as smooth as the E8400 at 4.0GHz,but in some cases,when you have loads of apps or games that would be more optimized with more cores,that's when the Q6600 advances way ahead,so overall having a 4.0GHz E8400 over a 3.6GHz Q6600 will only grant you some higher number in your system profile as most people would address that as "eye candy",but realistically less effective in certain situations.
A better example of your false "pregnant" example in technology would be:If you are to lift a 50 pound-object,im sure 2 people with 10% more strength will come up with the same result as 4 people having 10% less strength each.You may call them "more efficient" per person,but fact is they both can lift 50 pounds the same way.But what if you are to lift 500 pounds,I guess your so called "more efficient" man will have a hard time,then they would probably start asking more men to complete the task,my example might not be the best,but I think it contradicts your false "pregnant" example perfectly as it rather belongs to the hospital's forum.

All of these analogies are flawed, even though they may have some relevance.

Unless the OP has a 680i board, his better choice over the E8400 would only be a Yorkfield. Why would he pick a Q6600 over a Q9550 or Q9650, but for an extra Franklin's-worth (or two) in price? The Yorkfields are still more over-clockable than the Q6600, even with less scalability than the E8400.

 

[tim924]

Yea,anyone with a logical sense knows the advantages of Q9550 and Q9650 over Q6600,but im sticking to OP's options mentioned above which is between E8400 and Q6600.And realistically if everyone has a unlimited budget no one will ever have to debate on topics like Duo Vs Quad.Please use your logics a bit before you post,people debate on stuff within a price range for a reason,or they could just go for the QX9770 which is the fastest at the moment without a doubt not the Q9550 or Q9650.

 

[magnumty]

It is all about the price for me, i would like to have a quad core, and 189 bucks gets me the Q6600, I think I will just keep what I have now, the 8400 does fine for me, even at stock speeds. I also dont like going from 45nm to 65. This chip should last a couple more years before it starts showing too much age I hope, then I will retire it and build a htpc with it I guess. Computers have come a long way, and I cant wait to see what the future holds.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Comparing a dual to a quad is really simple. A quad is superior to a dual, nobody debates this except fanboys or jealous people.(Does anybody debate that a single is better than a dual?) The only argument that exists is if someone needs the extra performance or not. Wasn't speaking about specific models, this is in general.

Jealousy? I could buy 10 quads and put them in my wood burning stove if I wanted.

The point is that if you're a gamer and swap an E8400 out for a Q6600, you're going to get lower FPS in all but a small group of games, and I mean very small. This is a fact.

Owning a quad doesn't make you "cool" or anything. I chose an E8400 for my build because I wanted the extra speed per core rather than more cores because it will give me better performance for what I do. Simple as that.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.

For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.


Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.

You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.

9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.

eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.

For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.


Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.

You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.

9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.

eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......

Then why do duals outperform quads in games with the same video card?

 

[evilbix]

I would recommend going with the dual if you have money, and plan on upgrading again in about 12-18 months (i.e. buying i7 once the prices stabilize).

However, if you plan on holding onto the rig for more than 2+ years then go with the quad.

Duals are better for gaming today, however, in a year or two we should see a lot more utilization of four cores in games.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: nerp
Jealousy? I could buy 10 quads and put them in my wood burning stove if I wanted.

That wouldn't be very smart, they don't burn very well at all. As far as what you guys are arguing about, this guy who only posts a time or two per month has the answer:

Originally posted by: evilbix
I would recommend going with the dual if you have money, and plan on upgrading again in about 12-18 months

However, if you plan on holding onto the rig for more than 2+ years then go with the quad.

Of course, alot of us around here have been saying that same thing since quads became low priced enough that us mere mortals could afford them.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.

For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.


Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.

You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.

9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.

eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......

I have had a Q9450 @ 3.6. I'm not talking out of my ass. Quads are only better than duals at things that actually take advantage of 4 cores. Otherwise, two faster cores are better.

I went E8400 @ 3.8 ---> Q9450 @ 3.6-----> E8600 @ 4.3. I have the resources to go either way. Guess what I am sticking with until 32nm?

*Edit* : I am a gamer, so that is the slant I am coming from. I am well aware of the benefits of 4 cores for applications other than games.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Denithor
But why would you take a step backwards like that?

Quads are superior to duals.

Q6600 is a step back MOST of the time from a E8400.

For gaming, a E8600 @ 4.3 smokes the chip in your sig.


Also, it seems like you are just flame-baiting, because you dont really have any facts, yet you make absolute statements.

You can have 1,000 cores, but if the software doesnt exist to support it, it doesnt really matter.

9 pregnant women dont make a baby in 1 month.

eh?....AFAIK, FPS difference between the 2 chips @ stock would not be that noticeable, as cpu is secondary to GPU UNLESS we have a cpu bottleneck, even if we clock both chips, and what is 5-10 FPS when you are getting 80+, however quad core is much better with everything else than the dual core. We now also have MORE quad aware games coming out (FC2...), yet YOU spout on to others they are flame baiting?......is that because you ONLY have a dual core yourself....get a grip....Quads are obviously better than Duals......

Then why do duals outperform quads in games with the same video card?

Because they are clocked higher.....If you read correctly, I stated this and said that it wouldn't be such a grand difference to be noticed when you have high FPS anyway!!