E8400 vs Q6600 for $200

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Well, a Q6600 @ ~3.2 will be pretty much video card limited anyway, I'd rather have two extra cores to head into games that are 1-2 years out. Not to mention that the Q9450 is imminent, I'd take the 9450 over either the 6600 or 8400 by far.

Do you honestly believe a Q6600 will be enough oomph for games in 2010? I don't. The E8400 is the likely pick if you must build a machine *today*, with the Q9450 the most likely candidate if you can wait.

Neither one is going to be sufficient by 2010. Both will likely be enough for a 12 month upgrade cycle. It's even odds on which one will be better midway through 2009.

So the real question is: what will you do with the hardware once it's retired for an upgrade? If the likely home for hardware is a server/media box, the clear answer is E8400 (less power usage, better multimedia decode capabilities). If the answer is resale, then probably Q6600.

Aw come on now, you're just being petty. It's 2008 now, and what was the best you could buy in 2005? An AMD X2 4800+ or so, which is STILL fine for today's games. I'm fully betting that either an E8400 or Q6600 will still be a very viable processor two years from now, even for games, provided the video card is upgraded to keep up.

Now if you're an elitist who's only happy running everything at 2560x1536 with max detail, max AA, max AF, etc, etc, then even today's video cards and processors are weak.

All we can do is pick a good deal and go with it.

There's little performance difference between a E8400 and Q6600 when you overclock, ESPECIALLY from games at the highest detail you can get away with at playable frame rates, because your video card will be limited.

The clincher for me is that developers are shifting towards multi-core support, which is why I believe that in 2010 (less than 2 years from now), a Q6600 overclocked will still be viable, the same way a 3-year-old Socket 939 X2 in the mid-high 2ghz range is STILL a decent processor for gaming.

I mean sure, if you're buying now for gaming, an X2 makes almost no sense, but does having an X2 @ 2.8Ghz + a 8800GT mean you can't play CoD4? Can't play Crysis? Can't play Witcher? Am I missing some hidden logic?

EDIT : Back in 2005, we had tons of people claiming that higher ghz single-cores were better for gaming, but how many FX-57s and such are still gaming? Further, how does an old single-core stack up against something like an X2-4800 these days? Plenty of games now take advantage of Dual-Core, and the future looks bright for general multicore (ie; 4+ cores).

 

[v8envy]

After further consideration, I agree with Arkaign.

It's unlikely that we'll see more than a 30% or so improvement in mainstream single core performance in the next 12-18 months. Which means game developers will be forced to multithread their apps if they require more processing power. A 3.2 ghz Q6600 has around 1.5x the raw processing oomph of a 4ghz E8300, so just may be enough to last you a whole extra game release cycle (6 more months).

Go with the Q6600 for $200. It's a screaming deal.

 

[Tempered81]

no matter which you pick, q6600 or e8400, only time will tell which will be faster into the next 2-3 years of games. If games do in fact incorporate full multi-thread functionality instead of just saying they do (crysis) then the quads are going to be faster. Like v8envy said, at that point the oc'd q6600 will be 1.5x faster than the oc'd e8400. That time is not here yet, and as it stands, the e8400 is cheaper & faster. The q6600, now that it is only $10 more, is a great bargain, yet it is still first generation quad core technology. in 2-3 years when games run optimized on 4+ cores, we will probably be seeing the successor to nehalem, and hardware enthusiasts will be upgrading again. So far we have the ut3 engine running on 4 cores, yet the advantage is not 1:2. You dont get 50fps on a 3ghz dual core, and 100fps on a 3ghz quad core, instead you get maybe a 8% improvement. when you move to penryn you automatically are getting about a 6% ipc improvement over conroes. The best hope for q6600's in games is going to be multithreaded support asap.

Also keep in mind, as arkaign said, when you switch to ultra-high res's and textures and stress the gpu drastically, it minimizes the differences in a 3.2ghz q6600 and a 4.0ghz e8400. However, when you put a 9800gtx or R700 in your system, that margain will again resemble the 1024x768 cpu stressing game benchmarks in which the oc'd e8400 has a considerable lead. Only time will tell. Supposedly alan wake has good quad-core support and it is on the horizon. We still have supreme commander and UT3-based games.

Would be nice to see games like Cod4 and Crysis show 90-100% improvements on a quad-core when compared to a dual-core, yet this is hardly the case.

My vote is still for the e8400 @ $189

 

[sgrinavi]

I have both - the E8400 is fun, but $ for $ I would go for the Q6600...

 

[lopri]

But there is a bigger chance that mobo won't survive 2~3 years with an overclocked Q6600.

 

[pcmax]

Originally posted by: lopri
But there is a bigger chance that mobo won't survive 2~3 years with an overclocked Q6600.

And so we shall see what the P35 chipset and solid state capacitors are made of

 

[Arkaign]

The best news is that either is one hell of a deal for $200.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Do you honestly believe a Q6600 will be enough oomph for games in 2010? I don't.

It will easily be enough. Even an overclocked E4x00 will be enough. Which games can't you play on a three year old Pentium D right now? I can't find any, and it will remain that way through all of 2008 by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter if you are CPU-limited down to 45FPS or something, because you're not going to notice any lag, certainly not enough to make you think the game is running slow.

Another thing to consider is that most PC games are ports of console games, and console hardware isn't going to radically change by 2010. Consoles are the minimum spec for most games being released today, so the brunt of the load is being targeted at the GPU.

If all you're worried about is gaming, you don't need a very powerful CPU, unless you like theoretical benchmarks more than gaming at a reasonable FPS rate. Get the best graphics card you can and don't worry about the CPU too much until maybe developers start making PC games for PCs again instead of giving us castrated console ports for juvenile delinquents and "casual gamers" that would be just as happy playing with a cell phone.

 

[aigomorla]

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0882.jpg

*waiting for the E8500 to come out for some overclocking goodness*

*twiddling my thumb*

I have a 780i also thats currently at a custom builder getting custom blocks drafted. On that im gonna use 9800GTX in sli.

Yeah im a hardware whore :T


Dualcores i have to agree are more fun to play around with because there straight up easier to oc.


Store messed up on my second card. Debating if i should return that diamond for a ATI. or if i should keep it.. what you guys think?

Oh the diamond says ruby edition if that helps.

 

[nyker96]

after seening the q6600 powr consumption, it's little hard to recommended it at this point. I say if you can wait why not wait til March and take a peak at the new 45nm quads. Might give you a real choice then. or else I say E8xxx then E9xxx as an upgrade later. That will save you plenty electricity bills.

 

[Tim]

I like my e8400, it runs pretty cool

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: nyker96
after seening the q6600 powr consumption, it's little hard to recommended it at this point. I say if you can wait why not wait til March and take a peak at the new 45nm quads. Might give you a real choice then. or else I say E8xxx then E9xxx as an upgrade later. That will save you plenty electricity bills.

The power bill component is not to be laughed at either. My Q6600 at 3.3GHz costs me $15/month in electricity bill while running 24x7 fully loaded.

Now it would cost me even more in power bill to get the work done I need to get done were I too purchase >1 E8400 to get my work done.

So yes power costs must be factored in with these 65nm quad-core's IF you aren't convinced you are going to be using >2 cores for your tasks OR if you are likely to be leaving your computer idle say >50% of the hours of the day.

If you use your CPU cycles, and the computer is likely to be fully loaded a good percentage of the time, then the only thing that is going to beat a $200 Q6600 is a $250 Q9300.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It makes me wonder what I got myself into, buying two Q6600 G0s. I'm on a fairly limited budget, so increased power costs are an issue for me. I thought I was getting an incredible deal at $200 for a quad-core, but perhaps it would have been wiser to wait for the Q9450, if it would have paid for itself in terms of lower power bills.

What do you think? Should I sell off my Q6600s and buy Q9450s instead?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It makes me wonder what I got myself into, buying two Q6600 G0s. I'm on a fairly limited budget, so increased power costs are an issue for me. I thought I was getting an incredible deal at $200 for a quad-core, but perhaps it would have been wiser to wait for the Q9450, if it would have paid for itself in terms of lower power bills.

What do you think? Should I sell off my Q6600s and buy Q9450s instead?

Well you got to figure those G0's are gonna cost you ~$30/month if you run them fully loaded 24/7. More if you clock them above 3.3GHz with more than 1.4Vcore.

Your electricity costs may be different from mine naturally, my location is Pennsylvania for reference.

Figure 2/3 of the power consumption is from CPU, and Q9450 will use 1/2 the power of a Q6600 at comparable clocks. So your potential savings are 1/3 the power bill, or $10/month in going with Q9450.

So now you got to run out the numbers as far as how long you intend to operate the chips (their lifetime to you) and figure out how much you stand to save in electricity bills by upgrading and figure out if you'll save money in the end.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Figure 2/3 of the power consumption is from CPU, and Q9450 will use 1/2 the power of a Q6600 at comparable clocks. So your potential savings are 1/3 the power bill, or $10/month in going with Q9450.

So now you got to run out the numbers as far as how long you intend to operate the chips (their lifetime to you) and figure out how much you stand to save in electricity bills by upgrading and figure out if you'll save money in the end.

It sounds like I would save money in the end. At $10/mo power savings, and a difference in chip cost of $150, then it would take 15 months to break even. I intend to run these chips for longer than that, so it looks like I would save money.

I might even be able to sell my Q6600s for more than $200, if I act quickly. The downside is that I would have to wait for the Q9450s to be released. But I still have to wait to buy a new mobo and cooler next month anyways, so it probably wouldn't delay my rig much to wait anyways.

 

[edrom]

I like this thread!

I'm waiting for the q9450 instead of the very tempting q6600 primarily for the sse4.1 and the lower heat factor.
lower heat = lower cooling = lower noise
Lower noise is one of my main objectives since this will be right next to me 24x7. Yes, it is next to my bed and being disabled I'm in bed more often than not.

But I never thought about the $avings with the lower power. That really appeals to me, too. More strength to wait instead of giving in to q666. (I'm just being stupid, stupid joke.)

The q6600 is very appealing because of the OC capabilities, but I'm still counting on the q9450 to shine because of other factors in spite of the low multiplier.

I'm also waiting for the x40 so that I can take fuller advantage of the processor and memory OC tweaks and bigger FSB bandwidth. (Not sure all my terminology is correct but I figure you can translate well enough.)

Regarding heat, I have in my room 3 computers that are mine and a 4th one that I'm working on for someone else. I use VNC to access all of them but still like them close in case I gotta reboot with media. The openSUSE vnc doesn't kick in until I enter a user/pass so that has to be local to me.

Back to heat.. These 4 machines generate a lot of it. Oh, I also have 2 NAS which wouldn't have to be in my room - they both generate a lot of heat. Now I like to be warm, but when it gets around 90 degrees C in here, even I get hot. So this new build of mine needs to be cool. I'll try to OC it a little but not if I'm going to generate a lot of heat.

As to the other comments on this thread (it is eclectic), the q6600 will still be a great processor in 2010. Consider that more cores will be used by apps and games as time goes on. If I have a choice between a fast dual and a quad, I'd go for the quad.

On the other hand, I don't think that anyone would be unhappy with the fast dual. But it just isn't going to be a match for the quad as apps catch up with time..

Thanks for the insight about cost of electricity to run these computers. In MD my cost per kwh is higher. I expect I'll pay for the higher cpu cost in a year.

Edro

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: edrom
Regarding heat, I have in my room 3 computers that are mine and a 4th one that I'm working on for someone else. I use VNC to access all of them but still like them close in case I gotta reboot with media. The openSUSE vnc doesn't kick in until I enter a user/pass so that has to be local to me.

Back to heat.. These 4 machines generate a lot of it. Oh, I also have 2 NAS which wouldn't have to be in my room - they both generate a lot of heat. Now I like to be warm, but when it gets around 90 degrees C in here, even I get hot. So this new build of mine needs to be cool. I'll try to OC it a little but not if I'm going to generate a lot of heat.

Yowzers! I bet you mean 90F and not 90C!

At any rate, you should chat with Aigomorla or Rubycon about getting some kind of watercooling with external radiator setup (as in external to your house, like on the other side of a window or something).

In college I lived with 4 computers stacked up in my bedroom. I never turned a heater on all winter in my whole apartment. Summer was absolutely dreadful!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: edrom
Back to heat.. These 4 machines generate a lot of it. Oh, I also have 2 NAS which wouldn't have to be in my room - they both generate a lot of heat. Now I like to be warm, but when it gets around 90 degrees C in here, even I get hot. So this new build of mine needs to be cool. I'll try to OC it a little but not if I'm going to generate a lot of heat.

If it gets to 90C in your room, then you have worse problems than computer problems.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: edrom

Regarding heat, I have in my room 3 computers that are mine and a 4th one that I'm working on for someone else. I use VNC to access all of them but still like them close in case I gotta reboot with media. The openSUSE vnc doesn't kick in until I enter a user/pass so that has to be local to me.

Back to heat.. These 4 machines generate a lot of it. Oh, I also have 2 NAS which wouldn't have to be in my room - they both generate a lot of heat. Now I like to be warm, but when it gets around 90 degrees C in here, even I get hot. So this new build of mine needs to be cool. I'll try to OC it a little but not if I'm going to generate a lot of heat.

I'm guessing you meant 90 F...
... because... 90 C is really 194 F :Q

Otherwise, I definitely agree with your major point. Having my PC in my bedroom has made me much more heat-concious. That's one reason I switched from a HD2900XT to an 8800GTS (which runs ~25C cooler load/idle when fan is set at a decent speed).

My next CPU must also be cool-running (and very overclockable).

I'll probably get in on whatever the E8400 replacement is -- no quads for me due to heat.


EDIT: 3 people mentioned the 90 C thing in < 2 minutes time. LOL -- sorry!!

 

[edrom]

EDIT: 3 people mentioned the 90 C thing in < 2 minutes time. LOL -- sorry!!

ROTFL!

Oh! I think under 2 minutes is great! That's what we are here for, isn't it? 90C! Laughing at each other once in a while!

Of course I meant 90F. grin

Although I do like the extra heat in winter, I didn't think of external cooling for summer. I'm sure there's more that I can do here about this problem. I do worry about my CPUs when the ambient temp is so high. Water might be necessary with the q9450 if I push is up to 3.2ghz in this environment. They might run cooler due to 45nm circuits but they are also, I think, more sensitive to high temps.

Otherwise, I definitely agree with your major point. Having my PC in my bedroom has made me much more heat-concious.

Yeah. And can you imagine 4 of them in your room? And one is a server? (dual quad core machine) It is like being in a data center without A/C. (Well, not quite.) Even my monitor (24" widescreen Westinghouse) runs 100 F or more. I keep a IR heat sensor to check temps of devices. (Handy device for OC-ing, BTW.)

The original question, "E8400 vs Q6600 for $200" got, uh, what do you call it, hijacked?, so I'm sorry if I contributed to that. I really think you can't go wrong any way right now. The E8400 and the Q6600 are deals at $200, and if you can wait, the q9450 would also be a good choice but will cost you another $150, or around that. A person just has gotta make a choice.

I'm waiting. But the $200 q6600 is sure tempting!!!!!!!!!!! (be strong -- be strong -- be strong (i tell myself))

Ed

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It sounds like I would save money in the end. At $10/mo power savings, and a difference in chip cost of $150, then it would take 15 months to break even. I intend to run these chips for longer than that, so it looks like I would save money.

I made a slight mistake in the calculations. It would only be $5/mo per CPU power savings cost for the Q9450 over the Q6600. So that would take 30 months, or 2.5 years, to pay for itself. By then it will likely be obsolete, so I'm calling it a wash and am going to stick with my $200 Q6600s.

I got my power figures from here , and am calculating with $0.10/KWh.

 

[edrom]

Thank you for the correction, V.L.

I'm still hoping for the lower heat, less cooling, quieter PC factors.

As much as I enjoy squeezing just a little more out of a machine by OC-ing it, I'll back off to stock speeds if the heat ends up too much. But then, I think, that heat will only occur when I'm using the cpu to the max such as when I'm rendering.

Right now I have two computers that I use for video and seeing them at 100% CPU utilization is all too common. The 3rd computer is just a recording (tivo-like) monstor with 3 hauppauge recording devices (2 cards, 1 external USB). It chugs along. I would drop frames if I ran is at 100% so I don't render on it. I will use it for file moves across the network, as a HTPC when duty calls, and other non-intensive tasks.

Then I have this server I'm working on for a friend. Can't seem to get bacula to interface with webmin. And can't seem to get bacula bat rpm to install. Sorry, I'm just frustrated about this 4th computer. Gotta get it out of here.

Ed ro

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It sounds like I would save money in the end. At $10/mo power savings, and a difference in chip cost of $150, then it would take 15 months to break even. I intend to run these chips for longer than that, so it looks like I would save money.

I made a slight mistake in the calculations. It would only be $5/mo per CPU power savings cost for the Q9450 over the Q6600. So that would take 30 months, or 2.5 years, to pay for itself. By then it will likely be obsolete, so I'm calling it a wash and am going to stick with my $200 Q6600s.

I got my power figures from here , and am calculating with $0.10/KWh.

Yup, that would be my conclusion too. I will not obsolete my Q6600's until I can get my hands onto comparably affordable Nehalem's.

With SMT, the opportunity to get 2X the performance per CPU at comparable power consumption to my current 65nm quads makes for a compelling value proposition.

 

[hennethannun]

Penley, the majority here seems to be leaning towards Q6600, which is definitely a fine option, but i have a slightly different opinion.

value, as defined by performance v. price, is, or at least should be, the driving force behind component decisions. So, let's consider both price and performance for these cpus.
Price first: now both of these processors carry the same price. Therefore, if we ignore the performance issues, the default choice should be the cooler, less power hungry chip, which will cost less money to operate.

Performance: a clearcut split decision here. E8400 clearly has better single thread performance, Q6600 clearly wins in multi-tasking. If anything, the Q6600 edges ahead by means of the dubious 'future-proof'-ness of quad core.

So the question really comes down to this: Is multi-threaded performance more important to you that the cost savings for running a cooler processor OVER THE EXPECTED LIFESPAN OF YOUR NEW COMPUTER. This last is an important facet. Even if more programs take advantage of multi-threading in 3 years time, that doesn't matter if you will only have this cpu for 2 years.

So basically, what do you do with your PC? video encoding, image editing? Gaming? And how long do you intend to use this setup?

In my opinion, the Q6600, while definitely a great value, is only a better choice than the E8400 if you do an awful lot of heavily multi-threaded tasks. If gaming is your primary activity then there seems to be little advantage to quad-core. Many games these days only barely take advantage of dual-core. and games purpose built for quad-core won't be a reality for 5-10 years. the development cycle for modern games is something like 3 full years, and true quad-core games won't be started until quad-cores are the lowest common denominator of the PC market. Of course, that argument is a bit overblown because games are currently way more GPU limited than CPU limited anyway, but given that knowledge you are still better off with a cooler, lower power cpu.

so basically, unless you are encoding videos etc for 10 or 20 hours a week I just don't see much extra value in the quads. The power/heat advantage of the E8400 is fairly significant, and energy use is definitely the biggest 'hidden-cost' of computing, so it seems like the way to go unless you absolutely need the 50-80% advantage the quad-core offers in a very few specific activities.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: hennethannun
So basically, what do you do with your PC? video encoding, image editing? Gaming? And how long do you intend to use this setup?

In my opinion, the Q6600, while definitely a great value, is only a better choice than the E8400 if you do an awful lot of heavily multi-threaded tasks. If gaming is your primary activity then there seems to be little advantage to quad-core. Many games these days only barely take advantage of dual-core. and games purpose built for quad-core won't be a reality for 5-10 years. the development cycle for modern games is something like 3 full years, and true quad-core games won't be started until quad-cores are the lowest common denominator of the PC market.

Your post was good but I'd like to see the distinction observed between using "heavily multi-threaded" applications versus "heavy multi-tasking". If you load a quad-core with single-threaded apps you can load more single-threaded apps and get more done "per unit time" than on a dual-core unless the dual-core is 2X faster in clockspeed.

For example I run 4 simultaneous instances of my application of interest (Gaussian 03) on my quad-core. Gaussian 03 for windows is a single-threaded application, but by running four instances in parallel (obviously working on 4 different tasks) I do extract far more results per unit time from my computer.

So the question ought to be reduced to, do you multi-task and if you do then do you intend to operate >2 single-threaded (or multi-threaded) applications simultaneously which can be expected to fully load a core on their own?