E8400 vs Q6600 for $200

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hennethannun

Senior member
Jun 25, 2005
269
0
0
fair enough, I was rather careless with my usage of the two terms. You bring up a perfectly valid situation where the productivity of single-threaded apps can be improved by multi-core processors. but I think my larger point, that the number of situations where 4 cores as opposed to 2 is a significant advantage is still relatively small, remains valid. There are undoubtedly lots of people who fall into that category, but I would feel comfortable betting that a significant majority of home PC users do not.
 

richwenzel

Member
Sep 19, 2007
172
0
0
Any chance that the new instruction set in the e8400 keeps it more competitive long-term as developers incorporate that with multi-core support?

My vote for video games is e8400...Figure you can gte .8 ghz over a 6600 when OC, better performance now and the near to mid future...

(and to the person that said 2010 is less than 2 years away, on average it is more than 2 years away as most of 2010 is more than 24 months away, not less (only 1.75 are less), while I agree with you that a 3 year old cpu can run games fine, you seem to twist that part of your argument)

Rich
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Originally posted by: 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.

E8400: $189.00

Q6600: $199.00
 

edrom

Junior Member
Feb 13, 2008
23
0
0
My vote for video games is e8400

I think that for video games you are correct, richwenzel.

I enjoy controversy because I can learn so much from differeing opinions. I think that there are several kinds of users and so they each may be correct for their own requirements. Consider:

Gamer who upgrades less than 2 year cycle: e8400 OC-ed as much as is safe..

Video person wanting fast divx render: q9450 or other sse4.1, more cores the better

multi-tasking ADD type, q6600 would be a good choice right now for them.

No doubt there are numerous other categories, personalities, requirements, etc. And that's part of what makes this interesting, I think.

I won't upgrade again until > 2 years (sad but true. fixed income, ya know.) I am a multi tasker but also want fast rendering, so I'm in the q9450 group. But I can see how other processors would suit other people better.

Does that make sense?
 

edrom

Junior Member
Feb 13, 2008
23
0
0
E8400: $189.00
Q6600: $199.00

Yeah, but gamers right now want a really, really fast single thread, at least that's what I'm hearing (I'm not a gamer). So the e8400 can be that really, really fast single thread screamer for them. Besides, a hard core gamer will upgrade in less than 18 months (maybe less than 8 months!), so they will get their quad core screamers in time when the games are taking better advantage of multiple cores.

Maybe I should let gamers speak for themselves. Just reading what people's requirements are make me think that they would prefer the faster OC-ed dual e8400 than the Q6600.

Over the 2 I'd choose the q6600 because I'm a multi-tasker and not a gamer. I want a stable quad core (doesn't have to be OC-ed much if at all) rather than a screaming dual core. Nothing wrong with screaming. It just doesn't meet my needs.

Edro
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: hennethannun
fair enough, I was rather careless with my usage of the two terms. You bring up a perfectly valid situation where the productivity of single-threaded apps can be improved by multi-core processors. but I think my larger point, that the number of situations where 4 cores as opposed to 2 is a significant advantage is still relatively small, remains valid. There are undoubtedly lots of people who fall into that category, but I would feel comfortable betting that a significant majority of home PC users do not.

You speak the truth!!!
 

Gatecrasher3

Senior member
Oct 15, 2004
417
0
76
holy crap, if this thread had a poll it would be %50 %50.

i can wait till march for the 9450, so do we know what the comparison will be like for the 9450 vs the 8400?
i mean, will the 9450 be the clear winner over the 8400 for gaming and raw power?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: Gatecrasher3
holy crap, if this thread had a poll it would be %50 %50.

i can wait till march for the 9450, so do we know what the comparison will be like for the 9450 vs the 8400?
i mean, will the 9450 be the clear winner over the 8400 for gaming and raw power?

Probably, but at a price.
 

Caminetto

Senior member
Jul 29, 2001
821
49
91
Anyone want to ?best guess? for when the 8400s will be available again, and for the asking price on the new 9450s?

FYI:
It may be May before the 8400 shows up again.

Looks like the asking price of the 9450 is going to be around $350 to $400 (or $316 per @ 1000).
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: Caminetto
Anyone want to ?best guess? for when the 8400s will be available again, and for the asking price on the new 9450s?

FYI:
It may be May before the 8400 shows up again.

Looks like the asking price of the 9450 is going to be around $350 to $400 (or $316 per @ 1000).

fwiw - some MC's have been getting a handful sporadically. I was at the Cambridge, MA on monday afternoon and they had just received 5 8400s. OOS now though.
 

Winterpool

Senior member
Mar 1, 2008
830
0
0
I've been following this discussion, and perusing many of the online benchmarks, trying to decide the same question: Q6600 v E8400 (which could more generally be framed as present quadcore v near-future dualcore). As with many other contentious issues, even when we agree on the data we have (current benchmarks, cpu prices, energy costs, etc), we can't come to a definitive conclusion because of future variables, the data we don't have and can only guess.

For example, I don't think energy prices are going to come down any time soon, but how fast will they be increasing? The inflation figures released this past week were rather alarming... And do we even know what cpu prices will be? The original terms of this discussion assumed the Micro Centre sale prices ($190 E8400 v $200 Q6600), but the E8400s are essentiallly unavailable whilst the Q6600s seem to be plentiful. In the next couple of months, the E8400s (not to mention other Penryns) should become available in real volume, but the Q6600 could very well settle at a price higher than the current MC sale. I don't believe the leaked price schedules anymore: without real competition from Sunnyvale, Intel can take its time releasing new processors at lower prices. Look at the current transition to Penryn: where are the Wolfdales? When they're available, some retailers are charging $250+ for E8400s. It seems Intel is quite content to clear out Conroe inventories first.

I've been slowly accumulating the parts for a modern system, taking advantage of the post-Christmas sales and rebates (for example heavily discounted Antec NeoHE and P182). This week I was rushed into buying a video card (which I'd intended to be one of my final purchases) because of the limited availability of the first-run ASUS EN9600GTs (what can I say? I'm a sucker for a pretty lady ). I also bought the Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4 as the rebate was about to expire. At this point I've only the motherboard and cpu left. A part of me wants to have done now, which means buying the $200 Q6600. I can wait, say, a month for sub-$200 E8400s to become available (I'm going to buy the Abit IP35-E before its Newegg rebate expires in mid-March). But what if Wolfdales remain rare and/or over $200 for the spring? Then I'll kick myself for not buying these MC Q6600s.

If I were certain that affordable Wolfdales were imminent, then I'd wait for the E8400, maybe even the E8500. I'm wary of quadcore's greater power draw: at idle (which is realistically where my computer will be most of the time), it can be a 90 per cent difference. I'm not a gamer, and my only high-intensity tasks will be video encoding and some editing. More cores are better for media, but on the other hand the Q6600 won't support SSE4.

Of course given the facts above, I should probably just buy the $100 E4500 from Micro Centre. Does anyone know if those are still available? By the way, I'm typing this on an Athlon XP system!

Edit: if Caminetto is correct, then my spare kit is going to be sitting round all spring waiting for Penryn. Someone please convince me otherwise...
 

edrom

Junior Member
Feb 13, 2008
23
0
0
Wow. I'm in a VERY similar situation starting with a completely new system build purchased in bits and pieces as discounts and rebates occurred. And likewise I have absolutely everything, every fan, cable, widget and gizmo except for the processor and mobo.

I, too, have been very tempted by the recent Q6600 sale price. But I?m holding myself back and, I think, for good reasons.

The ?clock for clock? speed increase, lower power, and lower heat are some of the reasons. I?m not sure that we can figure out in advance just what impact these will have on our personal computing.

Also, I realize that most think the low multiplier is a bad thing and I?m not really smart enough to refute them. But I perceive that there might be a reason behind it. What I?m hearing is that the current crop of mobos can?t support the high fsb needed for the higher clock speeds without upgrading the bios and even then.. .. But like the DDR3 which hasn?t yet reached the capacity/latency/price point that it someday will, I think that there is some ?thinking ahead? going on here. What I?m saying, and what I?m counting on with a new build, is that getting the newest technology in a processor AND a ?matching? mobo, at least regarding technology, is going to work out pretty good. These are assumptions, I know. So if I?m totally wrong, well, .. oh well.

On the other hand, with nehlem (sp) coming out later this year or early next, with its new socket and thus new NB and mobo, well, this is the LAST of the socket 775 and DDR2 rigs that will have new technology in them for the most part. I?m not minding that at all. When the dust settles with the new socket, new MB, new CPUs, new memory, etc., well, then I?ll have to re-learn everything that I can and build my next ground up custom build. I?m looking forward to it.

But for now, I?m still holding out for the last new socket 775 processor crop.

As for the dual v. quad. . . Really . . . Sure, there does seem to be, historically, a greater capacity to OC a dual than a quad. But think about it: If you really want to future proof then you surly should go for the quad. I?ve repeated how software development has a >1 year lag, maybe >2. But that isn?t always true. I suspect that SOME creative, competitive game software company will have a breakthrough quad-core ready game that will blow socks off. But again that is pure speculation. I could likely be wrong and you are certainly free to ROTFL at anytime in my long post.

I?m holding out for the Q9450. For me it is settled. I?ve seen it somewhere (uh, keno?, ?keen on something?..) for $350. It appeared to be taking orders. I?m not familiar with the place but resellerratings.com seems about par for an online company. (More people complain when there is a problem than people who commend. I take that into account but still read the specific complaints. Sour grapes or legit?)

I tend to buy where I?ve bought before, so I?m hoping that N.E. will get it in. (Can I say the names of retail places on a forum? I?m not sure of the netettique.)

Ya, know. Overall we live in such a great time. Sure, the economy looks like it is going down the tube. But look at the technology that we have available to us! In 20 or 30 years from now you young OC-ers will be geezers like me. And technology will be Startrek in comparison. But you can tell your kids, ?I remember when..?

Life is good. (No, not an ad for LG.)

One more week.. One more week.. One more week.. .. .. ..

Edro
 

edrom

Junior Member
Feb 13, 2008
23
0
0
Get both? That's what I did.

Yeah, I thought of that, too.. If I could have gotten myself to a Microcenter during the sale I definitely would have sprung for one. I'd put it into something or another around here.
 

pgde

Junior Member
Mar 2, 2008
3
0
0
Originally posted by: toadeater
... 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.

Try Flight Simulator X unless you want to turn everything down to lowest detail etc and defeat the purpose of moving from FS9 to FSX.

 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
IMO it's important to compare things in context. Who buys an E8400 or Q6600 and plays at 1024x768 with 0AA/0AF? I just dont see any backup for the claims that E8400 4.0ghz will run faster in games than Q6600 3.4ghz. Slower clocked C2D processors are enough in the real world since you are mostly GPU limited anyways.

But there will be tasks like WinRAR where a Quad will be 40% faster. So the way I look at it, E8400 won't be materially faster in games while there is a chance a Quad will be faster in some apps. For this reason I went with a quad right off the bat 6 months ago. Then again I run BOINC and video encoding so it wasn't difficult to choose for my purposes.

Here are some 8800GTX cpu scaling benches at 1600x1200 with AA/AF:

Company of Heroes
C2D 1.86ghz = 65.5fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 71.1fps

FEAR
C2D 1.86ghz = 65fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 65fps

Prey
C2D 1.86ghz = 71.5fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 72.8fps

X3 Reunion
C2D 1.86ghz = 63.8fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 76.9fps

Here are more cpu scaling benches with 8800GT 512/8800GTX:
COD4 1280x1024
C2D 2.4ghz = 77
C2D 2.93ghz = 77

UT3 2048x1536
C2D 2.4ghz = 85
C2D 2.93ghz = 85

Crysis 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 26
C2D 2.93ghz = 26

World in Conflict - 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 36
C2D 2.93ghz = 36

Bioshock 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 63
C2D 2.93ghz = 65

Command and Conquer 3 - 2048x1536
C2D 1.86ghz = 30
C2D 2.93ghz = 30

Supreme Commander 1600x1200
C2D 2.93ghz = 38
C2Q 2.66ghz = 43

Battlefield 2142 1600x1200
C2D 1.9ghz = 63
C2D 2.93ghz = 63
*this one has 7900GTX

Furthermore, a single core A64 @ 2.4ghz isn't sufficient to play half of the current games, while X2 3800+ 2.0ghz can still be used to some extent. E8400 4.0ghz is about 25% faster than Q6600 3.4ghz (theoretically speaking), much in the same way A64 2.4ghz was 20% faster than X2 3800+. Of course X2 3800+ is itself slow today. Therefore, you can make an argument that even Q6600 3.4ghz won't be fast enough in the future (i.e. E8400 4.0ghz = 20fps in 2010, Q6600 3.4ghz = 36fps in 2010 while Nehalem 4.5ghz = 60fps in 2010).

So it might be a moot point afterall. But things like electricity costs and the cost of an aftermarket heatsink to get Q6600 to 3.4ghz should be taken into consideration.
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
IMO it's important to compare things in context. Who buys an E8400 or Q6600 and plays at 1024x768 with 0AA/0AF? I just dont see any backup for the claims that E8400 4.0ghz will run faster in games than Q6600 3.4ghz. Slower clocked C2D processors are enough in the real world since you are mostly GPU limited anyways.

But there will be tasks like WinRAR where a Quad will be 40% faster. So the way I look at it, E8400 won't be materially faster in games while there is a chance a Quad will be faster in some apps. For this reason I went with a quad right off the bat 6 months ago. Then again I run BOINC and video encoding so it wasn't difficult to choose for my purposes.

Here are some 8800GTX cpu scaling benches at 1600x1200 with AA/AF:

Company of Heroes
C2D 1.86ghz = 65.5fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 71.1fps

FEAR
C2D 1.86ghz = 65fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 65fps

Prey
C2D 1.86ghz = 71.5fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 72.8fps

X3 Reunion
C2D 1.86ghz = 63.8fps
C2D 3.33ghz = 76.9fps

Here are more cpu scaling benches with 8800GT 512/8800GTX:
COD4 1280x1024
C2D 2.4ghz = 77
C2D 2.93ghz = 77

UT3 2048x1536
C2D 2.4ghz = 85
C2D 2.93ghz = 85

Crysis 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 26
C2D 2.93ghz = 26

World in Conflict - 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 36
C2D 2.93ghz = 36

Bioshock 1600x1200
C2D 2.4ghz = 63
C2D 2.93ghz = 65

Command and Conquer 3 - 2048x1536
C2D 1.86ghz = 30
C2D 2.93ghz = 30

Supreme Commander 1600x1200
C2D 2.93ghz = 38
C2Q 2.66ghz = 43

Battlefield 2142 1600x1200
C2D 1.9ghz = 63
C2D 2.93ghz = 63
*this one has 7900GTX

Furthermore, a single core A64 @ 2.4ghz isn't sufficient to play half of the current games, while X2 3800+ 2.0ghz can still be used to some extent. E8400 4.0ghz is about 25% faster than Q6600 3.4ghz (theoretically speaking), much in the same way A64 2.4ghz was 20% faster than X2 3800+. But of course X2 3800+ is itself slow today so you can make an argument that even Q6600 3.4ghz won't be fast enough in the future (i.e. E8400 4.0ghz = 20fps in 2010, Q6600 3.4ghz = 36fps in 2010 while Nehalem 4.5ghz = 60fps in 2010). So it might be a moot point afterall.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126

What are you linking exactly? 1024x768 MQ benchmarks? Why exactly would I need to spend $200 on a processor if I intend to play at 1024x768? When I play a game I always max out the graphics cards. If there is an option for insane corpses, check; high quality shadows, check; Ultra textures, check; far distance: highest, check; resolution increase to 1920x1080 (my native), check. Videocard performance: on its knees

It might be me but I cant' really tell the difference between 150fps and 100fps either
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
why would you think that it would be slower at any other res, and that a 3.4 q6600 would be faster?


You're right in saying the difference is less when the resolution is higher and the video card becomes more of the bottleneck, but the difference is still there, and the e8400 wins.
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Originally posted by: RussianSensation


It might be me but I cant' really tell the difference between 150fps and 100fps


Yah but i bet you could tell the difference in 20 and 30 fps.

Either way, the fact of the matter is there are too many q6600 65nm chips left on the shelves, and the price drop is to clear them out. they are holding back the e8400 because everyone is buying them up. The state of retail sales definitely makes a statement about quality/price ratios here.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: jaredpace

You're right in saying the difference is less when the resolution is higher and the video card becomes more of the bottleneck, but the difference is still there, and the e8400 wins.

Where? I just linked a dozen+ benchmarks -- in none of them did a C2D 2.93ghz/3.33ghz processor provide a more playable gaming experience than did a 2.4ghz C2D. If you have some benches that show otherwise, I would gladly retract my statements.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: jaredpace

Either way, the fact of the matter is there are too many q6600 65nm chips left on the shelves, and the price drop is to clear them out. they are holding back the e8400 because everyone is buying them up. The state of retail sales definitely makes a statement about quality/price ratios here.

Ok, so if the honda civic/toyota camry are the best selling cars in their class, that must mean they are the best cars automatically since they are the most popular cars among consumers? You are assuming that majority of people in the world are intelligent enough and therefore if majority votes A, then choice A MUST be the most optimal/best solution...... :Q
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
yah, but you're comparing older 65nm tech. 2 more cores is obviously not providing a benifit for the cost premium. If you check the crysis bench in the xbit link, theres about a 6 percent increase in performance when using the overclocked wolfdale.

while its 6% it's still faster, so where is the arguement? especially when the price is cheaper.

the decision to buy a q6600 lies in the need for use of multi-threaded programs. Then the premium is worth it.

In the meanwhile I'll look for comparisons of oc'd q6600 vs oc'd e8400 in games where the resolutions are very high.
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: jaredpace

Either way, the fact of the matter is there are too many q6600 65nm chips left on the shelves, and the price drop is to clear them out. they are holding back the e8400 because everyone is buying them up. The state of retail sales definitely makes a statement about quality/price ratios here.

Ok, so if the honda civic/toyota camry are the best selling cars in their class, that must mean they are the best cars automatically since they are the most popular cars among consumers? You are assuming that majority of people in the world are intelligent enough and therefore if majority votes A, then choice A MUST be the most optimal/best solution...... :Q

no im just saying that the civic/camry you're suggesting is faster than whatever you're driving
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |