E8400 vs Q6600 for $200

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Are you sure its $40 and not $20? You were missing a divider of 2 in one of the posts up above (no thanks to me because I reported power bill being up $30 for 2 quads added to my bill)

At $0.10/Kwh, I calulated the cost of a single quad-core as $28.80 per month. Divide that by 0.10 and multiply by 0.14. $40.32 is what I come up with. That's for a single quad.

is that for 24/7 under load?

 

[ddasilva2000]

Hi Everyone,

Im currently looking to purchase a new system. I decided not to go with the Q6600 because it is on the 65nm architecture and the price is currently 270CAD. For $40 more I can upgrade to a Q9300 (which is my limit) or for $40 less I can go to E8400 which is 45nm architecture.

Decisions, Decisons!

Could someone please help me out? Should I wait until end of month and get the E9300 or is it worth it to wait for the E8400 to become available?

Please note I am using the workstation mostly for gaming, however, I want to stretch the workstation to almost 5 yrs if possible.

Thank you,
D

 

[Idontcare]

After reading this thread, and seeing the various sides of the argument for and against quad vs. duals...which do you think is the answer to your question?

 

[ddasilva2000]

Hi,

When I think about it I like the E8400 for its performance, however, the Q9300 will provide better longevity as applications become more available.

The Q6600 is no longer a good idea because its only 1066mhz and the aforementioned CPUs run faster.

Please advise if I have overlooked something

Thank you,
D

 

[Idontcare]

Have you had a chance to see this Q9300 review at XBitlabs?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html

They compare the Q9300 to both the Q6600 and the E8500.

 

[ddasilva2000]

Fantastic article. Thank you for referencing it.

I don't think I will be getting into OC so I am not too worried about the 9300's OC capability. When it comes to whether I go dual or quad...I figure a quad will last longer than a dual core (once more apps become multicore friendly).

What are your thoughts on my statement above?

Cheers,
D

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ddasilva2000
Fantastic article. Thank you for referencing it.

I don't think I will be getting into OC so I am not too worried about the 9300's OC capability. When it comes to whether I go dual or quad...I figure a quad will last longer than a dual core (once more apps become multicore friendly).

What are your thoughts on my statement above?

Cheers,
D

My thoughts are that if you're not going to run applications that take advantage of more than two cores now (i.e video processing, etc.), you might be better off waiting for a quad and just getting an E8400 (E3110) if you can find them. The money saved + the electricity savings over time, plus the continuous lowering of prices over time will probably work out in your favor over the longer run. By the time enough applications become 3 or more thread runnable, you'll be able to take your savings and upgrade this a Q9300 or better, all IMO of course.

 

[ddasilva2000]

Thanks for your thoughts. Why is it so difficult to find the E8400? Do you believe there will be more by end of month?

I have cash in hand

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ddasilva2000
Thanks for your thoughts. Why is it so difficult to find the E8400? Do you believe there will be more by end of month?

I have cash in hand

I've read threads where people state that there are supposed to be more by 3/31/08. The reason is that Intel is holding back on releasing them while ramping up production and trying to clear out the older 65nm stock of chips. I also think that many OEM's (Apple, etc) are getting the majority of the chips right now and the end user is left to wait (all my opinion of course).

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ddasilva2000
Fantastic article. Thank you for referencing it.

I don't think I will be getting into OC so I am not too worried about the 9300's OC capability. When it comes to whether I go dual or quad...I figure a quad will last longer than a dual core (once more apps become multicore friendly).

What are your thoughts on my statement above?

Cheers,
D

My thoughts are that if you're not going to run applications that take advantage of more than two cores now (i.e video processing, etc.), you might be better off waiting for a quad and just getting an E8400 (E3110) if you can find them. The money saved + the electricity savings over time, plus the continuous lowering of prices over time will probably work out in your favor over the longer run. By the time enough applications become 3 or more thread runnable, you'll be able to take your savings and upgrade this a Q9300 or better, all IMO of course.

This is my recommendation too ddasilva2000.

Future proofing is a lot of wasted money these days. Power consumption can eat up $10 a month on something you simply aren't getting any advantage out of...zoom ahead 12 months and you could have bought yourself a CPU upgrade with the saved money that didn't go to your power company.

If you know you are going to put that CPU to use then it is worth the extra money, otherwise its a hard argument to make.

 

[tallman45]

There is an entirely missing component to all this power saving logic

1) Faster processing power brings the system back down to idle faster (or turn off)
2) Other components are freed up (memory, HDD subsystem, etc)

So, while it is true that the Q6600 consumes more power at Idle and at 100% load than an E8500 what is also true is that that Q6600 has returned to Idle (or be turned off) while the E8500 is still processing at full load

Next, The memory HDD and other components are also still running at full load on the E8500 longer than on the Q6600

Based on the stock power consumption of the Exbits article, the E8500 consumes 2346 (20*213.3) watts in a 20 minute full load test, the Q6600 consumes 2009 watts during that same test but only takes 16 minutes to complete (16*251.2) , it also finished processing and returned to idle almost 4 minutes ahead of the E8500 system. based on the Q6600 being 20% faster in most tests done

So there is a difference in wattage consumed, in most part becuase when the Q6600 was done so was the entire system, and it was turned off (returning to idle nets similar savings) between the processors, BUT the Q6600 system ALSO was able to stop useage or other components during that time period

Depending on the number of sticks of memory you have in your system, number of hard drives the Q6600 system is much moe economical in terms of wattage consumer per processing task.

Lets not forget what the user was able to now do in those 4 saved minutes out of every 20 ?

Think of 2 cars one with a V6, one with a V8, the big mighty V8 uses a lot more gas on the highway, the V-6 is limited to going only 60mph for a trip while the V8 is able to go 80mph.
take an 80 mile trip and both cars leave the same time, V8 gets there in an hour, turns off motor. V-6 has to drive another 20 minutes to go as far. suddenly the gas savings of using the V6 is not so obvious

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: tallman45
There is an entirely missing component to all this power saving logic
.
.
.

I haven't gotten the impression that folks don't understand this.

The topic of power saving is with respect to folks who specifically aren't going to be using the extra cores...i.e. they don't have thing that need to be done in 20min let alone 16min.

Most people who game aren't interested in having a faster processor so they can stop playing sooner...

And most users who have their computer do something that requires a quad core aren't going to be worried about the $10/month power bill...and they will rightly proceed to procure themselves a quad system.

Where folks need to be worried about the power usage (money) is when they only need 2 cores now but are considering buying 4 cores merely to have two of them burn up the electricity for 2 years before they start using software that will use the extra cores...all in the name of future proofing.

 

[tallman45]

The example I offered also works on 20 second tasks and the memory/HDD's return to idle as well thus saving power over the course of a day

It is realistic for a user to run a few hundred 20 second tasks on an E8500 where those same tasks would be finished in 16 secondson a Q6600.

So in that instance
100 tasks on an E8500 take 2,000 seconds
100 same tasks on a Q6600 takes 1,600 seconds seconds

there are 400 seconds where the E8500 is still running full bore and the Q6600 is either at idle or is turned off. the HDD and Memory is also at idle or turned off those 400 seconds

Gamers of course are in a different performace/need catagory since more cores in general hurts vs helps them at this time as its Ghz that they are after.

 

[OfficeLinebacker]

I would argue that it boils down to how quickly you want the product. You could get the q6600 in short order, while the e8400 is on back order.

 

[TekDemon]

i'm waiting it out for q9450 myself, and debating whether to go get a new motherboard that might run it a little better than my p5k vanilla.
Get it to like 3.3Ghz and you'll be set for plenty of time.

 

[OLpal]

I don't think anyone is really taking issue with your example..
The ????? most of us have is how many people use software that will utilize quad cores to justify the added maintenance costs [electricity], heat & slower processor speeds..
Does the the Q6600 have 6meg cache ??
Just trying to grasp your point !!
Ol'Pal

Originally posted by: tallman45
The example I offered also works on 20 second tasks and the memory/HDD's return to idle as well thus saving power over the course of a day

It is realistic for a user to run a few hundred 20 second tasks on an E8500 where those same tasks would be finished in 16 secondson a Q6600.

So in that instance
100 tasks on an E8500 take 2,000 seconds
100 same tasks on a Q6600 takes 1,600 seconds seconds

there are 400 seconds where the E8500 is still running full bore and the Q6600 is either at idle or is turned off. the HDD and Memory is also at idle or turned off those 400 seconds

Gamers of course are in a different performace/need catagory since more cores in general hurts vs helps them at this time as its Ghz that they are after.

 

[OLpal]

IMHO they are holding up shipment for a couple reasons !
1. Chip was more powerfull & popular than they forsaw, which makes buyers ignore the inventory of other slower, heat producing processors..
2. Plus they're getting ready to introduce the 9300, 9450 etc. & will supplamant the E8200 E8400 & E8500 in more supply then..
I'd suggest you go for the 9450 & cover your worrys, if you have the patience to do so !!
Supposedly a slew of them will be released towards months end !


Let us know what you end up with !! Ol'Pal

Originally posted by: ddasilva2000
Thanks for your thoughts. Why is it so difficult to find the E8400? Do you believe there will be more by end of month?

I have cash in hand

 

[BCA BAndit]

Hey guys and girls just joined, been a very interesting read but still cant decide between dual and quad in general, then stumbled upon this interesting article hope it is relevant if not my first post sucks...And it is a bad start to the season lol..

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2050563,00.asp

 

[myocardia]

Welcome to anandtech, BCA Bandit. That's an interesting article, thanks for the link. For all of those people who still can't decide between a dual-core or a quad, here's how to decide. If you're a gamer, and also one of those people who builds a system every year or 18 months (or at least doesn't mind swapping processors), and you don't play Supreme Commander or M$'s FSX, then a dual-core is for you. If, however, you want your system to last longer without you messing with it, or you play either of those two games I mentioned, then you should be buying a quad.

What I think alot of people don't realize is that if we don't ever start buying and recommending quads, the game developers won't start writing their code to take advantage of them. We're getting there, but we still have a long way to go.

 

[thebigone]

sorry to bring the topic back up, but im still stuck between these two

Im building a computer myself, and dont see myself upgrading in less than 3 years (im a student now, and will be in 3 years ! need to save the moniesss), so im thinking i should go for the quad, but im worried about its higher voltage output as i want to keep electricity cost to a minimum, the Q9450 looks good, as its 45nm, but atm its too expensive, is there any news of an imminent price drop for the Q9450 (im prepared to wait about 1 month) or should i just go and buy the Q6600 now ?

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: thebigone
sorry to bring the topic back up, but im still stuck between these two

Im building a computer myself, and dont see myself upgrading in less than 3 years (im a student now, and will be in 3 years ! need to save the moniesss), so im thinking i should go for the quad, but im worried about its higher voltage output as i want to keep electricity cost to a minimum, the Q9450 looks good, as its 45nm, but atm its too expensive, is there any news of an imminent price drop for the Q9450 (im prepared to wait about 1 month) or should i just go and buy the Q6600 now ?

WAIT!!!!!!!!!!! The q9450 is currently being phased out, and the faster q9550 will take its place at around the same pricepoint (will drop from its over $500.00 pricepoint). You could either find a cheaper q9450 when this happens, or go with a q9550.

This will all happen between July 20 - August 10 2008 (search it in google).

 

[thebigone]

Ok thanks man........ ill wait for a while then

 

[Dark Prognosis]

thebigone: I am in the same boat as yourself and I can't find a solid answer. My current pc was 5 years old last April (XP 2700+) so I only upgrade if I have to and the time has come that I must.

I don't like the Q9XXX because they have low multipliers (unless you can afford an unlocked EXTREME version...I can't) which means you have to buy very expensive ram to get them to the same core speed as an E8500 for instance. At least this is what my Googling uncovered.

Seems the Q6700 is the last one with a nice higher multiplier which means you can use less expensive ram and get it to the same core speed as an E8500 but you get to have 2 extra cores. The thing is I couldn't find any info on what sort of heat to expect from it and will the stock HSF be able to take it to 8x400 comfortably.

 

[thebigone]

hmmm......I had hardly done any research on the Q9XXX series so i didn't know about the low multiplier. The most I would probably over-clock the Q9450 or the Q6600 is to is around 3.2Ghz (seen posts on forums of people getting the Q9 to around 3.7), so surely that combined with the fact it (the Q9) runs at FSB 1333 MHz (opposed to the Q6 running at 1066MHz) and it having a larger cache if 12MB (opposed to the 8mb of the Q6) and also being 45nm, meaning less electricity consumption makes up for it having a lower multiplier and makes the Q9 the better choice (for me anyway)

 

[aigomorla]

depends on how high the Q9 is.

If its a Q9550 optimistcally your looking at around 3.6-3.8.

If its a Q9650 Id be going after 4.0