I am torn on Q6600/E6850

[Compnewbie01]

Here's an idea...I could go E6750 for ~$220 then dump the extra $60-80 to get a 8800GTX instead of GTS.

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: Compnewbie01
Here's an idea...I could go E6750 for ~$220 then dump the extra $60-80 to get a 8800GTX instead of GTS.

that is an excellent idea. any Q6600, E6750, E6850 you know you'll be happy in any area and it'll be plenty fast for whatever you do.

technology always changes rapidly, you all should know that. i went from a p4 northwood 2.4C to an amd opteron system just months ago, and im perfectly happy with it. i would love having a c2d, but i couldnt bring myself to just not using my awesome ddr-500 ram anymore. though do NOT feel bad when G90 comes out and (hopefully) pwns the 8800s.

so whatever you do, im sure it'll be a good choice, dual or quad core.

 

[Compnewbie01]

Okay, I'll ditch the quad core idea and save the cash for the GTX. Last question...what is the difference between 1066mhz and 1333mhz FSB? Seems the E6550/6750/6850 CPUs are on 1333 while the E6300/6400/6600/etc. are 1066. Getting the E6550 will give me the cash to upgrade to a GTX. Then in 2-3 months I could even step up to an ultra if G90 causes G80 prices to plummet.

 

[ultra laser]

1066fsb cpus use 266 * multi = final speed
1333fsb cpus use 333 * multi = final speed

The e6420 is nice because it has an 8x multiplier and a low price. You could easily run it at 333 instead of 266 by simply changing one parameter in the bios. And then you would have an e6750. Hell, mine does 3.2ghz at stock voltage.

 

[StriperMike]

This may help
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q6600.html

 

[TonyB]

4 > 2










this thread ends now.

 

[jeffw2767602]

q6600, no contest.
it will run circles around the e6850 now and it will do dead sprints around it in the next year or two.
right now it is the best overall value, especially with the g0's going to 3.6GHz

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Is it true that if a game is written to utilize multicore, then it doesn't matter how many cores you have (two or greater)?
Are they specifically written to use "Dual-core" or "Quad-Core" or even 128 cores? etc. etc.???

Really not sure on this. Can anyone clear this up?

How well a game can utilize multiple cores depends on how many threads the game uses simultaneously, and that number is explicitly decided by the developer. So if a game uses 2 threads, it can potentially benefit from 2 cpu cores, but not utilize any additional cores. That's the general idea, but the details are more complicated. If the threads are computationally intensive enough to load each core close to 100%, then you could benefit from having an extra core to run all the system tasks other than the game. On the other hand, the threads may not load the cpu heavily, and it may run just as well on a single core, with each thread getting a certain share of cpu resources. But in general, unless the application is designed to use 3 or 4 cores, it will not scale well with a quad core cpu, even if it does benefit from a dual core.

 

[nanaki333]

i've been debating between upgrading my e6700 @ 3.9 (water) to a Q6600 since they became ~$280. i think i'm going to hold my load until i see what else comes out later this year. it's really hard for me though, i'm the douchebag that buys the latest and greatest video cards the day they come out.

 

[imported_i2k]

LOL nice. Go the QC mate you won't regret it.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Don't. A 3.9GHz dual-core is plenty fast, why would you want to upgrade to (maybe) get a marginal difference?


On the other hand, if you're getting a brand new computer and have to choose between a e6850 or q6600, the Q6600 isn't a bad bet.

 

[SolMiester]

Xlab review between then..http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q6600.html

 

[Pain999]

Would not 4 overclocked cores generate much more heat then 2 overclocked cores? So you would rather deal with a know of much more heat today, then a unknown of maybe someday a game will be released that you also happen to like to play that takes advantage of 4 cores?

 

[classy]

Q6600

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: TonyB
4 > 2




this thread ends now.

LOL this only applies if both cpu's are clocked the same.

3.6ghz dual core vs 3.2ghz quadcore.

The dualcore wins for most application, minus folding/WCG/Encoding/Graphic resampling.

Originally posted by: Pain999
Would not 4 overclocked cores generate much more heat then 2 overclocked cores? So you would rather deal with a know of much more heat today, then a unknown of maybe someday a game will be released that you also happen to like to play that takes advantage of 4 cores?

Correct. The Q6600 will pump 2x the normal heat a dualcore will. The reason is because a quadcore is a dual die dualcore chip. MEaning theres 2 dualcores stamped on the same PCB. This is also why i keep telling people an aftermarket cooler is a MUST when you overclock.

If you already have good cooling, which most people do pre migration, then this isnt a problem. If your working a budget around a quadcore, id suggest you build a higher end dualcore instead. Dualcores are easier to handle in terms of ocing, stability and heat. Quadcores can get really messy once you start upping that vcore past 1.4V

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Laminator
All you need to do is think to yourself, "Which one will give me the bigger e-Penis?" Obviously, the Q6600 wins.

You: "Check out my new Core 2 Duo; it's at 3.0GHz it's got a 1333MHz FSB and overclocks really well!"
Hot Chick: "What the heck are you even talking about?"

or

You: "Check out my new Core 2 processor; it's got four cores."
Hot Chick: "What the heck are you even talking about"

Fixed!



Edit: Even so I would go with the quad-core