I am torn on Q6600/E6850

[Compnewbie01]

My computer will be purely for gaming with light use of other applications. None of which require heavy multitasking. With that said, am I better off with the slowest of the quad cores or the faster of the dual cores? I plan to buy parts within the next couple days.

 

[ultra laser]

For gaming go with the E6850. It'll run your games faster and be less of a nuisance to cool.

 

[asdftt123]

Multitasking or not, Q6600 gets my vote. In the future once more games are multithreaded you'll be glad you went with a Quad-core.

 

[Compnewbie01]

One vote for both...damnit! lol This will be a tough decision. I do not really understand the difference of .4Ghz in CPUs. The games I currently have my eye on are Bioshock, Orange Box, and Crysis.

 

[asdftt123]

The difference in clock speed FAR from justifies the difference between the two cores for multithreaded games/apps and the extra cache. From what I've heard it's easy to OC a Q6600 to E6850 speeds using stock voltage and an aftermarket cooler. It was even quoted by Cevat Yerli on the inCrysis website at one point (can't find the link now), that Crysis would run better on Quad-core processors.

 

[MarcVenice]

For most games 2 cores is sufficient though, for at least the next 1.5-2 years. They have only recently started making use of more then 1 core in games, games using 2 cores are starting to pop up, and as far as I know Crysis will be one of the few games that can use 4 cores. But for more games to follow in Crysis's footsteps, it will take another 1.5-2 years for them to hit the shelfs.

On the other hand, it's not like you're going to be really cpu limited by a 2.4ghz c2d with 2 or even 4 cores. Perhaps you will have 60fps instead of 65, but that's it. And if games do use 4 cores, then 4 cores at a slower clockspeed will surely beat the 2 cores at a faster clockspeed. Besides, if you simply OC a g0 stepping q6600 to 3ghz, you're all set. 3ghz is fairly easy to achieve with a somewhat cheap as7 pro.

That means when overclocking, go q6600, if not, it's a tossup, but if you think you might overclock in the future, it's q6600.

 

[Compnewbie01]

I definately will not overclock because I honestly do not want to mess with voltages, RAM timings, heat, etc. I would rather just buy a CPU and run it stock. I know this seems stupid to some, but it is really what I am most comfortable withe.

 

[MarcVenice]

Nah it's not stupid. Although you are wrong in some ways. To reach 3ghz with a q6600 you don't need to raise anything else then the FSB speed. You simply raise it from 266 to 333, and you're done. No need to mess with the ram timings or any voltages. You're PC will simply run at 3ghz instead of 2.4ghz and you wouldn't notice, except that it's a lot faster

 

[jawknee530]

I'd go with the Q6600

 

[n7]

All the quad hype is largely that, but i'd still suggest the Q6600.

Even though honestly, i find it funny how many people are buying them when i know that likely less than 10% are taking advantage of the extra cores...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I agree somewhat with n7.

But once I moved from E6600 to Q6600, I can't bring myself to drop back. I've started installing my regular software now, and importing "favorites," e-mail and data files to the new build. Moving cautiously . ..

I do think, except for yet-to-be-released games -- two may well be enough, and four could be more than many will be able to use . . .

 

[Compnewbie01]

Well that is just the thing. I wouldn't know how to use the extra cores. I also do not use a lot of CPU intensive programs (unless you include games). Also as far as the simple OC, it sounds like I could at least do that simple and quick OC, but I also do not want to mess around with the extra cooling required. I like using the stock HSF unless even that is insufficient for stock speeds.

 

[MarcVenice]

Stock HSF is always sufficient for stock speeds unless you run your PC in the desert Anyways, you can't really go wrong with either. Not sure if a q6600 g0 stepping can run at 3ghz with the stock cooler, I think it can, but it's better if someone could confirm.

 

[Keysplayr]

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?

 

[wwswimming]

the E6850 is a sweet part. basically extreme performance for a midrange price.
Intel must really be wanting people to switch to the 1333 chipset.

ultimately i think the answer is ==> Both !

 

[MarcVenice]

well keys, each core needs a seperate thread, the game would have to have several threads to use more then 1 core. I can't really explain what I want to say, but I think the answer is no, a game is designed for dualcore, or qaudcore, but not for any number of cores.

 

[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: "I want to have sex with you right now. RIGHT NOW!"

 

[Compnewbie01]

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: "I want to have sex with you right now. RIGHT NOW!"

Q6600 it is!!!

But really, this is a damn hard decision. It is almost like buying the E6850 will make me regret it when games start using 4 cores. On the other hand, I will probably regret getting the slower of two cards and having two unused cores. Tough decision, but it seems most recommend the Q6600 since the GHz won't matter as much as the extra cores.

 

[Idontcare]

Look at the question from the hindsight vantage you'll have say 6 months after you make the purchase...which scenario are you likely to lament?

The "dam I sure wish I had not bought this sucky quad-core, I so totally should have went with teh dual-core FTW and bought me some pizza with the extra money I would have saved" buyer's remorse scenario?

Or the "dam I sure wish I had bought the quad-core instead of this dual-core because while I will never be sure if it would have made the difference my current dual-core computer just feels slow and sluggish and I bet if I had the quad-core then it wouldn't...oh well, at least I bought a couple pizzas with the money I saved 6 months ago by not buying the quad-core...pizza, dam I'm hungry..." scenario?

 

[ultra laser]

To all the people saying that you can OC the quad to 3.0Ghz, this may be true; however, you're forgetting to mention that he'd be able to get at least 3.5-3.7ghz out of the E6850. Besides, even if you do decide to go quad, you may as well wait a bit and see what AMD has to offer.

 

[RussianSensation]

Honestly, if all you care about is gaming, get E6550 2.33ghz or E6750 and dump the difference between a Quad and those cpus into a faster graphics card. Getting a Quad for games in the short term is a complete waste of $. Also even if Crysis uses a Quad, it'll woop your graphics card to pieces to begin with. You really sgiykd worry about gpu first, not 4 cores. In the long term (2+ years), the quad today will probably be 2x slower than all the latest cpus to come. The reason we buy Quad today is because we overclock it and with overclocking the difference between C2D and a quad is not material but you get 2 extra cores.

 

[Compnewbie01]

I plan on buying within the next 3 or 4 days. So I really can't wait and see what AMD will have. Anyway, whatever they may have that is better will be twice the price at first and nothing that is currently out of theirs interests me a lot.

Idontcare, I don't know which scenario will be mine in 6 months. I guess it comes down to this..I will probably see immediate benefits to the E6850 that won't be noticeable with the quad core. However, down the road the quad core may have its benefits. I will never do any extensive OCing. The most I would ever do is a small bump up that won't require any extra cooling.

 

[Garfield3d]

This is how I view it:

I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Despite that, I'm comfortable with anything above 20 FPS.

I like being able to run games at over 100 FPS not because I can tell the difference, but because I want to ensure that the games of tomorrow run as fast as they can. I buy high-end gear not to run today's games faster, but to run tomorrow's games fast.

The E6850 will run today's games faster, that's not in question.

But, what will run tomorrow's games faster?

I'm throwing my vote behind the Q6600. I don't need to run Half-Life at over 160. I need to run Unreal 4 at over 30.

--Garfield3d

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Garfield3d
This is how I view it:

I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Despite that, I'm comfortable with anything above 20 FPS.

I like being able to run games at over 100 FPS not because I can tell the difference, but because I want to ensure that the games of tomorrow run as fast as they can. I buy high-end gear not to run today's games faster, but to run tomorrow's games fast.

The E6850 will run today's games faster, that's not in question.

But, what will run tomorrow's games faster?

I'm throwing my vote behind the Q6600. I don't need to run Half-Life at over 160. I need to run Unreal 4 at over 30.

--Garfield3d

By the time you see an Unreal 4 you'll have a completely new system more likely than not.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Originally posted by: Compnewbie01
My computer will be purely for gaming.

cheap out on the cpu, make up for it by overclocking and dump all the money you saved into a better graphics card.

unless you are already spending 400-500 on the card itself if it is gaming you want you do not want to cheap out on the video card.

remember that a a 60 dollar e2140 overclocked with high end video card will generally fare better than the higher end cpu paired with a midrange graphics card in games.