Originally posted by: dirtrat
I remember people saying my dual core 4800 would be the better buy when it first came out but the fact remains most software doesn't utilize muli-cores. In the future, Sure but when? Most video cards will scale better with a higher clock speed versus 4 cores instead of 2. The E6850 IMHO will be a better CPU for most gamers, In this case software is WAY BEHIND hardware. Quad core will be good for certain applications but everyone will have to decide which one will benefit them the most! Like you said just my 2 cents.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jlin101
No, higher FSB is better. What I was inferring is that you can easily o/c a Q6600 (2.4ghz/FSB1066) to 3ghz simply by raising the FSB to 1333; whereas it would be more difficult to raise the FSB on a E6750 which already has an FSB of 1333. That's why some people prefere E4300 (FSB800) over E6300(FSB1066) for o/c'ing.Originally posted by: JasonCoder
So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
That makes sense, yes, but jjsole seems to know something we don't.
Originally posted by: videopho
Which one is a better performer, e6600or e6750?
I just spent $230 for my e6600 and at these prices they start to making me look like a fool.
Originally posted by: vghc
Wonder when will NewEgg carry these. I am dying to buy them but i just don't trust these small places.
Originally posted by: vghc
Wonder when will NewEgg carry these. I am dying to buy them but i just don't trust these small places.
Originally posted by: Valour
I don't see much talk about heat from a lot of people debating the two cpus. Anyone know of any good info on the subject?
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: kevman
Whats a better choice when the prices level out : q6600 or e6850?
Imo the 6850 unless you use often a multithreaded program(s) that can utilize the quad core (which most can't). My take on it is that otherwise, if you are doing so much multitasking on your computer that you'll be able to utilize the 4 cores with various programs, you're probably being slowed down anyways by the i/o of the harddrive by all the programs trying to access it at the same time, and you're not gaining much if any at all.
So 2 cores with a better clockspeed is better for most people than 4 cores with a lower clockspeed imo.
Emphasis on 'imo'...I've never had a quad core since I have no use for it and don't find it worth sacrificing the higher speed of an equivalent priced 2 core processor.
All of the ex50 chips are G0 stepping. The G0 chips run cooler. In the q6600, the current stepping is B3, which has a 105w tdp. The G0 Q6600 will have a tdp of 95w and an 11c higher max temp iirc. Basically, they switched to 1333 fsb and G0 step at the same time for the dual cores, but they left the Q6600 and Q6700 on 1066 with the G0 upgrade. Not sure why.Originally posted by: Diogenes2
Doesn't that paper just apply to a transition of an existing product ?
Won't the new 1333 2 core chips chips be coming from the same FAB ?
Being new products, they may have their own stepping designation ..
Originally posted by: videopho
Which one is a better performer, e6600or e6750?
I just spent $230 for my e6600 and at these prices they start to making me look like a fool.