Q6600 vs E6850 (Short term [12 months])

[btdvox]

My samsung 226bw is only 2 ms, which is the best ive seen on a LCD, its great, obv not as good as CRT but pretty damn close. Also my DLP is great for FPS, no ghosting whatsoever.

 

[Spumpkin]

I feel the EXACT Same way as you. I've been agonizing over the q6600 and the new E6850... I am a gamer mostly, but lately i play just WoW alot and watch movies (sometimes while grinding in wow), so i would barely push the quad to its full limits.. Also if the new ones next year are cheap enough and the motherboard i get supports them (the p5k) i will just upgrade to them next year possibly.. So that would leave me pointing to the E6850 right?

Well not neccessarily. If you look at the benchmarks on tom's and here.. you'll see that for some reason, lost planet smokes on the Q6600 (the cave benchmark). But the 6600 eats a little dust on almost anything game wise. Why is that? my suspicion is that becuase its a previously xbox360 game, maybe it was programmed for 3 cores (Since the 360 has 3 cores/cpu's) and IF that is the case, the pc version takes better use of 3+ cores? IF that is correct, then my further asumption is that 4 cores of even significant lesser clock speed (600mhz per a core in this case!) is going to kick far more butt on a game that is made for 3+ cores (or can utilize more than 2 cores) than an E6850 will on that same game (regardless that it has 600 more mhz per a core).. AGain that is simply going off that one benchmark for Lost planet PC edition...

Now if that IS True, i could almost live with getting just a DUAL core this year and upgrading to QUAD sometime next year becuase its just that ONE game.. Right? , but i'll be honest, if the NEW quads next year cost 500+ bucks it might end up being a year and a half or more before i buy the next cpu, i like to spend about 250 ish on a cpu.. that's my sweet spot, so in reality this cpu i get now might end up lasting me 1-2years.. in theory. IF they release an awesome 45nm quad core for 266$ and its 2.4ghz or better i might upgrade come next year this time..

Finally, so i'd be FINE... IF.. no game coming out in the next year were going to even take advantage of that quad core, but i'm being told that UT3 will use it (from reading postings) and Crysis as well.. Those two are both games i believe to be out THIS year? (What about COD4 will it use more than 2 as well?) IF those game all use 3+ cores, AND The previous assumption is accurate, that 4 cores of even lessor clock speed kick butt over 2 cores of greater clockspeed (Where in this case the amount is 600mhz per a core less for the quad), then it almost seems like it IS in fact worth it to go with a quad if you are like me, going to play those 3 games, this year at least.. I doubt i'll see ANY difference in WOW or movies i watch with a e3850 over a q6600, so i'd get MORE bang for my buck with those 3 new games in theory. And those are 3 games i'll definately be playing, and who knows what other games will take advantage.. (i've heard Half life 2 is updating with a pach to use multi cores (not just 2) so that would be a 4th game).. Granted every game i've listed is an FPS game.

I dont do much multi-tasking so the rest of the time the extra's cores might be a waste, BUT i'm just wondering if the extra speed of the e3850 might just as much be a waste? sure I could unzip a file a bit faster while i'm playing WOW , but will 5 or 10 seconds faster make THAT Much difference to me over having possibly 20FPS more in one of those first person shooters IF they utilize all 4 cores? And when playing just WoW which i do alot, there's no way i'll EVER Use 3.0ghz times two cores, Heck i probably wont even approach 2.4ghz times 2 cores.. (never the less 4 cores!).. So will i ever really be using that higher speed of the E3850? YEa sure sometimes i will espically on the newer games that DONT use/utilize the quad core tech.. Tho i look be playing the ones that DO and not really interested in the one's that dont....

Sorry for my long winded post, i've just really been thinking it over and figuring out what it will take to convince me which one to get. originally i leaned towards the q6600, then i saw the e6850, leaned towards it, now back to the q6600 and sorta half way in between again..

Does anyone have any solid facts on some of the games i've listed? or know if there's any posted benchmarks with THOSE games being run on quad and dual core proc's? those numbers would severely help my argument/decision.

Chime in!

 

[Spumpkin]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: aigomorla
*pours water over myself to protect from oncoming flames* .............

The average G0, im guessing can do 3.6ghz 400fsb x 9 @ 1.36-1.4Vcore real.
.............................
My disclaimer.

How do you get an average by testing one unit ?

Because i have 4 quadcores currently.

3 B3's Q6600, X3220, X3210

1 G0 Q6600 ES


from observation on how these girls look, this is my inital estimate. The G0 should be able to hit 3.6ghz from voltage ranges of 1.36 - 1.41

Now as mark says i could be wrong. But im willing safely guess the first batches of Q6600 G0's will have no issues, and should perform very nicely.

After the first batches run out, your on your OWN. Think of the E6600 saga, how the older chips were better then the newer ones. In fact i cant think of any Old Bin E6600 that couldnt do 3.6ghz.

Is there any possiblity the q6600 (weather b3 or G0) can be overlocked with the default heatsink? how much for each model if so? If i got a G0 i'd probably just clock it up to 3.0ghz how much cooling would be required for that?

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Spumpkin
Does anyone have any solid facts on some of the games i've listed? or know if there's any posted benchmarks with THOSE games being run on quad and dual core proc's? those numbers would severely help my argument/decision.

If you want solid numbers, you're going to have to wait until those games are released. And, no matter what, you'll be very happy with either one of those processors. I don't know what resolution you game at, or if you use AA/AF, but, generally speaking, gaming performance (especially with FPS games like Crysis) weighs more heavily on what graphics card you have rather than what CPU you have.

A lot of people talk about how much faster the e6850 will overclock vs. the Q6600. But it ALL depends on the game, resolution, and graphics settings. Benchmarks show that at 1600x1200, with AA/AF, a C2D at 4ghz doesn't even perform better than a stock 2.4ghz C2D. So, if that's how you play, that extra speed won't give you anything, but those extra cores might.

I can't see a single reason to NOT get a Q6600 if the price is $266 like we've been thinking it will be, and you get a G0 stepping so that you can run a little cooler (though it is still for cores you're trying to cool, no matter what the stepping!). If you're a gamer, and on a budget, get the cheapest C2D you can find, overclock it, and spend the extra money on a great GPU solution. But, if you're willing to spend $250+ on a processor, I see no reason not to get the quad.

 

[Spumpkin]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Spumpkin
Does anyone have any solid facts on some of the games i've listed? or know if there's any posted benchmarks with THOSE games being run on quad and dual core proc's? those numbers would severely help my argument/decision.

If you want solid numbers, you're going to have to wait until those games are released. And, no matter what, you'll be very happy with either one of those processors. I don't know what resolution you game at, or if you use AA/AF, but, generally speaking, gaming performance (especially with FPS games like Crysis) weighs more heavily on what graphics card you have rather than what CPU you have.

A lot of people talk about how much faster the e6850 will overclock vs. the Q6600. But it ALL depends on the game, resolution, and graphics settings. Benchmarks show that at 1600x1200, with AA/AF, a C2D at 4ghz doesn't even perform better than a stock 2.4ghz C2D. So, if that's how you play, that extra speed won't give you anything, but those extra cores might.

I can't see a single reason to NOT get a Q6600 if the price is $266 like we've been thinking it will be, and you get a G0 stepping so that you can run a little cooler (though it is still for cores you're trying to cool, no matter what the stepping!). If you're a gamer, and on a budget, get the cheapest C2D you can find, overclock it, and spend the extra money on a great GPU solution. But, if you're willing to spend $250+ on a processor, I see no reason not to get the quad.

Your post my friend just put like 2 more marks inthe q6600 camp for me I have a 22 inch CRT monitor, my WINDOWS resolution is 1600x1200 i dont even game that high right now.. I cant imagine a 1st person shoot even handling that resolution. To be honest i'm running radeon 9800 (hacked to a pro with heatsinks). So i play wow in a window which i resize to nearly fit mydesktop so wow can handle 1600x1200 just fine.. IF i keep that monitor, then yes, i will be gaming at 1600x1200 MAX rez (right now games like prey and FPS's i run at 1024x768 OR 1280x1024 cant go much higher with any frame rate above 30 and i like my fps's kinda smooth somewhat).. I HAD Planned on picking up a Dell FPW 2405 or 2407 becuase i have them at work and they are SOOOOO nice.. (at least for wow). so if i did that i might be gaming at 1900x1200...

You'll laugh, i wanted to save a few bucks and get an NVIDA 8600 GS OR GTS (i dont know much about the video cards right now they changed so much, i was out of upgrading for the past 3 years).. whichever it was, it was going to be 150 bucks, but i'm 10% considering getting the 8800 320meg version if i can for 250-260 when i upgrade (hoping it drops a few bucks in the next 1-2 weeks).. ONLY becuase most of the sites have been saying the 8600 SUCKS and the 8800 is a GREAT Deal... just hard to blow twice as much on the grahpics card.. i usually never let myself spend over 200 on a graphics card.. but I do plan to watch HD movies on my computer when i get the drives, and the new nvidia cards have HD acceleration, (in case you ask why i am looking at the 8600 vs a 7900).

Thoughts?

 

[swatX]

I just preordered my G0 Q6600 from tank guys. Going to be my 1st desktop upgrade in 3 years. Hopefully i can push it to atleast 3.1 - 3.4ghz on air.

Originally posted by: Spumpkin


You'll laugh, i wanted to save a few bucks and get an NVIDA 8600 GS OR GTS (i dont know much about the video cards right now they changed so much, i was out of upgrading for the past 3 years).. whichever it was, it was going to be 150 bucks, but i'm 10% considering getting the 8800 320meg version if i can for 250-260 when i upgrade (hoping it drops a few bucks in the next 1-2 weeks).. ONLY becuase most of the sites have been saying the 8600 SUCKS and the 8800 is a GREAT Deal... just hard to blow twice as much on the grahpics card.. i usually never let myself spend over 200 on a graphics card.. but I do plan to watch HD movies on my computer when i get the drives, and the new nvidia cards have HD acceleration, (in case you ask why i am looking at the 8600 vs a 7900).

Thoughts?

For the game you are playing, Nvidia 8600GT should handle it fine. Unless you see yourself wanting to try out crysis,UT2k7,Gears of War;there is no point in getting high end graphic card just to make it run games like WOW.

 

[bryanW1995]

It would be a waste of money to buy an 8600 GT, especially if you're pairing it with a Q6600. I've always heard that you should spend about the same $$ on your gpu as your cpu if you play games. The 8800gts 320mb is a fantastic card for that system. I cheaped out and got an x1950xt b/c it's only 149AR on newegg, but I don't plan on upgrading my monitor for a while and that gpu is great in just about anything at 1440x900.

 

[btdvox]

^^ Yeah i would even say 8800 GTX for the 6600 if your really into gaming (FPS)l.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Spumpkin
Thoughts?

With a nice 22" monitor, it's almost a sin to be playing at 1024x768. Depending on your budget, I recommend you get at least the 8800 GTS 320mb. If you are serious about going with a 24" LCD, you might want to consider the GTX instead. I hate suggesting a top-end card so late in the product cycle, but your 9800pro is needing a replacement. I imagine you could wait until new cards arrive and prices drop... and time to see how the new games play with existing cards once they arrive. That's what I'm doing.

(As a controversial side note, I'm not sure what kind of 22" monitor you have, but going from a good 22" CRT to a 24" LCD is an expensive jump that might give you a few positives such as less space/heat and widescreen, but comes with a few negatives as well such as the native resolution and potential ghosting/lag that comes from being used to a CRT.)

If buying the quad eats up too much of your budget, do what I mentioned and get a cheap e4300 or something, overclock it, and spend that extra money on the GPU. That's what will matter the most for gaming purposes.

 

[Spumpkin]

Well i'm not on a budget per say, i'm not rich, but all i gotta do is wait for another pay check and i could squeeze another 150 bucks out (assuming the 8800 GTX is 150 more? or is that the card that is 500-600? Cuz i wont pay 500 for a grahpic card, but i could be convinced to pay 300 ish)..

I have a Mits/nec diamond pro that sharky extreme recommended for the past 2 years or so, its not bad.. its a CRT to be sure.. IF I decided to get the 2507 it would mostly be to use while i play for wow, i would almost keep both monitors and just swap out.. BUT that said i wasn't planning on getting the dell fpw for a while, the comp upgraded would happen before, it could be weeks/months before i picked up the LCD.. When I play wow at work on one, its not so ghosty i cant play and it just looks sooooooooooo nice..espically on the 7900 on the work machine (its a dual core 1.8ghz and it runs wow at 1900x1200 PERFECTLY)..

The thing is when i upgrade, i CANT keep the radeon 9800, its AGP.. i have to get a PCIe card, which is why i was originally going to get the 8600 becuase i needed something to replace my 9800 i figured spending 90 bucks was just dumb on a GPU, so why not get something a little bit better, and 150 seemed pretty good spot, then sometime next year when the DX10 cards are more matured and way better performing, pick one of those up... that said, i do plan to play crysis when it launches (this year?) and UT3 and whatever other cool fps/games come out this year / early next.. and i might get lazy/wait longer, so there's no saying that whatever cpu/gpu i buy today i might not hold onto for more than 1 year.. lets say i decided to wait till christmas next year or something, that would be 1 year and a few months extra time, nearly 1.5 years... So if the GTX card was only 300 ish, then i'd only be looking at paying 150 more (2x the original price tho) for a card i expect to last 1.5 years POSSIBLY 2 years (espically if it played those games i mentioned VERY nice at say 1600x1200 at least).



(on the CPU front, i'm still on the fence, with a slight bias towards the q6600 right now, but maybe deciding my GPU Will help decide the CPU i should get?).

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Chofo
Hi there,

Same debate here. But I won't upgrade my CPU in at least 2-3 years, so I should go with the Q6600 I hear, BUT.. I'm going to California in a few hours and will be there for the price cut, how can I know if its the G0 stepping by just looking at the box?

Hope Frys has at least the E6850 on the 22th.. but now I hear there's no-G0 E6850s as well.. so the question remains the same, how can I know which one is it? Pardon my ignorance.

Thanks in advance,

Chofo

P.S. I'm not familiar with this, will the price cut be effective like right away on the 22th at stores?

Look on product code on the box:

the last 5 letters.

SL9UM = B3
SLACR = G0

Originally posted by: Spumpkin

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: aigomorla
*pours water over myself to protect from oncoming flames* .............

The average G0, im guessing can do 3.6ghz 400fsb x 9 @ 1.36-1.4Vcore real.
.............................
My disclaimer.

How do you get an average by testing one unit ?

Because i have 4 quadcores currently.

3 B3's Q6600, X3220, X3210

1 G0 Q6600 ES


from observation on how these girls look, this is my inital estimate. The G0 should be able to hit 3.6ghz from voltage ranges of 1.36 - 1.41

Now as mark says i could be wrong. But im willing safely guess the first batches of Q6600 G0's will have no issues, and should perform very nicely.

After the first batches run out, your on your OWN. Think of the E6600 saga, how the older chips were better then the newer ones. In fact i cant think of any Old Bin E6600 that couldnt do 3.6ghz.

Is there any possiblity the q6600 (weather b3 or G0) can be overlocked with the default heatsink? how much for each model if so? If i got a G0 i'd probably just clock it up to 3.0ghz how much cooling would be required for that?

Stick with the G0. Just wait it out. Even if you ran both on near stock voltage @ 3.0ghz, the G0 would heat up less, use less energy, and be overall more stable.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: aigomorla
*pours water over myself to protect from oncoming flames* .............

The average G0, im guessing can do 3.6ghz 400fsb x 9 @ 1.36-1.4Vcore real.
.............................
My disclaimer.

How do you get an average by testing one unit ?

Because i have 4 quadcores currently.

3 B3's Q6600, X3220, X3210

1 G0 Q6600 ES


from observation on how these girls look, this is my inital estimate. The G0 should be able to hit 3.6ghz from voltage ranges of 1.36 - 1.41

Now as mark says i could be wrong. But im willing safely guess the first batches of Q6600 G0's will have no issues, and should perform very nicely.

After the first batches run out, your on your OWN. Think of the E6600 saga, how the older chips were better then the newer ones. In fact i cant think of any Old Bin E6600 that couldnt do 3.6ghz.

*Disclaimer* This is not a flame!

Aigomorla, you only have 1 G0 stepping quad-core. How on earth can you derive an average from that? If you want to come up with an average overclock for B3's, fine, you have 3 of them.

In any event, I appreciate your sharing some preliminary numbers with us. :thumbsup:

 

[btdvox]

I got a question, with the P5K Premium and an E6850, If i buy OCZ-Reaper 2X1GB PC2-9200 (1150 Mhz) would it work on the P5K? It says it runs 1066 Natively, but people are overclocking using PC2-8500 kits to 1097 etc so would this ram work with the MoBo? I also saw a bench showing it got 4-4-4-8 @ 1066 which is prob a better overclock than 5-5-5-18 @1150Mhz.

What you guys think?

 

[Chesebert]

how much of a PS would you need to power the Q6600? I only have an Antec 430W unit, which I don't think is enough (I am waiting for the next round of quad)

 

[bexarif]

NOISE:
I'm also looking to choose between the E6850 and the Q6600 - but I am unlikely to want to do much overclocking. My principle criteria is noise. Which is quieter with stock coolers? I am assuming its the dual core because it gets less hot - if so, how much quieter is it? If I were to go down a 3rd party HSF route - ie Tuniq, scythe etc - would the resulting Q6600 be as quiet as the same cooler on a E6850? I will be using the PC for the usual mix of games and apps - i'm not hardcore either way. The CPU is going to be coupled with a P35 board and a 640mb 8800GTS ina an antec solo case. I would appreciate everyones advice.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Chesebert
how much of a PS would you need to power the Q6600? I only have an Antec 430W unit, which I don't think is enough (I am waiting for the next round of quad)

Depends entirely what video card you've and the efficiency of the PSU. The G0 stepping of the Q6600 only has a TDP of 95W or so, which any half-decent PSU can handle. However, if you're packing a pair of 8800's, your power needs go up rather considerably.

 

[Spumpkin]

I personally have an older thermaltake 420w PSU i was going to use with the
quad q6600.. on the top end i was considering getting an 8800, on the low end instead, i might get a 8600.. I only run 1 hard drive and 1 opitcal drive. I personally expected a 420w to be more than enough for my personal set up.

Side question, What is this p5k premium? is it the delux? Also is it dumb to get the p5kc (which supports ddr3 as well as ddr2)?


I intially didnt expect to do any overlocking with the q6600, but if the G0 version comes out.. and in theory has the same heatsink as the B3, couldn't you in theory overclock it a little bit (lets say to 2.66ghz) on the STOCK fan and probably have it match the B3 in terms of draw and heat????

 

[tameone]

I think is might behoove people sitting on the fence to wait until mid-end September to make a purchase. Crysis will be out then and we can see if if truly benefits from a quad core CPU, and whether or not the Q6600 or E6850 can really run it will with a 8800GTX or Ultra anyway. At this point we can gauge if this is the proper time to upgrade, or if we'd be better of waiting for X38 chipset (might be out already), GeForce9, and faster, more reasonably priced DDR3 memory. I was getting all anxious to upgrade to a new G0 chip, but after contemplating what I don't really know (how well a top system purchased now will run new multi-core optimized games, mainly hinging on the video card), I think I might just buy a new CPU cooler, OC my AMD chip and geforce7 to the max, and hold out a few more months

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: aigomorla
*pours water over myself to protect from oncoming flames* .............

The average G0, im guessing can do 3.6ghz 400fsb x 9 @ 1.36-1.4Vcore real.
.............................
My disclaimer.

How do you get an average by testing one unit ?

Because i have 4 quadcores currently.

3 B3's Q6600, X3220, X3210

1 G0 Q6600 ES


from observation on how these girls look, this is my inital estimate. The G0 should be able to hit 3.6ghz from voltage ranges of 1.36 - 1.41

Now as mark says i could be wrong. But im willing safely guess the first batches of Q6600 G0's will have no issues, and should perform very nicely.

After the first batches run out, your on your OWN. Think of the E6600 saga, how the older chips were better then the newer ones. In fact i cant think of any Old Bin E6600 that couldnt do 3.6ghz.

*Disclaimer* This is not a flame!

Aigomorla, you only have 1 G0 stepping quad-core. How on earth can you derive an average from that? If you want to come up with an average overclock for B3's, fine, you have 3 of them.

In any event, I appreciate your sharing some preliminary numbers with us. :thumbsup:

Your absolutely correct in this statement. However, the question is asked if both were clocked to 3.0ghz which would be better?

Now 3.0ghz on a 9x multi is around 333fsb. Now i can say this, ANY Q will do 333fsb without much difficulty. In fact all my B3's do this fine at around 1.375-1.4vcore. The 1.4 is the X3210 due to the higher fsb required for 3.0ghz.

Now i compare the B3 to a G0 which uses less energy draw to obtain 3.0ghz.

333fsb on a B3 vs 333fsb on a G0. Its a no brainer. The G0 will draw less energy to reach 333fsb, and will release less heat. Its a simple matter of physics.


In all, the G0's is the ones you should aim to get. They run cooler off the bat, and they have more room to overclock. On a B3 your limited to 3.3-3.4ghz on AIR anyhow. 3.5 would be the upper most limit for these guys on air.

I am just stating these things from observation. And dont get me wrong, i am not without error. I do tend to mess up, but from my inital estimates and predictions on these G0's There seriously worth the wait.

 

[bryanW1995]

aigomorla, have you heard of any b3 ex50 chips? I heard that all of them were going to be G0. also, did you mean 3.5 would be the air limit on b3 or G0? Gary key said that they have their G0 es to 3.6 on air.

 

[Cheex]

Keeping track:

The Q6600 price is still coming down. It is now $399.90 @ Newegg (at the time of this post).

 

[imported_Buckfutter]

I've already ordered the E6850. I'm upgrading to quad next year when its more common and the 45nm models are widely available.

/Buckfutter.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
aigomorla, have you heard of any b3 ex50 chips? I heard that all of them were going to be G0. also, did you mean 3.5 would be the air limit on b3 or G0? Gary key said that they have their G0 es to 3.6 on air.

lol i ment that statement on B3 chips.

The power requirement from my intial testing on G0:

400fsb x 9 multi requires around 1.375-1.4vcore.

This is incredible for this chip. Im not promising anyone these overclocks because it is a ES. However, i would like to say its a safe bet to say you should get near this target voltage for a G0.

The B3 i have, the lowest one is my Q6600 in sig. That does 3.6 @ 1.47Vcore.

Thats a hugh drop in power requirement for thees chips. I used to be hovering near 60-65C loaded temps on a hot day with my water.

Now she doesnt break 60. Most of the time i'll see her hovering around 52-55C during the day.


These are full load temps, not idle temps.

 

[bryanW1995]

I was all set to get a G0 q6600 but I don't think that I can wait until sept for one. I think I'll get an e6750 now and upgrade to penryn in 12-18 mos unless I can get a solid lead on a G0 asap.

 

[ShinMech]

Programs that I use daily:
- Bittorrent (always active)
- mIRC (frequently)
- Games (WoW, CS:S, CS 1.6, SC, Battlefield, CoD) (frequently)
- More than 3+ windows of Firefox browsers on (forums, sports, news, etc.) (always active)
- AIM (always active)
- Watch movies/anime (frequently)
- Opening .zip and .rar files (frequently)
- Word, Excel (frequently)
- Kaspersky Anti-virus (always on)

These are the programs that I mostly use daily.

Would it be wise to go for E6850 or Q6600?