Originally posted by: Team42
I can't see the sense in this. The Q6600 is unlikely to provide much, if any, advantage for most current games and, given it's the older fab, will be replaced by much more efficient CPUs in the very near future for pretty much the same price. For gaming, as has been mentioned in this thread and many others, a C2D, particularly the E8400, will be more than sufficient for most gaming needs, and will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.
Oh I am not saying E8400 will not be sufficient, but for the same price you have the potential to get up to 80%-90% the performance increase from a C2Q 6600 @ 3.4ghz vs. E8400 @ 3.6ghz if you intend to keep the processor for a while. So for almost the same price, I see little reason to consider E8400. Very few users here have been able to get it above 3.8ghz either.
The benefit of the C2D over the Quad is the running costs. If you're a gamer mostly, a Quad is an unneccessary luxury, in my opinion, until mainstream games become more adept at utilising multicores.
Not everyone games 24/7. Not everyone pays for electricity costs (student on Rez, utilities are included in rental costs, etc.) Some of us also sell the computer system after - I do. So I know for a fact i'll be able to sell the Quad @ 3.4ghz for more than you can sell an E8400 @ 3.6ghz in 1 year -- so you also need to consider "return of" the investment.
Besides, an old Quad is not going to be as good as a new Quad, and the new Quads are out there for not that much more money at the minute. Give them a while, and they'll come down in price.
Right but most current quads are limited by motherboard FSB. Even if you get them to 3.6ghz, there is hardly any difference between the "new" and "old" quads except in SSE4.1 benches -
Q9300 vs. Q6600 - both overclocked
We've had this same argument when A64 4000+ 2.4ghz cost the same as X2 3800+ 2.0ghz in 2006! Now those users with X2 3800+ @ 2.7ghz are still finding it doable to upgrade their graphics card one last time while no one would suggest keeping a64 4000+ @ 3.0ghz.
Let's even consider an example of STOCK speeds where E8400 3.0ghz will have 25-30% performance advantage over Q6600 2.4ghz -- consider A64 4000+ 2.4ghz vs. FX-60 2.0ghz:
COD4 - 1024x768
A64 4000+ 2.4ghz = 45fps
FX-60 2.0ghz Dual =
81fps (+80%)
Crysis - 1024x768
single 2.4 = 22fps
dual 2.0 =
32fps (+45%)
World in Conflict - 1600x1200 Very High
single 2.4 = 10fps
dual 2.0 =
18fps (+80%)
* Of course both of these are unplayable but I bet if you lower the resolution, FX2.0ghz will be able to handle it at least at 1024x768
Bioshock - 1600x1200 High
single 2.4 = 44fps
dual 2.0 =
61fps (+39%)
However, in the worst case you'll be comparing Q6600 3.4ghz to E8400 @ 3.9ghz (thats about 15-20% difference). Or you could end up with Q6600 @ 3.6ghz and E8400 @ 3.8ghz (<10%)