E8400/8500 vs Q6600 quad-core

hossdaddy

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
2,847
I am looking for some comparison/review of these 2 cpu's. I am helping a buddy with a new build an these are what we are looking at.

Thnx in advance!
 
I've not seen any E8400/8500 comparisons to the Q6600, the ones out there seem to be restricting themselves to Conroe dual-cores (which makes sense in one way, but then again not in another). The E8400 is undoubtedly clocked faster, does slightly more per clock (especially if SSE4 is supported) and will overclock well as it runs cooler. It's probably the best choice at the moment for most users. The Q6600's advantage over it is basically that it's quad-core, and overclocks just as well (but starting from a lower point, so it doesn't get so high). If you're using applications that make good use of a quad-core, then the Q6600 is better, but if they mostly don't (like most games), the E8400 would be.
 
If you use applications that make use of four cores, the Q6600 will perform better than an E8400.

As far as clock rates go, the E8400's 600mhz advantage at stock (3.0ghz vs 2.4ghz) will likely be noticeable on non-multi threaded applications. When both chips are OC'd to their respective limits, the performance gap shrinks significantly, especially with games. Note that the E8400 includes SSE4.1, which will lead to a noticeable performance advantage with applications that make use of the instruction set, as well as a 5% performance advantage (when compared to a Conroe/Kentsfield at the same clock speed) due to the smaller and more efficient die.

As for OCing the Quad Core, a good G0 chip paired with good air cooling will likely reach 3.6ghz. A good G0 chip on a good water setup will likely reach 3.8-4.0ghz. As for OCing the E8400, even a mid-range air cooler should have no problem getting it to 4.0ghz. However, the E8400 is still having teething problems on many motherboards, and people are finding it very hard to get a stable OC beyond 4.0-4.2ghz, regardless of cooling setup. When gaming, you will most likely not notice any difference between a 4.0ghz E8400 and a 3.6ghz Q6600 (even if the game isn't multi-core enabled,) as most modern games are significantly GPU bound at those speeds. When doing processor intensive tasks (such as video encoding,) every mhz helps.
 
thnx for the input guys! I was going to reccomend the mobo in my sig to my buddy who will be buying one of these chips. GA-P35-DS3L in Canada its $95 and has the e8400 and 8500 listed in the supported cpu list right out of the box. How would I justify spending more than that seeing that most of the other boards that run these cpu's start around $150+
 
thnx for the input guys! I was going to reccomend the mobo in my sig to my buddy who will be buying one of these chips. GA-P35-DS3L in Canada its $95 and has the e8400 and 8500 listed in the supported cpu list right out of the box. How would I justify spending more than that seeing that most of the other boards that run these cpu's start around $150+

where you just at infonec? buying the DS3? and asking about the E8400?
 
I've not seen any E8400/8500 comparisons to the Q6600, the ones out there seem to be restricting themselves to Conroe dual-cores (which makes sense in one way, but then again not in another). The E8400 is undoubtedly clocked faster, does slightly more per clock (especially if SSE4 is supported) and will overclock well as it runs cooler. It's probably the best choice at the moment for most users. The Q6600's advantage over it is basically that it's quad-core, and overclocks just as well (but starting from a lower point, so it doesn't get so high). If you're using applications that make good use of a quad-core, then the Q6600 is better, but if they mostly don't (like most games), the E8400 would be.

Well, you're pretty much guaranteed to reach stock E8400 speeds on a Q6600

I have. Only running at 1.20 volts too.
 
Yes, indeed - but you could overclock the E8400 too, higher than the Q6600 would go. I'm not saying the Q6600 is bad at all - I have one myself, and I'm happy with it.
 


DSC00659.jpg

here is the result
q6600 ftw :)
runs a bit warmer then the 900(alot actually) but with only 1 intake and 3 exhaust, I guessed it would happen
 
that looks way more organized than mine. One of these rainy days I will redo mine.
 
that looks way more organized than mine. One of these rainy days I will redo mine.

this case makes it very easy to organize the cables, :) I added one of my antec 3 fans to that area down there, it was getting wayy to hot without it, now temps are finaly stable, still quieter then my antec 900, and at least the dust filters should help a bit

btw did you decide on q6600 or e8400? i'd suggest a Q6600, I use vegas, ps, sound forge, vue, and the Quad makes a huge diff :)
 
Q6600 if you are going to be doing video processing or rendering.
E8400 if you are going to be gaming or using it for general use.

Quad-core isn't being utilized in gaming enough to choose a Q6600 over the E8400. Sure, there are very few games that do utilize 4 cores but almost all of them use them inefficiently. I do not expect games to start using/needing 4 cores for another year or two, and by then Quad-Cores will be dirt cheap.
 
I'm reworking my Q6600 machine right now, and thought that while I had my Q6600 out I'd run a quick aquamark comparison between the Q6600 and the E8400.

Setup:
Intel Q6600 @ 450 * 8 = 3.6 GHz (Stock Intel HSF) 1.42v
Intel E8400 @ 500 * 8 = 4 GHz (Stock Intel HSF) 1.25v

**********************
Asus Maximus Formula SE motherboard, BIOS v. 0907
2 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066
EVGA 512MB 8800GT SSC
(4) Western Digital RaptorX150's (RAID0)

**********************

** After I get my Freezone TEC back on Monday I'll try to run more comparisons.

**********************


Q6600

6600.jpg


E8400
8400.jpg


CPU Info
Q6600_E8400.jpg
 
Thanks Vix.

That's the most informative post yet.

I don't suppose you have a copy of Supreme Commander to test?
 
Wow, those are really high overclocks (well, especially on the Q6600) for the stock HSF.. must be running very hot?

The benchmark results are as expected; Aquamark isn't very recent and it's surely a single-core benchmark, or at least not quad-core.
 
I'm reworking my Q6600 machine right now, and thought that while I had my Q6600 out I'd run a quick aquamark comparison between the Q6600 and the E8400.

Setup:
Intel Q6600 @ 450 * 8 = 3.6 GHz (Stock Intel HSF) 1.42v
Intel E8400 @ 500 * 8 = 4 GHz (Stock Intel HSF) 1.25v

**********************
Asus Maximus Formula SE motherboard, BIOS v. 0907
2 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066
EVGA 512MB 8800GT SSC
(4) Western Digital RaptorX150's (RAID0)

**********************

** After I get my Freezone TEC back on Monday I'll try to run more comparisons.

**********************


Q6600

6600.jpg


E8400
8400.jpg


CPU Info
Q6600_E8400.jpg

Vix, That is an excellent post!

Could you possibly run a couple of game benchmarks and 3D Mark on it too? This is exactly what a lot of people are looking for!!
 
Thanks Vix.

That's the most informative post yet.

I don't suppose you have a copy of Supreme Commander to test?

Considering SupCom is pretty light on the 3rd and 4th cores on my Q6600 machine, even with the multithread helper program, I'd think the 8400/8500 might see better performance if it can clock higher than the Q6600.

It's odd to qualify with two chips that have the same multiplier. It's especially hard with supcom.
You can't just take the framerate with fraps. It's much more of a subjective thing. Until I get to a certain unit limit, I can't tell the difference between my E4300 and my Q6600, and it only stays smooth for maybe ~500-600 units more. There's only so much offload it's doing onto the other cores. Something that made a huge difference for me was discrete vs integrated audio, much more so than the CPU did.

I plan on throwing in another GB of ram into my E4300 to get it to 3GB so SupCom can get a little more, but I don't know if it's going to make a difference.
 
its is clear that the e8400 is the winner for gaming over the q6600, but lets say im playing COD4, burning a dvd and unzipping with winrar. would i see a huge difference in processing power and or slow downs using the q8400 over the q6600? if the e8400 is better for gaming, how much better is the q6600 for heavy program use?
 
its is clear that the e8400 is the winner for gaming over the q6600, but lets say im playing COD4, burning a dvd and unzipping with winrar. would i see a huge difference in processing power and or slow downs using the q8400 over the q6600? if the e8400 is better for gaming, how much better is the q6600 for heavy program use?

Are you alt-tabbing out of COD4 to do all that? Seriously, how much unzipping are you doing? Sure, a quad-core is better at doing lots of things at once, but how many times are you going to be doing all those things?
 
What would be the difference between a Phenom 9600 and a E8400? They are about the same price, and I'm really in the need of an upgrade here... Anyone have any advice about that? are the 2 cores in the 8400 fast enough to beat the 4 in the 9600?
 
What would be the difference between a Phenom 9600 and a E8400? They are about the same price, and I'm really in the need of an upgrade here... Anyone have any advice about that? are the 2 cores in the 8400 fast enough to beat the 4 in the 9600?
The Phenom 9600 is slower than the E8400 in many applications, even when overclocked to 3.0GHz.

Intel E8400 Results
AMD Phenom Results

wic.png
crysys.png


wic.png
crysys.png


The setups above use the same memory, same graphics card, same hard drive, etc. Stock speeds shown.

Now imagine the differences when the E8400 is overclocked to 4.0GHz.
 
Are you alt-tabbing out of COD4 to do all that? Seriously, how much unzipping are you doing? Sure, a quad-core is better at doing lots of things at once, but how many times are you going to be doing all those things?

i dont know, but if i want to i want to be able to.
 
I'd love to add to the debate between the Q6600 vs. E8400, but am reluctant to do so because this box is setup for the E8400 and not the Q6600. To really compare what the two can do I need to compare the Q6600 at optimal 3.6 GHz settings vs. E8400 at optimal 4 GHz settings. Until I get this 8400 setup perfectly, the numbers would be skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

Since up until earlier this week the Q6600 ran in this case with this motherboard, memory, etc., I think that the most accurate munbers to use for the Q6600 would be my old 3DMark06 and SuperPi 1m scores. I'm still working on the E8400 numbers, and will update you as I get the BIOS settings optimized and I get my cooling system back.

***********************
Q6600 setup:
Asus Maximus SE, Q6600 @ 450*8, Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066 @ 4-4-4-12, EVGA 8800GT SSC @ 725c/2200m, (4) WD RaptorX150 drives in RAID0 ***COOLED WITH FREEZONE TEC***

E8400 setup:
Asus Maximus SE, E8400 @ 500*8, Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066 @ 5-5-5-18, EVGA 8800GT SSC @ 725c/2200m, (4) WD RaptorX150 drives in RAID0 *** STOCK INTEL HSF***
************************
3DMark06 (Q6600 numbers from 01/2008, E8400 numbers from 02/2008)

Q6600: 13,832
E8400: 14,108

***********************
SuperPi 1M (Q6600 numbers from 01/2008, E8400 numbers from 02/2008)

Q6600: 14.125 sec
E8400: 11.250 sec

Please keep in mind that the E8400 still is not running at its full potential, and on the stock Intel HSF.

I hope this helps a few people.
 
I will be running 4 instances of World of Warcraft controlling 4 different characters on one machine.

I am currently running

6300 dual core
2 gigs ram
I cant even remember the card since it was a replacement some cheap 8400 GT

I am going to upgrade to a Quad 6600
4 GB of Ram
and maybe the video card if I have to.

I know it may sound strange at what I am doing but you can check out dual-boxing.com if you have any questions why.

My current system will run 4 instances of WoW but I get some hiccups here and there and especially in main cities. Should my planned upgrade remedy this problem? I will also be installing a 64 bit OS to take advantage of the 4GB of memory.

Thanks,
 
I only score 179,000 with AquaMark3 w/ 8800GT @ 705/1800/2000 and e8400 @ 4320mhz, ddr @ 5-5-5-15 ddr960 .... hmmmmmm?
 
core1 maxxes at 70c, tjunction is 105c... i'm also on vista and my vidcard clocks aren't as high (only 700/1750/2000)
 
core1 maxxes at 70c, tjunction is 105c... i'm also on vista and my vidcard clocks aren't as high (only 700/1750/2000)

You might try reducing your OC by a few hundred MHz (and therefore your temps). If performance improves, then that will tell you the CPU is throttling at the higher OC.

AFAIK, Intel CPUs automatically throttle when core temperatures exceed a certain level.
 
You might try reducing your OC by a few hundred MHz (and therefore your temps). If performance improves, then that will tell you the CPU is throttling at the higher OC.

AFAIK, Intel CPUs automatically throttle when core temperatures exceed a certain level.

yeah i know, it's not throttling... pi is 10.7, must be a vista thing

3dmark06 = 13,581
crysis benchmark 1280x1024/high/DX10 = 39fps
 
ok heres da gig...

if u want a CPU particularly for gaming then e8400 is ur answer.
if u want a CPU particularly for multi-taking thn q6600 is ur answer.

well the above written text is obvious but ill juz go into some details: :)

in gaming (i think) the main purpose of CPU involvement is to supply the GPU with maximum possible data to render, n do correct me if i m wrong (cauze i m new to building pc's), the SPEED plays a superior role **(as current games r more GPU based)**. the faster the data provided... d faster d rendering = smoother frames... but i suggest u look at it this way... max no of the games available right now just use 2 cores... but in time (est. 6 months - 1yr / maybe even 2yrz frm now) the quads will prevail as the best gaming cpus....

+ 1 more thing i'll like to add:
if u buy quad, ull be able to do intensive multi-tasking + enjoy playing da latest games at smooth frames.

My attitude towards buyin is 'The more the better'

ppl in all fourms talkin as if on quads u cant play games...LOL :D
 
If you do anything that is multi threaded like VMWare, lots of encoding, I really think the Q6600 is worth it, but it this is more for gaming, and general use, the 8400/8500 will be a better choice. I use Vmware, and thus I love having 3-4 sessions open plus the Host OS as well. Quads might also be bit more future proof as more and more applications will move to being multi threaded.
 
Back
Top