Q6600 or E8400: Which is more future proof?

B

BackFire349

n00b
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
24
I'm building a PC shortly and would like the processor that would be the most beneficial in the long run. I know right now the E8400 is better, but it seems a bit part of that is because of the current lack of Quad core optimization (I'm talking mostly about games, btw).

So I ask, which would be the better choice for those who don't want to upgrade the CPU again for a long while. After all, I'm a lazy, lazy man. Much thanks.
 
dude the Q6600 wins hands down on my opinion and will be without a doubt more future proof than the E8400 ( quad core vs dual core ), dont worry about gaming i used my Q6600 rig mainly for gaming and have no problems so far, ( look at my rig on my sign ) i can play every game thats out there now on high settings with a resolution of 1680 x 1050, ( except crysis...lol :mad: )...you will be amazed of how many things you can do at the same time with this baby, that being said, my vote will go to the Q6600 ;)

hope this helps on your decision :)
 
e8400 - OCers.
Q6600 - for everyone else.

If the Q6600 was $190, this would be an easy decision. OTOH, with the e8400 being price-gouged online...I dunno. The e8400's great at $190, but if it's closer to $240 it's not as great a deal.
 
If you are looking long term, I would go with the Quad. With the recent rise in prices for the E8400 it is making it a no brainer.

If you are looking fir the highest possible speed, and play alot of cutting edge games, then you may want to consider the E8400.

I am just waiting on a couple of more fans and a fan controller and then I am going to move my Q6600/3870 rig over to my main desk, and redo/cleanup all the wiring mess at the same time. It runs Supreme commander so smooth. I was also doing some video encoding for my Zune today, and it smoked my dual 2.6 xeon system even though it was pulling and storing the data over a network connection. All 4 cores were running at 70-90%.

Don
 
I agree that the Q6600 is more future-resistant; it's true that it's slower in clock speed than the dual cores but provided that multithreading increases it will suffer less from lower speeds than the dual cores will from having entire missing cores. Don't forget the 45nm quads are coming though.
 
The only question i have is, why get a quad when there are and will not probably be many games that will utilize 4 cores.. i mean look how many years dual core was before games even somewhat started to utilize them.. its like buying a super expensive gfx card but not use it till a year later or so. A dual core duo today clocked high beats the quad in games since untill proper 4 core support its quite useless having it for todays games.
 
Due to the price gouging of the E8400, the street price between that and the Q6600 is rather small. Further consider that while the E8400 may clock higher and more easily than the Q6600, rated speed beyond a minimum threshold of say 3.0ghz+-5% is really irrelevant for most games, as today's games (and likely tomorrow's as well) are far more gpu dependent than cpu. Games that do rely heavily on raw cpu power, such as many strategy and sim games, are more likely to take advantage of four cores, thus giving the quad the performance advantage.

The E8400 is a great proc at a great price, and if you're looking for an easy OC to 4.0ghz and are primarily gaming, then it's definitely the chip to have. If you do any media work, such as video editing or encoding, or say heavy image processing, the quad will be a better performer now and in the future.
 
If you really want to do long term, go ahead and spend the extra $25-30 and get a Q6600. I got an X3210 and everything feels noticeably faster than it did with a similarly clocked E6700.
 
Mortuus said:
The only question i have is, why get a quad when there are and will not probably be many games that will utilize 4 cores.. i mean look how many years dual core was before games even somewhat started to utilize them.. its like buying a super expensive gfx card but not use it till a year later or so. A dual core duo today clocked high beats the quad in games since untill proper 4 core support its quite useless having it for todays games.
Click to expand...

While that is somewhat true, all programming is going to be moving toward multi-threading independent of the actual number of cores (8 cores on the way remember), and once that is done it won't matter how many cores you have. It's not like programmers have to write code specifically for 2 vs 4 cores. So the step from 2 to 4 cores is a lot easier than from 1 to 2.

Also, even though the E8400 is an AMAZING overclocker, don't forget how well a G0 Q6600 can overclock. 3.6Ghz on air is totally possible with good cooling, and my 3.2Ghz setup is virtually silent.
 
I'm currently running a Q6600 @ 3.3 in my main rig. It's been a great chip and as stated above, most modern games are more GPU than CPU bound. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this chip. If you do opt for the Q6600 make sure you get it from clubit.com for a guaranteed G0.
 
"future proof" is highly subjective, eh?
I think the quad will fold better, so you should get that and FOLD on :D
 
Mortuus said:
The only question i have is, why get a quad when there are and will not probably be many games that will utilize 4 cores.. i mean look how many years dual core was before games even somewhat started to utilize them.. its like buying a super expensive gfx card but not use it till a year later or so. A dual core duo today clocked high beats the quad in games since untill proper 4 core support its quite useless having it for todays games.
Click to expand...

Yep. Also, by the time that games can use quad they will need 4-5GHz not puny 2.4GHz, so you'll have to upgrade anyway. Might as well enjoy the thing you bought RIGHT NOW. :eek:
 
Well there is more to do on a PC than gaming. Also, if there is a game that can push an easily overclocked (usually around 3.2GHz+ for anyone within reason) Q6600 within the near future I will be surprised. The focus is more on pushing GPU power (as has been said). There is a movement towards multi-threaded gaming as well. So, by the time your Q6600 is starting to show it's age, chances are the utilization of it's other cores will give it a second wind the E8400 may not.
 
Hey, thanks for all the replies, guys.

I guess it's going to depend on if the local Microcenter ever gets the E8400 in this week, as they're the only place selling it as a reasonable price. If they do, I'll probably get that. If not, then I'll just nab a Q6600.
 
I can say that the difference between my E6600 and the Q6600 in the rig I built for my dad is easily noticed in ANY Source game. We play a lot of TF2 and while he has 2GB to my 4GB and the 8800GT to my 8800GTS640 he gets more fps and they stay higher in large fire fights.
 
Assuming you're going to keep things "apples to apples"
Either stock 2.4Ghz vs stock 3Ghz.... (25% difference)
OR overclock both on good aircooling: maybe 3.2Ghz q6600 vs 4.0Ghz e8400 (25% difference)

q6600 more future proof,
e8400 faster now

later on as more apps become more & more multithreaded the q6600 will begin to show its real power, but for now most things will be faster with the higher clocked e8400
 
synic said:
Yep. Also, by the time that games can use quad they will need 4-5GHz not puny 2.4GHz, so you'll have to upgrade anyway. Might as well enjoy the thing you bought RIGHT NOW. :eek:
Click to expand...

...who here actually runs a quad at stock?

Yep. That's what I thought.
 
synic said:
Yep. Also, by the time that games can use quad they will need 4-5GHz not puny 2.4GHz, so you'll have to upgrade anyway. Might as well enjoy the thing you bought RIGHT NOW. :eek:
Click to expand...

Well games don't need 3.0GHz+ processors at the moment anyway, so it's not as if you're really suffering by having a quad-core today. If getting a quad-core was accepting a big compromise in performance in single/dual-threaded applications then things might be different, but they're quite fast enough for any task nowadays (especially when overclocked; getting to 3.0GHz is easy and they can go higher).

Sure, an E8400 at 4.0GHz will beat a Q6600 at 3.2GHz at a single-threaded benchmark, but the difference in games at any respectable graphics settings will be negligible due to GPU limitations, and the Q6600 will beat it in many real-world heavy-CPU tasks such as video encoding.
 
Something doesn't sound right about that. I've left CPUID's Hardware Monitor on, and it seems that TF2 barely stresses the 2nd core on my e8400 at all - the temps reflect that at 56/50 respectively. Compare that with 62/61 from OCCT loads, and I have a hard time believing that quad core is really helping in TF2.

I do have to mention, however, that Tech Report's 45nm quad review showed a substantial boost - quad vs. quad. Which has me thinking that the cache is helping quite a bit.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/4

Same clock rate. Same stock FSB. Plus/minus 2-5% IPC increase from hardware tweaks, where was that boost coming from? The only thing they don't share is cache. 12MB vs. 8MB cache, it's not hard to see who is winning here. In terms of quad vs. dual - here's some quick math (many assumptions haha):

You have the QX6800 and Q6600 - both with the same amount of cache, and stock FSB. So quad @ 2.93 (96.5fps) and quad @ 2.4 (85.6fps) - that's a 11fps increase for 533Mhz increase in clock. Theorize a quad @ 2.66 - and you have a 266Mhz increase. Linear interpolation, and you have a 5.5fps increase - which gives 91.1fps. Which, oddly enough, is the same number as the e6750.

*Again, this is at 1024 x 768, which nobody plays at. So the differences are certainly being highlighted and exaggerated far more than they would in the real world (1440 or higher wide screen res). I'm playing a native on a 24" - and I'm sure anyone with an 8800series or better can easily do this.
 
I have a Dell XPS 420 that has a Q6600 CPU. How can I tell if I have the G0 version? I'm thinking about pulling it and using it to build a PC from scratch. Perhaps part the rest of it out on eBay?

Paid 650 for refurbished and now I'm wishing I woulda waited and just built my own. But now I'm thinking maybe pull the chip and ram and use it for a new build. Or I could just send it back for a refund since I've only had it a few days and haven't even opened the box yet. Decisions, decisions... Wish I knew if the Q6600 in there was a G0 SLACR but knowing Dell, it's probably one of the very first stepping Q6600 released.
 
I would price the rest of the specs on the system, (including os and peripherals) and if the cost was a deal on the HP, then pick up an inexpensive C2D to put in it and steal the Quad for your new build. I've been running 2 systems side by side through a KVM for years. I just picked up a new USB KVM with nice cables from Tiger Direct Outlet for $29 bux so now I am using USB mouse and KB with them.

Looks like you can pick up an e4300 for a bit over $100.

Cryppy, the e8400 is listed at $275 on Pricewatch. That's insane. Only $253 for a Q6600.

Don
 
I think the lifespan of both processors is about the same.

The E8400 is limited by having only 2 cores and the Q6600 is limited by only having 2.4GHz.You will be looking to upgrade at about the same time.

Is there even such a thing as future proofing a gaming rig?

By the way I went for the E8400 ($219) and have no regrets.
 
Mav451 said:
e8400 - OCers.
Q6600 - for everyone else.

If the Q6600 was $190, this would be an easy decision. OTOH, with the e8400 being price-gouged online...I dunno. The e8400's great at $190, but if it's closer to $240 it's not as great a deal.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Q6600 G0 chips are pretty good overclockers. They won't break any records but when overclocked to around 3.0GHz or so they provide great performance for the money.
 
Lol timely response. With Microcenter's $199 sale...this is a serious no-brainer. $199 for quad is just insane. If Microcenter had this a few weeks ago, jeebus. Just imagine the foot traffic (or pissed off mobs of home builders haha).
 
DonDon said:
I would price the rest of the specs on the system, (including os and peripherals) and if the cost was a deal on the HP, then pick up an inexpensive C2D to put in it and steal the Quad for your new build.

Don
Click to expand...

Only peripherals is the KB and mouse. It's a refurb so there isn't even any speakers. Still I get what you're saying about pricing the rest of the specs, has 3GB ram installed, etc.

"if the cost was a deal on the HP" I feel kinda silly asking this but what is the "HP" ?
 
I bought a Dell Vostro 400 awhile back.... It just started a itch to upgrade. First the PS, then the 8800GT..... next thing I know the onlything left is the e6550.... and the KB lol
Now I'm Trying to sell a vostro set up... boring. See if you can profit from a resale (after you pull the q6600) and if not, I would return it.
The micro deal is tempting.
Just look up cpu-z and download it like somone else mentioned, don't bother taking it apart and messing with themal paste etc
 
"if the cost was a deal on the HP" I feel kinda silly asking this but what is the "HP" ?
Click to expand...

Doh! I meant the Dell. Just crossed up your brand with another thread I was in recently.

Don
 
Mav451 said:
Lol timely response. With Microcenter's $199 sale...this is a serious no-brainer. $199 for quad is just insane. If Microcenter had this a few weeks ago, jeebus. Just imagine the foot traffic (or pissed off mobs of home builders haha).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just got the Q6600 at Microcenter for $200, was an amazing deal.

Anyways, thanks for all the replies guys. Gonna be putting my system together this weekend, wish me luck!
 
Wish I'd seen the Microcenter deal. Unfortunately I don't have one near me, and it's in-store only, right? So a non-issue in the end.
 
In my opinion these two chips are for two different uses:

E8400 - Gaming, Overclocking
Q6600 - Video Editing, Rendering

The E8400 currently obliterates the Q6600 in almost every game at stock. When they are both overclocked to their max (Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, E8400 @ 4.2GHz) the gap shrinks but the E8400 is still generally ~10% faster. Games just started to fully utilize both cores now since dual cores were introduced 2 years ago. By the time Quad Core will be fully utilized and beneficial they will be much cheaper and better probably 12-18 months down the road.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0

Look at the benchmarks for the E8500 and Q6600 both stock and overclocked. The E8500 beats it in all the games but 3DMark06 where Quad-Core is a little better utilized.

However, if you will be using it for multi-tasking and video editing/rendering then Q6600 is definitely the way to go because this type of software does utilize all 4 cores efficiently. But if you are gaming, get yourself a E8400 and then once the Q9450 becomes cheap buy that because it will be useful, cheap and better than the Q6600.
 
exlink said:
In my opinion these two chips are for two different uses:

E8400 - Gaming, Overclocking
Q6600 - Video Editing, Rendering

The E8400 currently obliterates the Q6600 in almost every game at stock. When they are both overclocked to their max (Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, E8400 @ 4.2GHz) the gap shrinks but the E8400 is still generally ~10% faster. Games just started to fully utilize both cores now since dual cores were introduced 2 years ago. By the time Quad Core will be fully utilized and beneficial they will be much cheaper and better probably 12-18 months down the road.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0

Look at the benchmarks for the E8500 and Q6600 both stock and overclocked. The E8500 beats it in all the games but 3DMark06 where Quad-Core is a little better utilized.

However, if you will be using it for multi-tasking and video editing/rendering then Q6600 is definitely the way to go because this type of software does utilize all 4 cores efficiently. But if you are gaming, get yourself a E8400 and then once the Q9450 becomes cheap buy that because it will be useful, cheap and better than the Q6600.
Click to expand...

If the gap is very close with overclocking, and overclocking is easy, then why not get the 2 extra cores really?
Like others have said, 3ghz is good for any of the games and at 3.6 with quad cores, it rocks.
 
Hagrid said:
If the gap is very close with overclocking, and overclocking is easy, then why not get the 2 extra cores really?
Like others have said, 3ghz is good for any of the games and at 3.6 with quad cores, it rocks.
Click to expand...

Well I personally would prefer the 5%-15% performance increase over the Q6600 with the E8400 (when overclocked) right now because I would not have use for the other 2 cores since I do not use multi-core software. Once the Q9450 comes out, it will be the best bang for the buck chip.
 
E8400 for the more cache

You won't utilize the 4 cores unless you're encoding/rendering
 
Mithent said:
Well games don't need 3.0GHz+ processors at the moment anyway, so it's not as if you're really suffering by having a quad-core today. If getting a quad-core was accepting a big compromise in performance in single/dual-threaded applications then things might be different, but they're quite fast enough for any task nowadays (especially when overclocked; getting to 3.0GHz is easy and they can go higher).

Sure, an E8400 at 4.0GHz will beat a Q6600 at 3.2GHz at a single-threaded benchmark, but the difference in games at any respectable graphics settings will be negligible due to GPU limitations, and the Q6600 will beat it in many real-world heavy-CPU tasks such as video encoding.
Click to expand...

I believe Supreme Commander likes quad core, and Rainbow Six - Vegas likes a high CPU clock speed.

I think 3ghz is the magic number for games. As such, in a few weeks the q6600 will be $220 so it's about the same price as the e8400. The Q6700 will be $270. To get a good o/c for quad, you'll need to buy a 3rd party cooler for about $30 - 50, so that pushes the price up by a bit.
 
Seekeroftruth said:
See if you can profit from a resale (after you pull the q6600) and if not, I would return it, don't bother taking it apart and messing with themal paste etc
Click to expand...

Well, I was all set to return the Dell 420. I hadn't even opened the box. Just decided to send it back for a refund. Talked to Dell service rep, put me on hold, comes back to inform me she's still working on my return but has an offer for me, "would you consider keeping the computer if I credited you back $75 dollars of the the price you paid?" she asked. (this was a refurb from the outlet, I had a dell code for 15% off and free shipping so I already got it for a decent price ).

So there I was thinking whether to keep it or not. I was kind of caught off guard because I certainly had not anticipated and deals or offers from a service Rep who's job is to process returns. Anyway, I made a counter offer - "I'll keep it if you can credit me back $100." She asked me to hold on while she asked her manager. A few seconds later came back on the line and she said could accommodate me by giving me a refund of $100. Done.

So I opened the box and the thing looks practically brand new. I found one tiny scratch on one of the side panels but you really have to look for it. So then I did as you guys suggested and downloaded CPU-Z and the Q6600 is a G0 stepping. :D

Bottom line, I got a Dell XPS 420 w/Q6600 G0, 3Gb ram, 320Gb HDD and Vista Home Premium for about $500. Very tempted to pull the Q6600 for my new build but I think I just may keep the 420 intact and use it as is. Then get an E8400 for my gaming rig I'm building. So as for which CPU is more future proof? :confused: Why dwell on it? Just get one of each. :p
 
Gravestone Doji said:
Well, I was all set to return the Dell 420. I hadn't even opened the box. Just decided to send it back for a refund. Talked to Dell service rep, put me on hold, comes back to inform me she's still working on my return but has an offer for me, "would you consider keeping the computer if I credited you back $75 dollars of the the price you paid?" she asked. (this was a refurb from the outlet, I had a dell code for 15% off and free shipping so I already got it for a decent price ).

So there I was thinking whether to keep it or not. I was kind of caught off guard because I certainly had not anticipated and deals or offers from a service Rep who's job is to process returns. Anyway, I made a counter offer - "I'll keep it if you can credit me back $100." She asked me to hold on while she asked her manager. A few seconds later came back on the line and she said could accommodate me by giving me a refund of $100. Done.

So I opened the box and the thing looks practically brand new. I found one tiny scratch on one of the side panels but you really have to look for it. So then I did as you guys suggested and downloaded CPU-Z and the Q6600 is a G0 stepping. :D

Bottom line, I got a Dell XPS 420 w/Q6600 G0, 3Gb ram, 320Gb HDD and Vista Home Premium for about $500. Very tempted to pull the Q6600 for my new build but I think I just may keep the 420 intact and use it as is. Then get an E8400 for my gaming rig I'm building. So as for which CPU is more future proof? :confused: Why dwell on it? Just get one of each. :p
Click to expand...

Good job! The larger pc makers can give discounts once the buyer contemplates returning their product. For $500 that is an amazingly good deal. And it has Vista. Now you have the best of both worlds and don't really need to compromise: u can multitask/edit videos w/ the quad core, and play games on the e8400.
 
Mortuus said:
The only question i have is, why get a quad when there are and will not probably be many games that will utilize 4 cores.. i mean look how many years dual core was before games even somewhat started to utilize them.. its like buying a super expensive gfx card but not use it till a year later or so. A dual core duo today clocked high beats the quad in games since untill proper 4 core support its quite useless having it for todays games.
Click to expand...

Depends on your needs or your planning to not upgrade your Cpu again til 6 yrs or so down the line. or you got it at the time the E8400 wasnt out.

Me on the other hand, I wasnt planing on upgrading again after i grab the q6600 and I was planning on keeping it for a very long time. Plus I was gonna overclock it any way.

If I didnt have the Q6600 now and the E8400 was out.I still would had got the Q6600, I dont care about 4ghz.

I'll be happy with my 3.5ghz overclock on my Q6600 and a extra 500 mhz overclock on the E8400 wouldnt be worth it in my view.

I tend to run servers for buddies of mine also and also compose and encode my composings, Beside gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top