E8400/8500 vs Q6600 quad-core

N3mi5is said:
Are you new to building PC's, or new at typing?
Click to expand...

was typing at 4:30 am...LOL :D didnt sleep man... but seriously Q6600 is a better choice for all purposes (multi-taskin + gamin + everything u can think of) not specifically Q6600 but all quad core cpuz...
 
djmessy said:
was typing at 4:30 am...LOL :D didnt sleep man... but seriously Q6600 is a better choice for all purposes (multi-taskin + gamin + everything u can think of) not specifically Q6600 but all quad core cpuz...
Click to expand...

Actually from what I've seen, the E8400 beats the Q6600 in most games (most don't even support quadcore and those that due are usually very inefficient). If you are going to be building a gaming PC and nothing else, there is no reason to get a Q6600 over a E8400 right now. Maybe in a year or two when quadcores will be a lot cheaper.
 
For now, games do better on the dual cored machines of similar price due to higher FSB & often times faster RAM.

However, if you do any sort of multimedia or anything, the reverse is very true, and my guess is that the gaming world will catch up in 18 months or so and enter the quad core world
 
jkalland said:
For now, games do better on the dual cored machines of similar price due to higher FSB & often times faster RAM.

However, if you do any sort of multimedia or anything, the reverse is very true, and my guess is that the gaming world will catch up in 18 months or so and enter the quad core world
Click to expand...

exactly my point... make a investment wch will help in future / make an investment wch will call for an upgrade in the future... E8400 is brilliant, no doubt, but in future again ull have to go for an upgrade....
 
The real answer is just wait for the 45nm quad cores, they are coming soon! Then you get E8400/8500 performance in a quad core, and that puppy if you OC on water and hit 4.5-5ghz will spank everything out there today. I plan to pick one up when they hit the 300-350 range and pair it with the 780i I have coming. :) If you can wait then wait for the 45nm quad core. Otherwise take the best you can get at the time.
 
the other choice may be serious overkill, but there's several dual Xeon boards out now that will take a PCI-Ex16 video card...but only one. That would be my reccomendation if gaming shares your PC with work...but if it's just for gaming, you're likely gunna waste half yer CPU [or do like me and Fold while playing BF2142 :cool: ]


Since Penryn came out, some of the "older" Xeon chips [1333 FSB .60 architecture] have dropped to nothing [like...$3-375 a chip]
 
Sunin said:
The real answer is just wait for the 45nm quad cores, they are coming soon! Then you get E8400/8500 performance in a quad core, and that puppy if you OC on water and hit 4.5-5ghz will spank everything out there today. I plan to pick one up when they hit the 300-350 range and pair it with the 780i I have coming. :) If you can wait then wait for the 45nm quad core. Otherwise take the best you can get at the time.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, due to the lower multipliers on the mainstream Yorkfields, you won't be able to get past 3.6ghz (maybe 3.7ghz tops,) regardless of the motherboard and/or the cooling you have.

If you want to take a Quad to 4.0ghz+ on water, your only two options are the $1000 QX9650 or a good G0 Q6600 chip.
 
jkalland said:
For now, games do better on the dual cored machines of similar price due to higher FSB & often times faster RAM.
Click to expand...

Not sure why dual cores would have faster RAM? The main reason games are faster on them is because you can get a dual core to higher clock speeds, less transistors to worry about.
 
Some of the dual cores have more cache per core...and actually the RAM comment is misplaced, sorry. The Intel v8 is where the RAM issue kicks in due to use of FBDIMM, my bad.
 
This is not true (to my knowledge) of any of the currently released chips. Some of the lower end duals have less cache per core, but all Kentsfield quads have 8mb, which is double the maximum 4 meg L2 cache on high end Conroes. The released QX9650 has 12mb, which is double the maximum 6mb L2 cache on high end Wolfdales. Only the yet-to-be-released Q9300 Yorkfield will have less cache, as it's double the lesser amount found on the low end Wolfdales.

Remember that a Kentsfield is two Conroe cores taped together on one die, while a Yorkfield is two Wolfdale cores taped together on one die.
 
I'd go for the quad, it's probably more future proof, since more and more apps will become multi-threaded.
 
TheBluePill said:
This is a GREAT Review of current and future Dual/Quad Systems Head-to-head
at Stock and OC Speeds;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html
Click to expand...

Yeah it still leaves you up in the air about what to do. Althought the whole multiplier issues on the 45nm Quads is very upsetting. So next week I'll be looking at either a Q6600 or a E8400/8500...

I have an E6600 and in a couple of games the cpu usage hovers between 60-85%. The games are not multithreaded, so I'm leaning toward the E8500 myself. As I mainly game.

What multipliers do the E8500's have, did I see 12? that would be very nice, since most mobo's don't like to go much above 450mhz. and that would mean you could get to the 5ghz range without hitting the FSB limit!
 
Sunin said:
What multipliers do the E8500's have, did I see 12? that would be very nice, since most mobo's don't like to go much above 450mhz. and that would mean you could get to the 5ghz range without hitting the FSB limit!
Click to expand...

9.5x - not really worth the money over the E8400 at 9x.
 
considering at 9.5 multiplier a fsb of 425 gets you over 4ghz... Oye people are getting over 525 FSB's to hit 5ghz then? Wow...

why can't they just unlock the cpu multipliers... I'd much rather have 400-450 FSB and the CPU at 5ghz then my FSB at 525... I have yet to break 500 and I water cool.

Not everyone gets great overclocking motherboards...

:(
 
i am having the same debate, i notice alot of people do the "how often will you really be multitaskign liek that" question. for me it's alot - right now on my 2 monitor setup i game on the primary display (cod4, wow, hl2 etc) and on the 2nd one have movies/tv/itunes going, typically my "gaming time" is my downtime during photogrpahy edits, so i have lightroom going in the background churning out a web gallery or converting to DNGS.

as far as i know LR is multithreaded, does anyone use it on a quad and care to post up how long it takes to convert some raw files to DNG? (i know camera models will make a big difference, but still.. lol)
 
Sunin said:
considering at 9.5 multiplier a fsb of 425 gets you over 4ghz... Oye people are getting over 525 FSB's to hit 5ghz then? Wow...

why can't they just unlock the cpu multipliers... I'd much rather have 400-450 FSB and the CPU at 5ghz then my FSB at 525... I have yet to break 500 and I water cool.

Not everyone gets great overclocking motherboards...

:(
Click to expand...


They Do.. On the Extremes.. BAH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top