E8400 VS Q6600 for gaming?

PGHammer said:
That old myth about clock-frequency is still in people's heads (despite first AMD, with the Athlon64, then Intel itself with Core/Core 2, making a mockery out of that myth). If that old myth were even close to true, then a P4 Northwood 2.6 would still be ahead of most, if not all, stock Core 2 CPUs (instead, even the latest Core 2 derivative, the infamous Celeron DC E1200, smacks the 2.6C from pillar to post).

Given the utter lack of CPU bottlenecking at 3 GHz (pretty much regardless of what game you play) and that more and more titles are indeed taking advantage of more than two cores (and there's actually an operating system that also takes advantage of more than two cores), why bet on tall overclocks with questionable benefits as opposed to the very real and measurable benefits of two more processor cores?

(Those of you near a local Fry's and/or MicroCenter should be paying even stricter attention, as both chains are running in-store-only sales on the retail Q6600; in neither case is the price more than $200. This is not just quad-core for the price of dual-core; this is quad-core for *less* than dual-core.)
Click to expand...

I just got the microcenter ad and saw that. That is a very tantalizing deal.....would be a decent bump from a E6600.
 
Some people also care about the electricity bill, while the E8400 can be "fast enough" (for me) and have it's 65watt TDP. Compared to the Q66 this is easier to OC to 3.6ghz @ stock voltage so the ram can be run @ around 800mhz(default specs). -=IMO=-. E8400 is OOS @ newegg but down to $210, I'll try to get it on ebay. (Ignore my sig, it's the build I have going to be finished in a week or 2).
 
Almost all games are single thread coded. So a faster dual core would provide you with better performance over a slow quad core.
 
for someone who upgrades every 5++ years which one would be a better choice the E8400 or the Q6600?
 
this article changed my mind i'm going with the E8400 the guy is 100% right on the last part "It is true that the raw power of a quad core squashes any dual core, but if you can’t use it more than five minutes per day, it’s a redundant investment."

Quad cores
A very interesting polemic that has the world+dog spewing megabytes of text on every possible forum and mailing list, concerns the number of cores we need in our computers. For office computers, the single cores still do well, but there’s no way any serious machine should have less than two cores today. As a matter of fact, that’s the exact number of cores which is optimal this year too.

For most applications, a quad core is only as strong as one of its cores. This is because most applications are not designed for multithreading. So you bought a quad. Ok, you got more cores, yes, but who does four active tasks in the same time? Let’s get real. This happens very rarely unless you’re busy with 3D rendering and a few others not-so-common activities.

For most of us, a dual core is still a better option due to the fact that you get more juice out of one of its cores for even less money. This is an advantage for the vast majority of games and applications.

Chances are that for you, 2008 is not the year of the quad core, unless you have money to pointlessly waste. Before rushing in, calm down and think about what you need your CPU to do. If you want to play 1080p video and you just bought a Quad at 2.4 GHz per core but you got a video card without HD decoding, you’re fried when you meet one of those heavily-encoded Matroska movies. You’ll still need to overclock.

Movies, games and most applications, run excellently on a dual core systems with a lot of megahurtz per core. It’ll be at least one more year until a quad core will be a logical choice. It’s all up to the software landscape. Unless a lot of programs start popping multi-core-optimized versions, quad core is a no-go. It is true that the raw power of a quad core squashes any dual core, but if you can’t use it more than five minutes per day, it’s a redundant investment.
Click to expand...
 
If you are buying this CPU specifically for gaming you should consider which games you want to play the most and tell us so we can be more specific in our advice.

Don't pay any attention to the cpu gaming "benchmarks" ANYWHERE on the internet, the methodology is completely broken. They test for average fps instead of minimum fps, which is what matters the most for your connection in multiplayer shooters. They test the completely wrong games, sorry reviewers but if you have 2.0 ghz anything Crysis is NOT cpu limited. Every CPU gaming test should have at least CS:S and WoW worst case scenario benchmarks, they are the two most popular CPU bottlenecked games in the world right now and yet nobody bothers. Hit registration in CS:S is a function of the cmdrate, which cannot be set higher than MINIMUM framerate unless you want choke. WoW in a 25 man raid with 50 UI mods running on screen at the same time all communicating with other people's mods and parsing data can also choke a cpu more than any other game out there.

Counter-Strike:Source is still bottlenecked at 3.0ghz, you need at least 3.6 to maintain 100fps and many Q6600 cannot go that high w/o excessive voltage and heat. I have a Q6600 and I cannot go over 3.4 without increasing my vcore from 1.4 to 1.5 at which point my heat output gets crazy for a minimal increase in performance. I still regularly drop to 80-90 fps in CS:S in the worst condidions, forcing me to run lower than 100 rates in pubs. So if you are a CS:S player consider this.

I was thinking about getting a E8400 because of this problem but other than the CS:S bottleneck, I love the quad. I'm just gonna wait until the Q9450s drop in price and see if I can get 3.6ghz, with the Penryn improvements and extra cache I should be able to maintain 100fps in CS:S. Once you learn to use all 4 cores it becomes hard to go back. WoW runs only on 2 cores atm (it sets the affinity to 0 and 1 automatically, you can change it in task manager) but I can run 2 instances of WoW at the same time (2 cores per instance) without any slowdown, try that with a dual core and your framerate will be cut in half. If you run 2 instances of WoW at the same time you need quad core. You can encode video on 2 cores while using 2 for a game, if you like to Fraps and make videos in Vegas I would get a quad. It also helps if you like to play games in windowed mode, with enough ram you can leave 10+ programs including the game running and not notice a thing, many games do take advantage of 4 cores especially those using UE3 and more support is coming.
 
By the same token, if you can’t use the extra megahertz of a 8400 more than five minutes per day, it’s a redundant investment. As endless posts pointed out, you are limited by GPU for games, and movies are not going to use the 4g. Plus the 6600 is CHEAPER than the 8400. So how is getting a quad extra investment compare to a 8400? The argument makes sense if we are talking 2140 vs 6600, but not 8400.

mista ting said:
this article changed my mind i'm going with the E8400 the guy is 100% right on the last part "It is true that the raw power of a quad core squashes any dual core, but if you can’t use it more than five minutes per day, it’s a redundant investment."
Click to expand...
 
Arguments about expense are silly.

They're within 10-20 bucks of each other right now. If you can afford a heatsink to go on it, you can afford the price difference.
 
shiznit said:
Counter-Strike:Source is still bottlenecked at 3.0ghz, you need at least 3.6 to maintain 100fps and many Q6600 cannot go that high w/o excessive voltage and heat. I have a Q6600 and I cannot go over 3.4 without increasing my vcore from 1.4 to 1.5 at which point my heat output gets crazy for a minimal increase in performance. I still regularly drop to 80-90 fps in CS:S in the worst condidions, forcing me to run lower than 100 rates in pubs. So if you are a CS:S player consider this.
Click to expand...

what is your rig spec?
what res/settings do you play CS:S at to not get 100fps?
 
shiznit said:
Counter-Strike:Source is still bottlenecked at 3.0ghz, you need at least 3.6 to maintain 100fps and many Q6600 cannot go that high w/o excessive voltage and heat.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's your graphics card or somethin'. I have my e3110 at 3.0ghz and get 300fps+ all the time and never see a dip below like 150 or 160. That's on decent servers though. There may be servers with higher rates that can do better. I dunno. But blow 100 fps? Never seen it with my e3110 @3.0ghz and 8800GT superclocked....
 
I would pick the e8400 NOT for the GHz (3ghz = no difference for any game unless you play at 800x600 which no one does) but for the low temps. The q6600 pumps out a bit more heat than the c2d's.
 
Ub3rn00b said:
I'm guessing it's your graphics card or somethin'. I have my e3110 at 3.0ghz and get 300fps+ all the time and never see a dip below like 150 or 160. That's on decent servers though. There may be servers with higher rates that can do better. I dunno. But blow 100 fps? Never seen it with my e3110 @3.0ghz and 8800GT superclocked....
Click to expand...
I run at low resolution so there is no way in hell my 8800gt is the bottleneck, and I set the Q6600 to 3.0 to try to match your scores. 5v5 its above 100fps almost all the time but in 24 player pubs it drops into the 80s often with many players or action on the screen. r_3dsky is set to 0.

go into a 24 player Office and tell me the 3.0ghz is maintaining 100fps all the time, there is no way. If you do find one, post the IP and I will try it, this has really been bothering me for a while. Just coming out of CT spawn into courtyard with all the players on screen is enough to bring it down to the 80s. I use net_graph 3 btw.

1280x800 4xAA 8xAF all on high HDR off - these settings are not even close to being video card bottlenecked in CS:S
 
I know this thread's not new but what the duece? There are 3 of these threads on this page alone. Somebody needs to control the madness of these redundant thread topics.
 
I have owned both but I'm using my E8400 now because it's lighter on power consumption (~100W idle at 3.8ghz compared to ~240W at 3.6ghz). Gaming wise, I haven't noticed a big difference because no matter what, your GPU will limit frame rate first. IMO, by the time games will make quad cores NECESSARY, there'll be much better CPUs than either of them and they'll probably use a new socket anyways.

I would say if you do just gaming/school work, go for the E8400 now. If you encode/edit/model, get a G0 Q6600. I'd recommend the Q6600 over the Q9450 even because at a pricepoint of $200 (microcenter offers this), the q6600 is tough to beat.

You can't go wrong either way, so I decided on the E8400 because it uses less power.
 
I just ordered a Q6600. I had to deal with the same debate when I bought my first computer except it was dual vs. single. "Single cores clock higher!" Yeah, but boy am I glad I have a dual now... Games are expanding, as are applications. What seems "fast" now will not be so fast tomorrow; parallelism is the future!
 
Sovereign said:
I just ordered a Q6600. I had to deal with the same debate when I bought my first computer except it was dual vs. single. "Single cores clock higher!" Yeah, but boy am I glad I have a dual now... Games are expanding, as are applications. What seems "fast" now will not be so fast tomorrow; parallelism is the future!
Click to expand...

Right. I remember a ton of these threads when the dual cores came out. All the same arguments. IMO, it depends on how often you upgrade your CPU. I typicly keep my CPU on a 2-3 year cycle, maybe longer, but I upgrade my video card about every year. For me going with a Quad made more sense. I was sure happy I went with a dual core a year later.
 
Most games won't take advantage of the added cores, so the higher clock frequency will yield better results for gaming with the exception of a few titles.
 
Buy for the here and now - trying to "invest" in computer tech is foolish IMO. Although I'm glad I got my 8800GTX opening day....
Of course I usually upgrade at least 1 component of my box every 3-6 months or so...

I don't know why everybody thinks the proc doesn't matter at high resoltutions. I went from an E6600 @ 3.4GHz to my E8400 at 4.1GHz and everything is much smoother. If you need something more quantifiable than "smoother", go try it for yourself - you'll see.
 
shiznit said:
I run at low resolution so there is no way in hell my 8800gt is the bottleneck, and I set the Q6600 to 3.0 to try to match your scores. 5v5 its above 100fps almost all the time but in 24 player pubs it drops into the 80s often with many players or action on the screen. r_3dsky is set to 0.

go into a 24 player Office and tell me the 3.0ghz is maintaining 100fps all the time, there is no way. If you do find one, post the IP and I will try it, this has really been bothering me for a while. Just coming out of CT spawn into courtyard with all the players on screen is enough to bring it down to the 80s. I use net_graph 3 btw.

1280x800 4xAA 8xAF all on high HDR off - these settings are not even close to being video card bottlenecked in CS:S
Click to expand...


I'm sure it would be lower fps with that many players. I typically play with friends with a 4v4, 5v5, or 6v6. Nothing more usually.

I have noticed, that Team Fortress runs a bit lower FPS. Same engine right? So I'm unsure why. Maybe higher texture res? I dunno...
 
The Legend said:
Most games won't take advantage of the added cores, so the higher clock frequency will yield better results if you play in low resolutions with details turns down.
Click to expand...

Now its fixed. Pretty much everything is GPU limited currently, and if its not GPU limited, it probably looks like shit.
 
Ub3rn00b said:
I'm sure it would be lower fps with that many players. I typically play with friends with a 4v4, 5v5, or 6v6. Nothing more usually.

I have noticed, that Team Fortress runs a bit lower FPS. Same engine right? So I'm unsure why. Maybe higher texture res? I dunno...
Click to expand...

I noticed that too, it's a much newer version of the engine and many things have changed. The good news is that multithreading is in finally, but it's not fully enabled by default. While playing, type "mat_queue_mode 2" in console and watch CPU usage increase and framerate go up at least 30%.
 
Personally, I had this same decision to make 2 weeks ago. I went for the q6600 because as others said, the GPU is the limiting factor, not the cpu once you OC.

In my case, my q6600 is OC'd to 3.2 stable, with a 8800GT (currently not OC'd) and I can play Crysis at 1280x1024 resolution on VERY HIGH settings, my fps is min 25, avg 31 max 40. The game is extremely playable with a q6600, and if you can play Crysis with a q6600, it will blow EVERY other game out of the water, UT3, World in Conflict, Company of Heroes etc... They all run at max settings with fps of 50-60fps.

Come next year, when there are quad core games coming out (alan wake etc), you'll see even more benefit. A dual won't last as long as a quad if you're planning to keep the computer for 5 years (like myself). If you're one to upgrade every 2 yrs, then it doesn't matter, but if you're like me, a quad will last longer (you can't add two cores to a dual, but u can OC the quad if need be).

Just my two cents.
 
I love my q6600. Even if the 8400 can oc to 4ghz, it doesnt make up for the 2 cores its missing. If you do any sort of multitasking while gaming, the q6600 is the way to go.
 
shiznit said:
I noticed that too, it's a much newer version of the engine and many things have changed. The good news is that multithreading is in finally, but it's not fully enabled by default. While playing, type "mat_queue_mode 2" in console and watch CPU usage increase and framerate go up at least 30%.
Click to expand...

Awesome..I'll check it out. I assume that command works with CS:S as well then?
 
I was gonna say, didn't [H] do a big preview of the multi-core enhancements for the Source engine like a REALLY long time ago? When do we get to see that at work with CSS?

I really need a new PC. I haven't built one since 2001. The one I have now was given to me by a friend, and it was a lateral move rather than an upgrade. I'll be going with the Q6600 because I plan on doing a lot of level editing, and will more than likely teach myself modelling while I'm at it. Moving between games and editors is a big priority for me.

That being said, (this is off topic, so PM me please!) is 64-bit Vista the way to go? I'm so not up on the PC game. At all.
 
Might as well post here, 64bit is fine. I haven't come across any problems other then nothing runs 64bit lol.When you install a program if its 64bit it will go in the program folder and if not it will go in the x86 one.
I am wondering where the multi-core support is too. I know they have made it muti-core aware but where is all the stuff they where doing in the demos from almost 2 years ago now?
 
Uh oh, now we're into an OS debate.
Under no circumstances is Vista ever the "way to go". People will argue, but... They are wrong.
 
I havn't read the whole thread but my quick response to the original question would be:

Get the 8400, overclock it and spend the money you saved on a better graphics card. That will have more of an impact on gaming, especially if you run at a fairly high resolution.
 
For me the debate is in the mobile arena.

3.06 dual or
2.53 quad

Only get to game maybe 33% of the time because long hours spent on the machine are working ones - and Excel 07 uses quads quite nicely.

At high res the framerates seem to matter little (things get gpu limited) and there appears to be little between the processors, such that folks dwell on other things, heat, power, and price.

But there is a flip side of that coin, if you are not finding much better speed out of a higher clocked dual core, because you are gaming in high res, then why not get the quad and be ready as the software matures?

$.02
 
Multiple cores are the technology of the future, and as many before me have said, 3.2+ means GPU is the limiting factor. Q6600 is the hottest buy out there for a reason fellas -- many don't know all the reasons for this when they choose to purchase one, but some of us do. Personally, I know exactly how special this is. It had to be this special to get me to come back to Intel after a decade of AMD. :cool:
 
UtopiA said:
Uh oh, now we're into an OS debate.
Under no circumstances is Vista ever the "way to go". People will argue, but... They are wrong.
Click to expand...

And I must QFT this because no 2008 technology discussion is complete without someone limply trying to prop Vista up as a viable OS, when there is no such learned argument possible.
 
Meh, wasn't trying to start an OS debate. I don't plan on installing XP again, I'd rather just move forward. My main point was should I go 64- or 32-bit.

I've since read a bunch of the Vista threads and I'm far less concerned about going 64-bit than I was before.

As for the Q6600/E8400 debate, this has been a helpful thread in many ways. Now I'm sold on going quad.
 
I guess I am a small minority that actual likes vista. Its not the greats improvement over xp but there are some. I guess you can hold out for windows 7 but then everyone will say vista is fine and there is no reason to get it.
 
I love my Q6600. Makes photoshop(and everything else) like lightning compared to my old G4. Also handles every game ive thrown at it with no problems. Crysis is smooth smooth smooth, and so is the cry engine 2 sandbox! Highly recommended, even at stock speed.
 
Ender1183 said:
I guess I am a small minority that actual likes vista. Its not the greats improvement over xp but there are some. I guess you can hold out for windows 7 but then everyone will say vista is fine and there is no reason to get it.
Click to expand...

I tried vista and xp on my new build. vista is definitely quicker on my hardware. I went back to xp a couple times and was scratching my head as to why people think its faster. I think its mostly from using superfetch with 4gb of ram. running vista 64 home premium right now with with no problems at all.
 
Some one posted a good article about quad core helping dual card solutions get more frames in another thread. It was very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top