So... Q6600 or E6850?

M

MentatYP

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
497
There are a few threads already discussing the rumored price drop where the Q6600 and the upcoming E6850 will supposedly be priced the same, but I'm starting a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of each CPU because I haven't seen much discussion about that.

So if the rumors are true, come July 22nd the Q6600 (4 x 2.4GHz) and the E6850 (2 x 3.0GHz) will both be priced at $266. Tell me which one you would choose and why. Aside from being curious what people use all these cores for, it'll help me make up my mind about my own upgrade path.

I'll start it off. I don't do a whole lot of divx encoding (mainly soccer matches recorded using tv card), no 3D rendering, or any other multi-core activity that I can think of. Actually I do Photoshop work but have yet to run an action that takes longer than a couple seconds tops, and compile code but that's already plenty fast on my system too. I tried Supreme Commander, but probably won't be getting into it too much. Plus I've heard that the quad cores are harder to overclock because of heat issues and I'm not a watercooling kind of guy. So right now I'm leaning more toward the E6850. Maybe in a year or so if there are more quad-capable games I'll look into getting a quad-core, but in the meanwhile I think the higher clocks of the 2 cores on the E6850 will suit me better. Your thoughts?
 
Divx encoding? I'd go with the Q6600 for sure, I guess it depends on what program you're using to encode them, not sure if all encoders are optimized for quad core, but if yours is you'll notice a significant difference in encoding times.

Also you might consider waiting for the penyrn cores to come out, they're supposed to run cooler than to current quad cores. :D
 
I would second the Q6600, solely for Alan Wake and UT 2007.... wait, is UT going to be able to UTilize quad cores?

Sadly we don't know what performance increases to expect with these advancements with any, so it's a bit of a gamble, but not a terribly bad one. I mean, you do end up with a kickass processor either way right?
 
Same case.. i think im leaning more towards the e6850 though. i don't do any video editing what-so-ever, and primarily use the computer for heavy gaming/web surfing/multitasking which i am sure an OC'd e6850 will fly with it. Just don't know which would be faster overall when OC'd between the q6600 or e6850
 
We won't know until the 6850 is out, I mean, we could speculate *theoreticals* until were blue in the face.
 
IMO just wait and let the [H]ard users buy the CPU's overclock them and post benchmarks, then it will all be clear.
 
The E6850 isn't really worth it, the comparison should be between the $266 Q6600 and the $163 E6550.
 
Are you asking about what we would do or what we think you should do?

For me, no question. More cores > less cores. SupCom Loves quads, and thats primarily what I built \\vilya for.
 
Depends how they overclock. If I can OC the Q6600 to 3GHz w/o it consuming a pissload of power and putting off that much heat then yea. If not then see what the best OCing dual core is and get that. Or get nothing coz my C2D is doing fine at 3.2GHz.
 
Well, the Q6600 should do around 3 ghz easily. The E6850 should do around 3.5 easily.

The 6850 requires a 1333 motherboard and uses 667 DDR 2. The Q6600 is just 1066. Most of you have 1066 max motherboards. You would have to buy at least a new motherboard and possibly new memory to get the 6850. Also, intel's next chips will be 1333. You would want to get a motherboard that will be supporting those eventually.

I'm going with the 6850 for now, then quad with the next line of intel chips. The Q6600 runs far too hot and is much slower for dual core and single core apps. I can't see games like alan wake running slow on a 6850 overclocked to 3.5.
 
GLSauron said:
Are you asking about what we would do or what we think you should do?

For me, no question. More cores > less cores. SupCom Loves quads, and thats primarily what I built \\vilya for.
Click to expand...

This games plays 10 FOLD better on my Q6600
Even before I put my SLI 8800 GTX It was running amazing on my X1900XT

I was in the same spot as the OP, I wasn't sure what to go for.
I figured 4 cores > 2 cores and went for Q6600 of E6600
 
Crucible1001 said:
Well, the Q6600 should do around 3 ghz easily. The E6850 should do around 3.5 easily.

The 6850 requires a 1333 motherboard and uses 667 DDR 2. The Q6600 is just 1066. Most of you have 1066 max motherboards. You would have to buy at least a new motherboard and possibly new memory to get the 6850. Also, intel's next chips will be 1333. You would want to get a motherboard that will be supporting those eventually.

I'm going with the 6850 for now, then quad with the next line of intel chips. The Q6600 runs far too hot and is much slower for dual core and single core apps. I can't see games like alan wake running slow on a 6850 overclocked to 3.5.
Click to expand...

Got this from someone "in the know"

Intel whacking the prices of the C2D Conroes on 7/22/07 is pure PR-Dept
BS. Intel is changing the operating specs and if you work it out there is no price change at all if
you keep the 9X multiplier in mind that you must have to be able to OC through the roof and not
run out of FSB speed ability of the motherboard. In fact the prices to keep a 9X multiplier are
going up on the dual cores!


To keep the 9X multi ya have to go to an E6850 (1333 FSB quad pumped with an 9 multi) which
works out to 333Mhz x 9 = 3.00Ghz = $266. If you take that same CPU and lower the FSB
speed rating to 1066 quad pumped like the E6600 you are right back to 266 x 9 = 2.40Ghz for
$226. You could take any 266FSB x 9 E6600 at $226 and run it as a 333FSB x 9 E6850 even
plugged into an old shoe box and save yourself $40 after the July "price cuts"


The price cut on the Q6600 quad cores (266FSB true x 9 multi) is real though with the price
being cut in 1/2 ($530 now to $266 in July) and that is a screaming deal for sure.


Basically all Intel is doing is playing with the rated FSB speeds on paper by changing them from
1066 quad pumped (266Mhz FSB true) to 1333 quad pumped (333Mhz FSB true), holding the
the multiplier the same and adding 250 to the part number (E6600 becomes the E6850) and
jacking the price!!! They can do it cause they know they FAR FAR FAR under rated the Conroes.
Intel is just juggling numbers while laughing all the way to the bank while the press, who can
not use a calculator apparently, line up like the good sheep they are and announce the Intel
PR-Dept "prices cuts in July" Bull Shit to the world!!!
Click to expand...
 
To be honest I was contemplating between the two processors. This is my conclusion. The Q6600 would be better for me.

1. I do game a lot but not the newer ones (mainly counter strike).

2. I don't edit video.

3. I use very little photoshop

4. I do surf the internet, but never have more than 3 browsers open at one time. I can't stand the chaos.

5. I burn a lot of DVDs.

6. Overclocking will most likely get me 3.0+ghz on the quad and about 3.3+ghz on the 6850.

Even with my current system an amd 3400 (754 socket), It in itself is very fast. So, I doubt that the speed of the q6600 and 6850 while is theoretically different, but I doubt I can differentiate between the two. Let's be honest, both of these cpus are at least 3 to 4 time faster than my current cpu so I see no difference. So it all comes down to 2 cores versus 4 cores. Right now, dual core possibility has not even reached it peaks yet let a lone quad cores. However, we can only speculate that later programs that will be release will take advantage of it. So, therefore, to last me a little longer, quad core will be the best option.
 
Plenty of games on the horizon will be utilising multiple cores so I suppose it depends on what you're waiting for or what you want it to do.

Warhammer Age of Reckoning is going to be utilising multiple cores so it's a no brainer for me. I'll wait till later in development to see how effective it is on 4+ cores and upgrade for the XMas releases.
 
That's an interesting point of view, comparing not stock speeds but ultimate overclockable stock speeds by taking the multiplier into account. I think this is a subjective and limited view of Intel's pricing though, as this only applies to enthusiasts who plan to overclock. For people who don't, the stock clock is what matters, not how high you can get it OC-ed without having to pay out the nose for expensive OC-able RAM.
 
I'm going to go OT here a bit, forgive me.

With regard to the commentary on the pricing change, I think the 6850 release may explain the terrible overclocks of the more recent Conroes. I believe intel is keeping all the high-bin cores for the new release(s). Let's face it, even a lame C2D is capable of hitting 3.0GHz, but intel probably wants to ensure they can drop 3.0/3.2/3.4GHz procs at will (using stock vcore). I might be completely wrong, but what happened to all the promise of the early C2D's doing 3.6 - 4.0GHz? There seemed to be a lot more hitting those clocks last year than there are today...

:D

Tom
 
I'd most certainly get the Quad, I already have a C2D over 3GHz -got to advance you know... :)
 
Even if the 6850s are just 6600s that are overclocked, they are still not a bad deal. Look at overclocked video cards. People pay extra for those even though they can get those clocks on a stock one. I am betting that the 6850s are higher binned than your average 6600. I am not looking to hit 4 GHZ with the chip. I just want 3500. I know most E6600s coming out these days will not usually do that. I should easily get that with the 6850 with only a slightly higher cost. I will also get more out of the memory.
 
In most cases I would be tooting off the quad core but in your circumstance (which you did a good job of describing), I would go with the dual core option.

By time you find yourself in the need of quad core (if ever in your situation, it'll probably more of a convince thing than a necsitiy) they'll probably be faster than your E6850 and be at a cheap price point.

EDIT: Oh yea I forgot to mention that I also picked the dual-core in your situation b/c of your lack of willing to use watercooling. Quad cores already consume twice as much energy as their dual core counter parts. And overclocking they get pretty hot, almost to the point that its pointless to oc without good watercooling (imo others would obviously disagree). So yea stick with the dc imo.
 
Crucible1001 said:
I'm going with the 6850 for now, then quad with the next line of intel chips. The Q6600 runs far too hot and is much slower for dual core and single core apps. I can't see games like alan wake running slow on a 6850 overclocked to 3.5.
Click to expand...

I cant believe I just witnessed somebody knocking the 6600...a p33 is slow, a 6600 is not.
 
Hah, I meant slower for dual core and single core COMPARED to the 6850. For stuff that actually uses all 4 cores, it is faster.
 
Actually I just realized that you were talking about the Q6600 and not the E6600 in which case your orginal comment was right and I agree to. Me eyes play tricks on may!
 
Both the e6850 and q6600 sound like overkill for the thread author. What does he need them for?

A q6600 would be nice for running a bunch of vmware guests...mmmm...
 
jeenam said:
Both the e6850 and q6600 sound like overkill for the thread author. What does he need them for?

A q6600 would be nice for running a bunch of vmware guests...mmmm...
Click to expand...

If the Q6600 actually falls in price to $266 or less then my E-penis might need a Quad... :D
 
I have a quad core. Not because I need it but because I wanted it. It may come in handy eventually.

It's all about the E-Penis. :D

Realistically, if you are the type who upgrades all the time, the E6850 is probably the best choice. If you are the type that wants to keep a machine for a long time and not upgrade so much, then a Q6600 makes more sense as it is more "future proof". (God I hate that phrase.)

Since the original poster is still using a socket 754 system I'd say that he or she is probably in the latter categrory and therefore should go with the Q6600.
 
Dan_D said:
Realistically, if you are the type who upgrades all the time, the E6850 is probably the best choice. If you are the type that wants to keep a machine for a long time and not upgrade so much, then a Q6600 makes more sense as it is more "future proof". (God I hate that phrase.)
Click to expand...

Thats kind of what I was thinking. Since I upgrade fairly often, I could get a 6850 and OC it much higher, than my current e6600. It would give me great performance now, at hopefully 3.5-4.0Ghz, and by the time games come out that actually use 4 cores, etc... I'd probably be getting a new system anyway.

I actually might just get something like a newer stepping 6700 or something that overclocks better. My e6600 was a very early stepping and takes a lot of juice just to break 3Ghz.
 
jeenam said:
Both the e6850 and q6600 sound like overkill for the thread author. What does he need them for?

A q6600 would be nice for running a bunch of vmware guests...mmmm...
Click to expand...

For playing Oblivion. And solitaire. I'd like a fighting chance at being able to play new games as they come out, and the X2 4600+ is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Dan_D said:
Realistically, if you are the type who upgrades all the time, the E6850 is probably the best choice. If you are the type that wants to keep a machine for a long time and not upgrade so much, then a Q6600 makes more sense as it is more "future proof". (God I hate that phrase.)

Since the original poster is still using a socket 754 system I'd say that he or she is probably in the latter categrory and therefore should go with the Q6600.
Click to expand...

How far into the future will I have to wait until the Q6600 is more powerful than the E6850 for my purposes (main system-pusher: gaming)? My crystal ball says a year and a half to 2 years, at which time I'd be ready to upgrade again anyway. So what would be best in the meantime? I'm still leaning toward the E6850. Adobe Lightroom is really kicking my system in the pants so that would be a big reason to go quad, except that I haven't found anything confirming quad core compatibility in Lightroom.

And I don't think AMD makes a socket 754 X2 4600+ :)
 
MentatYP said:
For playing Oblivion. And solitaire. I'd like a fighting chance at being able to play new games as they come out, and the X2 4600+ is getting a bit long in the tooth.



How far into the future will I have to wait until the Q6600 is more powerful than the E6850 for my purposes (main system-pusher: gaming)? My crystal ball says a year and a half to 2 years, at which time I'd be ready to upgrade again anyway. So what would be best in the meantime? I'm still leaning toward the E6850. Adobe Lightroom is really kicking my system in the pants so that would be a big reason to go quad, except that I haven't found anything confirming quad core compatibility in Lightroom.

And I don't think AMD makes a socket 754 X2 4600+ :)
Click to expand...

If you overclock, you won't have to wait at all.
 
QUad core , with 1066FSB , whilst the 1333 FSB is limited in overclocking.

Most mobos get to 2000FSB (quadpumped) which is 500fsb , anyway this menas you have 700 fsb left to play with the 1333fsb cores and rougly 1000 with the 1066mhz ones.

Quad cores are perfect for the future ,say you are gaming and downloading at the same time .

I would definately choose the quad over the e6850 , would clock it to 3.2 ghz and leave it at that;)
 
nooh said:
QUad core , with 1066FSB , whilst the 1333 FSB is limited in overclocking.

Most mobos get to 2000FSB (quadpumped) which is 500fsb , anyway this menas you have 700 fsb left to play with the 1333fsb cores and rougly 1000 with the 1066mhz ones.

Quad cores are perfect for the future ,say you are gaming and downloading at the same time .

I would definately choose the quad over the e6850 , would clock it to 3.2 ghz and leave it at that;)
Click to expand...

No, most mobos don't get to 500MHz. Most motherboard models with the P35, P965, 650i Ultra, 650i SLI, 680i LT, and 680i SLI chipsets have the capability in BIOS to do so and there is a certain percentage of these boards that are certainly capable of reaching those speeds but not everyone of them can do it. I've run into quite a few boards using those above mentioned chipsets that can't. In any case I'd say it's far to say that almost all of them can at least reach around 400MHz FSB which is sufficient for a Q6600 to reach it's limits in most cases.

And you lost me with your FSB statement. The processor has no FSB limitations. It's only limited by the motherboard it sits on in relation to FSB speeds. What is the limiting factor in FSB overclocking is going to be one of two things. Either the CPU will reach it's physical clock ceiling, or the motherboard reaches it's FSB ceiling. The processor itself will be clocked at FSB x multiplier and that will be the resulting speeds. There are no guarantees about what you will or will not be able to do with a given chipset, motherboard or processor.
 
Good point about the FSB difference. I had actually forgotten about that when thinking about OC-ability.
 
sorry if you misunderstood me but thats what I meant , motherboard bound or cpu bound thats your limit , having a 1333 cpu will limit your motherboard FSB's cos it starts off at such a high FSB , they are not cheap for no reason you know , you pay the price in overclocking.
 
nooh said:
sorry if you misunderstood me but thats what I meant , motherboard bound or cpu bound thats your limit , having a 1333 cpu will limit your motherboard FSB's cos it starts off at such a high FSB , they are not cheap for no reason you know , you pay the price in overclocking.
Click to expand...

You mean because of the lower multiplier, if I understand?
 
Q6600 for sure,that is what I am going with once the axe falls on AMD,err,I mean the next price drop from Intel. ;) Intel is coming very fast and damn furious with all these price drops.What would AMD need to drop the price of say,the X2 6000+ down to,to even be competitve with that kind of bargain !?

If this insanity actually goes through,I see the AMD forum dying a very fast death.Its hard to beleive how slow its gotten since I first joined back in 2001.I hope Barcelona ships on time for AMD's sake.I think the Q6600 will do you better,and longer,then the dual core 6850 will in gaming and in other desktop endeavors.
 
I'm still in the process of learning many things, but if you hace four cores and say you wanna play games while using xifre or teamspeak all running at the same time. wouldn't a quad core do better in that situation than a dual core?
 
If your so sure that games in 2 years will be using 4 cores why not get the q6600? If the game is gonna use 4 cores im pretty sure the q6600 is gonna be crazy fast still. Doesnt make sense to spend 300 dollers on the dual then in 2 years saying youll upgrade to quade becuase games are gonna start using it. Becuase if thats true then 2 years from now the quades will be twice as fast as that dual on games.
Im on same boat but still trying to see what improvement games will get with quads in future. If unreal 2007 gives any performance gain then ill get the quade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top