![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
X6800 vs. QX6700
- Thread starter SNIP3R
- Start date
CrazyBeaner
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Messages
- 465
ill go with a 3800x2 am2, and then just upgrade to amds k8l 
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
jordan172005
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 426
I would go with the X6800 out of the two because it is more than enough to play games and surfing the web. The QX6700 is really only needed if you do alot of video encoding and stuff like that. I would actually not waste my money on the X6800 either and instead I would get the E6600. All of these processors are great though IMO.
Maybe, but you can get E6600 to around 3.5Ghz without much effort, and with reasonable temps, and it leaves AMD behind.
SNIP3R, I'd suggest neither - both X6800 and QX6700 are too expensive at the moment, and you'd be paying lot of $$$ for just "first in the line" product, while performance gains wouldn't be nowhere near difference in price. E6600 is much better choice (and even E6300 or E6400).
I would suggest different configuration than one you listed, because you'd be throwing money away with such configuration.
Intel Bad Axe 2 is very good board, I'd leave that, or consider P5W DH Deluxe. Both are great boards, and while BX2 overclocks better, P5W DH has better bundle (eSATA ports - very useful, Wi-Fi etc.). Decide which you prefer, but like I said - both are great boards, top 3 boards for Conroe builds at the moment, and you can't go wrong with either one.
As for memory, you really don't need that expensive memory. There are much cheaper options, which would also be great for overclock. Take for example Super Talent CL4 800Mhz, it's reasonably priced memory, and great for overclocking, people ran it at 1000Mhz with tight timings. In any case, I strongly suggest you to take some other memory, you really don't need that Ballistix (when you OC you'll hit wall elsewhere anyway).
As for Raptors, I'm not sure if you really need them. They are also quite expensive, and you'd see only minor gains over 320Gb Seagate Barracuda series 7200.10. Those Barracudas have 16MB cache, and use perpandicular recording, and they are almost as fast as Rapotors.
And third, you really don't need that PSU, plus you can get better PSUs. You have absolutely no need for 750W power supply, even if you at some point decide to upgrade to Intel Core 2 Quad, 8800GTX SLI and add several HDDs in RAID. I would recommend Seasonic PSUs, S12 series. Seasonic S12 500W is great PSU, top of the line product, one of the best on the market at the moment. It's powerful, stable, efficient and very quiet. You could take Seasonic S12 600W, if you're concerned about power, but believe me, S12 500W will be enough for Conroe / Kentsfield builds with power-hungry graphic cards, 4GM ram and several hard disks. If you'd like modular PSU, take a look at Seasonic M12 series. Take a look at jonnyguru.com, or SilenPC, those are best sites for PSU info and reviews. There you can find valuable information on actual power needed for current systems, good reviews etc.
I would recommend something like this:
Intel Bad Axe 2
E6600
2x1GB Super Talent CL4 800Mhz
X1950 Pro / 7900GS / 7950GT / 8800GTX (depending on your budget)
320Gb Seagate Barracuda, 16MB cache, SATAII, series 7200.10
Seasonic S12 500W / 600W
Lian Li PC7 Plus
Regarding graphic card, I wouldn't buy 8800 cards now, the prices will be halved soon, and more DX10 cards will come out. I'd say, buy some good higher midrange card like X1950Pro or 7900GS, and upgrade to DX10 card later down the road. You can't even utilize all of the 8800 benefits yet, IMHO better buy it when prices drop.
This rig will be great for you, and if it's gaming rig you'll just need graphic card upgrade in the following years. Yuu can also overclock it to 3.5GHz relatively easy. You'd be saving lot of cash if you take rig similar to this one instead of one you listed, while the performance difference would be marginal.
SNIP3R, I'd suggest neither - both X6800 and QX6700 are too expensive at the moment, and you'd be paying lot of $$$ for just "first in the line" product, while performance gains wouldn't be nowhere near difference in price. E6600 is much better choice (and even E6300 or E6400).
I would suggest different configuration than one you listed, because you'd be throwing money away with such configuration.
Intel Bad Axe 2 is very good board, I'd leave that, or consider P5W DH Deluxe. Both are great boards, and while BX2 overclocks better, P5W DH has better bundle (eSATA ports - very useful, Wi-Fi etc.). Decide which you prefer, but like I said - both are great boards, top 3 boards for Conroe builds at the moment, and you can't go wrong with either one.
As for memory, you really don't need that expensive memory. There are much cheaper options, which would also be great for overclock. Take for example Super Talent CL4 800Mhz, it's reasonably priced memory, and great for overclocking, people ran it at 1000Mhz with tight timings. In any case, I strongly suggest you to take some other memory, you really don't need that Ballistix (when you OC you'll hit wall elsewhere anyway).
As for Raptors, I'm not sure if you really need them. They are also quite expensive, and you'd see only minor gains over 320Gb Seagate Barracuda series 7200.10. Those Barracudas have 16MB cache, and use perpandicular recording, and they are almost as fast as Rapotors.
And third, you really don't need that PSU, plus you can get better PSUs. You have absolutely no need for 750W power supply, even if you at some point decide to upgrade to Intel Core 2 Quad, 8800GTX SLI and add several HDDs in RAID. I would recommend Seasonic PSUs, S12 series. Seasonic S12 500W is great PSU, top of the line product, one of the best on the market at the moment. It's powerful, stable, efficient and very quiet. You could take Seasonic S12 600W, if you're concerned about power, but believe me, S12 500W will be enough for Conroe / Kentsfield builds with power-hungry graphic cards, 4GM ram and several hard disks. If you'd like modular PSU, take a look at Seasonic M12 series. Take a look at jonnyguru.com, or SilenPC, those are best sites for PSU info and reviews. There you can find valuable information on actual power needed for current systems, good reviews etc.
I would recommend something like this:
Intel Bad Axe 2
E6600
2x1GB Super Talent CL4 800Mhz
X1950 Pro / 7900GS / 7950GT / 8800GTX (depending on your budget)
320Gb Seagate Barracuda, 16MB cache, SATAII, series 7200.10
Seasonic S12 500W / 600W
Lian Li PC7 Plus
Regarding graphic card, I wouldn't buy 8800 cards now, the prices will be halved soon, and more DX10 cards will come out. I'd say, buy some good higher midrange card like X1950Pro or 7900GS, and upgrade to DX10 card later down the road. You can't even utilize all of the 8800 benefits yet, IMHO better buy it when prices drop.
This rig will be great for you, and if it's gaming rig you'll just need graphic card upgrade in the following years. Yuu can also overclock it to 3.5GHz relatively easy. You'd be saving lot of cash if you take rig similar to this one instead of one you listed, while the performance difference would be marginal.
umbolo said:
Thanks for the post !
I already have the components listed in OP.
But am open to great suggestions like yours. Thanks !
Such a hard decision choosing between these two chips.
It seems the QX6700 doesnt offer any gaming performance advantages over the X6800.
But again Quad Core is only growning stronger so resale value will be better.
Point taken.
Keep em coming ! Your Vote Counts !
ThreeDee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,380
out of your choices given ..I'd go the 4 core route for the "future proof" factor
tho just straight gaming with todays titles , the x6800 is going to be faster and I would imagine that it probably overclocks better too .
[F]old|[H]ard
tho just straight gaming with todays titles , the x6800 is going to be faster and I would imagine that it probably overclocks better too .
[F]old|[H]ard
If you have the money, I would get the QX6700, as multithreaded apps and games are becoming more and more popular and with 4 cores you can really rip. Its of course widely overpriced imho, but as I said IF you have that money to spend I would choose it of the two. The 6800 is a beast though, dont get me wrong, but having 4 cores in some situations gains are impressive and will continue to do so.
No other consumer-level quads have been announced yet. The Q6600 isn't an extreme processor, so it won't be unlocked. Except for that, though, there's no particular reason to spend the extra money on the QX6700. It's just an additional 266Mhz and these things overclock like crazy.
As far as gaming goes, there's no reason to buy a quadcore at all. Nothing really uses 4 cores, and likely nothing will use them in 2007. Hell, nothing really uses 2 cores either. The only valid reasons to go quad is for highend workstation stuff (3d rendering, compiling code, etc) or to run a server.
As far as gaming goes, there's no reason to buy a quadcore at all. Nothing really uses 4 cores, and likely nothing will use them in 2007. Hell, nothing really uses 2 cores either. The only valid reasons to go quad is for highend workstation stuff (3d rendering, compiling code, etc) or to run a server.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
Liar!CrazyBeaner said:ill go with a 3800x2 am2, and then just upgrade to amds k8l
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
e6600 stock > 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz
I would go with a QX6600 or a Xeon X3220.
schizo said:
And that's what I am waiting for. This is very likely going to be my next CPU upgrade.
CrazyBeaner said:ill go with a 3800x2 am2, and then just upgrade to amds k8l
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
I appologize in advance for trampling your delusions. Your CPU at 2.8GHz is as about as powerful as an FX-62 at stock speeds. All the top three Core 2 Duo models out perform it easily. The E6600, E6700 and X6800 all kick it's ass. The E6400 is pretty competetive with it, and lets not forget that overclocked, just about any Core 2 Duo on the planet would kill an FX-62.
ThreeDee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,380
Dan_D said:
yuh big delusion trampler'r!
[F]old|[H]ard
If your a gamer i would say x6800 if your into ripping movies, multimedia etc, i would say QX6700. Times are changing more people are using thier pc's for multi purposes. Im still waiting for dual core games and applications. No matter what you choose you will too you cant go wrong with either one but like everyone says the QX6700 you will be future proof for a good while, good luck, you be a happy camper with either, cheers
you cant go wrong with either one but like everyone says the QX6700 you will be future proof for a good while, good luck, you be a happy camper with either, cheersD!Z said:If your a gamer i would say x6800 if your into ripping movies, multimedia etc, i would say QX6700. Times are changing more people are using thier pc's for multi purposes. Im still waiting for dual core games and applications. No matter what you choose you will too
I don't agree. I would suggest going with the QX6700 vs. the X6800. At stock speeds, their performance will be similar, and obviously the X6800 out performs it today in games, but don't forget you can overclock the QX6700 as well. If you do, you should be able to reach 3.0GHz, or 3.2GHz. While the X6800 will clock higher and would obviously be the better choice now, I'd be willing to bet that the QX6700 will have greater longevity as a performance part. At some point when Alan Wake hits, and possibly other games that follow it, the QX6700 seems like at some point it will become the better choice.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
if you're spending a HUGE sum of money, might as well go for a quad...
Hahaha... Cmon, not only is that SUPER NOT HELPFUL, but it's fairly fasle... "a bit less powerful" would be a better choice of words.
CrazyBeaner said:ill go with a 3800x2 am2, and then just upgrade to amds k8l
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
Hahaha... Cmon, not only is that SUPER NOT HELPFUL, but it's fairly fasle... "a bit less powerful" would be a better choice of words.
Battleneter2
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
- Messages
- 973
CrazyBeaner said:ill go with a 3800x2 am2, and then just upgrade to amds k8l
my 3800x2 @ 2.8ghz is as powerful as a e6600 stock, which means 3 year old tech can still be as powerful
lol lets not forget overclocking a e6600 to 3.3gig or more is very common and fairly easy, which will make your [email protected] cry mommy in every way.
If you want to compare your overclocked X2, you must compare it to an overclocked e6600 otherwise it is kind of pointless.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
considering they're the same price, I'd go for the QX6700.
almost twice as much power when / if the apps are recompiled or new apps come out.
almost twice as much power when / if the apps are recompiled or new apps come out.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
turtletrax
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 460
umbolo said:
I have to agree with umbolo. I would use his exact reccomendation except I would sub a Silverstone Zeus 750. Fantastic PSU.
Damon
Given the options of X6800 or QX6700, I'd have to say QX6700 because it's not that much more money than an X6800 and the four cores give you a bit more "future-proofing".
However you mentioned that you are primarily building a gaming rig, in which case I wouldn't recommend either, I'd recommend an E6600. Hitting speeds of 3.2GHz with an E6600 is virtually guaranteed, even without extreme cooling. At 3.2GHz you will be performing better than an X6800 and saving about $600.
I went with a QX6700 for myself because even though I plan to use it for games, I also plan to do a lot of video editing, and that task is one of the few where you really do see a huge performance increase from a Quad Core vs. a Dual Core.
However you mentioned that you are primarily building a gaming rig, in which case I wouldn't recommend either, I'd recommend an E6600. Hitting speeds of 3.2GHz with an E6600 is virtually guaranteed, even without extreme cooling. At 3.2GHz you will be performing better than an X6800 and saving about $600.
I went with a QX6700 for myself because even though I plan to use it for games, I also plan to do a lot of video editing, and that task is one of the few where you really do see a huge performance increase from a Quad Core vs. a Dual Core.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
spectrumbx said:
A stock E6300 beat out my X2 3800 @ 2.66ghz
umbolo said:
No. It doesn't work that way. The 8800GTX prices will come down a bit, but don't expect anything below $500 or $550 in the near future. With video cards, the prices don't get halved until the replacement for a given high end card comes out. Even then, often the card is still about 2/3 of it's old retail/online value. It will be a long time until 8800GTX's become $300 cards.
mentok1982
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 4,381
I would really suggest the Q6600, but since that is not an option I will suggest the QX6700 in its place.
gs274
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,427
Actually, if you shop around a bit you may be able to find a good deal like I did...Retail pack x6800 for $750 including overnight fedex. It's a VERY nice chip...imo that is.
As others have said, since you're just gaming I wouldn't even bother with the X6800 and get the E6600 and OC it, save the extra cash on other items like high end gpu's or monitors that will more dramatically impact your gaming experience. Really, after OC'ing a conroe you're just not going to notice any real world performance improvement going up to the X6800.
But you said you wanted long term performance and speed which makes me think you want this machine to last at least 2-3 years w/o needing to upgrade. So go with a quad, as more games come out the end of this year and into the next, you'll be able to utilize its full power, plus right now you can rip movies, encode mp3, whatever process intensive tasks you want to your harddrive in the background all the while you're gaming - w/o any drop in performance.
I'm holding off buying a quad yet however for a few more reviews on the Q6600 (but not for the cost - when your spending upwards of ~850 on a processor, what's another 150?) The reason being that the one review I have seen of the Q6600 put it at far lower heat levels than its big brother. So while you will get faster speeds with the X whether you're OC'ing or not, if you do plan on OC'ing I'd give up 5-10% raw performance for safer (or at least less emotionally stressfull) temp levels.
The other reason to wait just a little bit longer is if you want a quad with the EVGA 680i mobo. I've read numerous places that it cannot currently raise the FSB w/ the quad beyond 290-300. (You can still OC with the X multiplier, but it affects RAM performance and I am assuming it would also make you SOL with OC'ing the Q6600 since it is locked.) And there is some debate if this is something that can be fixed with a bios update or if it is a physical issue that will need to be fixed with a revision of the board itself.
So, if you want a quad, I'd still recommend holding off just a bit until a couple of these questions/issues sort themselves out.
However, I have a third option that might fit you better though. Plan for the quad with your other selected components (mobo, ram) but buy a E6600 right now (or even just a E6300 or E6400) and OC, they'll handle absolutely anything you can throw them and don't cost that much. Then at the end of the year, just when more apps and games will be coming out to support 4 cores, Intel should be releasing a true Quad-core that will be more efficient and run substantially cooler than the current chips. Upgrade to quad then.
But you said you wanted long term performance and speed which makes me think you want this machine to last at least 2-3 years w/o needing to upgrade. So go with a quad, as more games come out the end of this year and into the next, you'll be able to utilize its full power, plus right now you can rip movies, encode mp3, whatever process intensive tasks you want to your harddrive in the background all the while you're gaming - w/o any drop in performance.
I'm holding off buying a quad yet however for a few more reviews on the Q6600 (but not for the cost - when your spending upwards of ~850 on a processor, what's another 150?) The reason being that the one review I have seen of the Q6600 put it at far lower heat levels than its big brother. So while you will get faster speeds with the X whether you're OC'ing or not, if you do plan on OC'ing I'd give up 5-10% raw performance for safer (or at least less emotionally stressfull) temp levels.
The other reason to wait just a little bit longer is if you want a quad with the EVGA 680i mobo. I've read numerous places that it cannot currently raise the FSB w/ the quad beyond 290-300. (You can still OC with the X multiplier, but it affects RAM performance and I am assuming it would also make you SOL with OC'ing the Q6600 since it is locked.) And there is some debate if this is something that can be fixed with a bios update or if it is a physical issue that will need to be fixed with a revision of the board itself.
So, if you want a quad, I'd still recommend holding off just a bit until a couple of these questions/issues sort themselves out.
However, I have a third option that might fit you better though. Plan for the quad with your other selected components (mobo, ram) but buy a E6600 right now (or even just a E6300 or E6400) and OC, they'll handle absolutely anything you can throw them and don't cost that much. Then at the end of the year, just when more apps and games will be coming out to support 4 cores, Intel should be releasing a true Quad-core that will be more efficient and run substantially cooler than the current chips. Upgrade to quad then.
GlimmerMan
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 982
QX6700. Why? You want gaming and longivity.
For gaming, I used to recommend faster single-core over slower dual-core. I had no idea how multi-core gaming will look, so I saw no point in spending extra money for dual-core and settling for second best clock speed.
Now it is pretty certain that game developers are designing and optimizing for quad-core. So the QX6700 should last you a long time.
For gaming, I used to recommend faster single-core over slower dual-core. I had no idea how multi-core gaming will look, so I saw no point in spending extra money for dual-core and settling for second best clock speed.
Now it is pretty certain that game developers are designing and optimizing for quad-core. So the QX6700 should last you a long time.
speaking of longivity, when did the fx-57 come out? As it stands right now there is really not many games, that take advantage of dual cores. With crysis and alan wake being delayed, that fx has had quite the longivity dont you think?
These "true" quad core statements are driving me nuts. Yes "true" quad core would be better. Does that mean that "true" quad core will be significantly faster and somehow better than the existing QX6700? NO.
Remember, Presler wasn't substantially quicker than their Smithfield counterparts. Even though Presler was a more "proper" dual core design. Simply taking two dual core CPUs and placing them all on one die will not be likely affect the performance to the degree I think all these "true" quad core naysayers think it will. If a new quad core CPU comes out in the next year that's significantly better, it won't be better simply because of the die arrangement. It will be better because they've added architecural enhancements, platform enhancements or they'll scale better than 65nm parts when overclocked.
So if you want or need quad core now, go for it.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
QFT
Although, it is safe to assume that power consumption will always improve with native multi-core.