E8400 e0 vs Q6600 g0 - The future

Mav451 said:
Yep. Friend has a 3.2Ghz q6600 vs. my 4Ghz e8400, both of us with GTX260. For anyone with L4D, go to very last part of the airport mission - when the plane is crash-landing. I hit low 60's, while he's hovering closer to low to mid 70's. B/c of his two extra cores, he enjoys a minimum FPS that is 10-15 FPS higher. So yeah, 25% less clock, but double the cores, and L4D is taking advantage of all of them.

As anyone knows, minimum FPS is the most important stat (max and therefore avg FPS have really no bearing).
Click to expand...

I had the same experience...after reading all these threads about how good the high clocked duals are, I grabbed an E8600 and replaced my X3350 (Q9450) ..ran the 8600 @ 4.2 for about a week and went right back to my quad @ 3.4....been there done that.....wont be doing it again..:p
 
I have a e3110 (xeon e8400 variant). It has Stepping 6 Revision C0. This the same 'good stepping', you guys always talk about?
 
Crosshairs said:
I had the same experience...after reading all these threads about how good the high clocked duals are, I grabbed an E8600 and replaced my X3350 (Q9450) ..ran the 8600 @ 4.2 for about a week and went right back to my quad @ 3.4....been there done that.....wont be doing it again..:p
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember when I got my e8400, it was only $10 less than a quad. Probably should have got the quad, considering that my mobo's PWM is designed specifically for quad OCing. Oh wells, when quads hit the bargain bin (used) I'll snatch it up haha.
 
My last rig was dual 3Ghz xeons, that rig is now over 5 years old, still plays games like Farcry2 at a decent FPS. Extra processors/cores definitely helps longevity.
 
alg7_munif said:
Another quick question, would you rather buy a single core Athlon 64 @ 2.8GHz or an Athlon X2 @ 2.4GHz? ;) Nobody wants a fast single core anymore but a slower dual core is still acceptable.

In the future, nobody would want a fast dual core (4.0GHz) anymore but a slower quad core (3.2GHz) would still be acceptable then.
Click to expand...

Indeed my man. Get the QUAD dude.
 
Last edited:
Looking back I dont think you can guarantee anything to be future-proof. Quads are the short term future but something to think about. Current Q6600's aren't OC'ing as well. If you can get an older g0 then your in good shape. If not the E8400's are OC'ing like champs especially on certain mobo's.

My present rig just died so I just had to order a bunch of parts. I wanted to go quad but can't find a Q6600 g0 so I went with a E8400. I didn't want to lay out the cash for the more expensive quad core cpu's.
 
The processor market is about to take its next steps.

Intel will be pushing 8 core chips soon for high end desktop with quad core chips as the main runners. This will replace the current quad high end and dual main runners.

Most new games are starting to appear that can take advantage of more cores so I think sticking with the old fable of "dual for gaming, quad only for select work" is now starting to wear out. Games like COD4 and SupCom all use multi core processors effectivly (have had my overclocked Q6700 running at 95% under SupCom so it does support more than 2 cores) and graphics processes are starting to tap unused cores on the CPU. Windows 7 is supposed to support DX10.1 using only a CPU if the GPU cannot handle it and to allow some offloading of gpu tasks to the cpu, this alone will make multi core CPU's a necessity rather than a luxury.

All in all, if you are building for 2 or more years going quad is really the only thing to do. Duals have now had their day.
 
The present is dual-threaded, the future multi. We've had this same debate since the "dual vs. single" days. Yes, dual is faster now (sometimes by insignificant margins), as single was faster than dual. As software writers adapt multi-threading becomes more and more important. Go with the quad. Raw speed is not as important as it used to be. Remember Netburst?
 
I have the E8400 and find it to be excellent for gaming. Just bought GTA4 and it automatically sets graphics to medium high at 1680x1050. 3dmark05 benchmarks at 18500.
And if you into overclocking I have read articles where people have overclocked with a stock fan up to 4 gig.
My System
Vista home premium
Intel DX38BT
Intel E8400
6 gig OCZ platinum 1333 dual channel DDR3 ram(yes I know-overkill) Windows 7 will be 64 bit.
radion 4850-512mg
Antec true power 2.0 480
 
wow i cant belleive this thread has so many repliaes, when this same dam questions is asked every other dam day!! i think a search should be mandatory before someone can make a new thread!!!
 
MrGuvernment said:
wow i cant belleive this thread has so many repliaes, when this same dam questions is asked every other dam day!! i think a search should be mandatory before someone can make a new thread!!!
Click to expand...
well, the original post made it clear that he read all of them. Did you read that?

idiotsannoyme said:
The aim is gaming and the idea is not to upgrade anything at least for the next 4 years. I know that there are alot of threads about this - I've read them all - but with the launch of GTA IV and it's huge requirements, I start to wonder if this is the time where the Q6600 takes the lead.
Click to expand...
 
4.3-4.5GHz overclocks on dual cores sure are tasty, but more cores is always going to carry you longer. That's why I went quad core. It's not getting much use now from gaming, so I just keep any spare cores folding while the applications catch up. Besides, its always nice to have another core to offload tasks too if I am heavily multitasking :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top