ANOTHER NICE Q6600 VS E6850 BENCHMARK!

Here guys :
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html

So, we think Core 2 Quad Q6600 seems to be a much more attractive offering these days than Core 2 Duo E6850.

However, those computer users who do not want to mess with processor overclocking may think differently. In this case Core 2 Duo E6850 with 25% higher clock speed performs better in a lot of applications, including games. Moreover, it is also more economical. As a result, the most optimal choice for a system working at nominal speeds would depends a lot on the type of tasks it is intended for.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that most upcoming applications and games are being designed with multi-threading in mind. That is why Core 2 Quad Q6600 may be a more promising solution even if used in its nominal mode.
 

Sparky6string

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
97
0
18,630
0
Very enlightening. It would have been good to see the same tests done with all settings on high as well though. 3.6 GHZ! I didn't realize the Q6600 was so severely underclocked from the factory.
 

Reynod

Administrator
Good article ... like those QX6600's ... might be my next upgrade depending on what the AMD quads end up like ... hopefully on par so both fight the prices down and we all win.

As a gamer who likes a fast all round PC this one looks like the best deal at the moment ...

rabid has made up his mind anyway ... a long time ago by the looks of it.
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
1
A Q6600 OC to 3G is a no brainer, and you can even leave EIST enabled. It will remain at 2G most of the time unless it is heavily stressed. Add to that the future apps that will take advantage of the additional two cores and you really cannot justify the dual core purchase.
 

The Q6600 is almost a year old now!, I would not be at all surprised if it was replaced soon with a Quad that does have a 1333 FSB speed or maybe even higher, I have nothing to back this up with however it's just a feeling. [:mousemonkey:2]
 

You seem to miss the point that in that review the 2 newest games show the Q6600 winning. This points to the age of dual core is over for gamers. Under supreme commander and lost planet with the correct settings the Q6600 beats up on the 600MHz higher clocked dual core. The 600MHz advantage is important because OC'ed the dual core loss ground as the Q6600 G0 which can OC to 3.8GHz and the E6850 4GHz on air. While OCed the E6850 losses in all games with a 250MHz higher clock. Point is that 200MHz OC advantage the E6850 has over the Q6600 isn't enough to make up for the extra 2 cores in just about any game.

At an even price no one in their right mind should buy an E6850 as the E6850's has no future proof advange. Ill stick with my less than $180~190 buy a dual and any higher get a quad buying strategy.
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
1
Uh yeah, I wouldn't be surprised either, it's called Penryn and it will be out soon.

Edit: More specifically Yorkfield.
 
[:mousemonkey] I'm glad someone else remembers these things, because all this talk of 'future proofing' with a year old CPU needs to be put into perspective, especially when the next gen is just within reach.
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
1
Yup, I did just build three systems with Q6600 G0s. I couldn't wait any longer, I'm always building with last years tech. :lol:

One thing to consider though, is how much are these new sweet 45nm, high-k dielectric, sse4 cores going to cost. As everyone knows the Q6600 is only $300. With EIST turned on, it barely ever jumps to the 9x multiplier. It's a beast.
 
Click on my hardware config icon dude, I don't want to give the impression that the Q6600 is a bad choice, far from it, but to say that it will 'future proof' you in as far as unreleased games and software is concerned is just wrongful speculation IMHO.
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
1
Yeah, nothing is really future proof, but the Q6600 is as close as you can get right now. One of the systems that I built is indeed future proof. It was for my girlfriend/ex-girlfriend and she uses it for getting her email. Can anyone say ridiculously overkill.
 

Mousemonkey I believe you confused something as a more future proof hardware is hardware with an advantage over other hardware. There can be no speculation in which hardware is more future proof. Simply put a quad core is more future proof than a dual core because it has more cores capable of faster calculations. This does require software optimized for quads to take advantage of the faster calculations. We have seen software that takes advantage of all four cores where no dual core can match the Q6600.

Will dual core CPU's be compatible with software longer than quad cores? No, so theres is no future proof advantage in dual core CPU's and thats no speculation.
 

Well, if you're correct then neither AMD nor Intel will continue to produce Dual Core CPU's, however if you are incorrect then new one's will still be offered by both manufacturers for some time to come.
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
1
Nope, All dual cores are history. :lol: I'm looking forward to the 16 cores.
 

slim142

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2006
2,704
0
20,780
0
This topic is kinda useless. No offence to the OP

At this times, with the Q6600 available for $280 why would you get a dual-core? (unless you are out of budget)

You will be thank that u got urself a Q6600 during the next 6 months approx.
 

Sparky6string

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
97
0
18,630
0



I am on a budget with my build, and I had settled on the 6750 but after some shuffling of components I replaced the 6750 with the Q6600. So many had recommended the dual cores to me for gaming but didn't take into consideration the OCing and future-proofing. The article the OP linked states that "the majority of users believe that higher working frequency is more efficient for gaming than multiple processor cores, so high-speed dual-core processor should be a better choice."
 

No, if i am correct they will continue to cost less than quads as they currently do. They will continue to be produced until quads are moved into the dual core price margin by faster octal core CPU's.
 

So you're saying that they do have a future then? :heink:
 

Yes but a short 1 at best. At the current rate will see octal core CPU's by the end of next year. As I stated back in my first post dual cores are ok but don't pay more than $180. ;) They will be going the way of the single core CPU's.
 

Exactly, which is the point that you missed in my post about the Q6600 not being particularly 'future proof' seeing as how it has a shorter life expectancy than any of the C2D's that it is currently lined up with. Roll on Penryn with it's quad-core processors with up to a 12MB L2 cache and enhanced cache line which split loads capability and in just a few short months the current Q6600 is not going to look so 'future proofed' as some have been led to believe.
 

Wrong the Q6600 has a longer life expectancy than any of the C2D's. I don't see how you keep missing this fact. The quads are simply more powerful as they have 2 times the cores of C2D's.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY