Help - E8400 vs Q6600

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

E8400 vs Q6600

  • E8400

    Votes: 45 42.5%

  • Q6600

    Votes: 52 49.1%

  • i have a better suggestion so im going to tell you =]

    Votes: 9 8.5%
  • Total voters
    106
The Artic Cooling Freezer 7 pro does a great job cooling for under $30.

Used it till I moved to water, did a fine job taming a B2 stepping e6600 heat beast. Love my GO stepped 6750.

Go with the E3110/8400, for your purposes, the quads just give more heat and require more voltage to hit the higher OC's at a decent temp.
 

The E3110 doesnt require ECC Ram, tho its a server listed chip, its still the same as the 8400
 


OK this is becoming a trend I'm seeing on Tom's, and I don't like it, does not speak well to the smarts of the posters!

DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE SLI!

So unless you plan on purchasing another 9800GX2, DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET!

These chipsets donkey compared to Intel chipsets, but they are REQUIRED to use two of the best video cards on the market in SLI. So unless you are going to SLI don't waste your time with any 680/780/790i motherboards!

About your CPU, I would have to go with the E8400 as you will not be utilizing much on the quad core, and I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of old tech. which runs hot. Bleh!
 

On a budget this is one of the best ideas.

OK this is becoming a trend I'm seeing on Tom's, and I don't like it, does not speak well to the smarts of the posters!

DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE SLI!

So unless you plan on purchasing another 9800GX2, DO NOT BUY AN NFORCE CHIPSET!

These chipsets donkey compared to Intel chipsets, but they are REQUIRED to use two of the best video cards on the market in SLI. So unless you are going to SLI don't waste your time with any 680/780/790i motherboards!

About your CPU, I would have to go with the E8400 as you will not be utilizing much on the quad core, and I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of old tech. which runs hot. Bleh!
Click to expand...
I totally agree here too. Why waste your $ on SLI/Xfire if your not going to use it immediately and for high resolutions. Call me silly, but a 22" monitor isn't going to task a SINGLE high end GPU too much.

Aside from the above comments, if I had to pick, I'd get the e8400/e3110. I'd still just get the e2160 w/the Xigmatech cooler and OC it to 3 ghz and be done with it. Take the extra $ and set it aside for the best s775 quad core late this year or when the prices drop once s775 get replaced.
 
hi
up until recently i was convinced the q6600 was the best, but from everything ive been reading about the e8400, i beats the q6600 on basically everything.
Take a look at toms benchmarks for the q6600 vs e8400, the e8400 beats it by an average of 15% on everything except extreme multi-tasking and software designed especially for quad core
if u also take into account the energy costs, like 1 other person said, u r gonna b saving in the long run (which seems a major issue 4 u)
 
ye. thanks everyone again. you guys are heaps of help.

you also got me questioning my mobo setup so thanks alot. cuz if im getting the top card, there should be NO reason why I would need to go into SLI for a very long time and by the time I need to I can just get a new card or a new chipset may be out etc. So by future-proofing with SLI i may be doing the exact opposite. and if i dont stop ill just keep contradicting myself.

anyway. thanks. keep it coming and thanks PHILLYMAN AKA MICROCENTER <3ER

your mad.
 
Im was trying to decide myself whether to get the q6600 or an e8400 but i decided to wait for the q9450 since i do more video editing then game playing so for me a quad is better

ps "PHILLYMAN AKA MICROCENTER" not sure if you think i work for microcenter or not but i dont. Just letting you know you can get either of them for the same price. Im a Kinkos guy and hopefully a soon to be a powerball lottery winner :)
 
I was just saying that ur a microcenter lover. <3er = lover.

What price ranges will we expect for the new Q9 series which are soon to be released?

thanks
 
I see newegg has oem q9300 in stock but at 300 bucks ill pass i think the q9450 should be out this week but i cant figure out if its going to be @359 bucks retail or is that retailers price per 1000? Damn these computer companies making me buy new stuff lol
 
Priced the same my vote is the Q6600. Had the e8400 actually been available enough to be lower priced, then I would lean that way. But with that boxed $199 Microcenter price, Q6600 for sure. There are already a couple games where 4 cores pull ahead of higher clocked dual cores. Look at Supreme Commander and updated Lost Planet here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html . This IMO is bound to increase in frequency and both are currently more than enough for gaming, so why not think toward the future. Also notice in benching other games, even if the dual core (e8400) overclocks higher, chances are the Quad won't need to be OC'ed as high to keep up with it.
 
Where I agree that games that use a quad is the way to go if your currently played games are quad multithreaded, but thats very rare. Also , in your link, its using a 6850 at 3.85Ghz against a fully maxxed out 6600. Now, the 8400 is just plain better clock for clock than the e6 series, and itll comfortably oc to 4 Ghz. I know Im knit picking, but even in quad games the 8400 at 4 Ghz and being better clock for clock, would show even or better in those same benches IMHO
 
Also, if you DONT oc, it clearly shows the 6600 as being only a little better against a e6850, which the 8400 is generally 7% all around better than. So at stock speeds, the 8400 is equal to a Q6600 according to the link, projecting the 7% increase in the 45nm arch
 
Well I was just in the same dilemma and I finally went with a SLACR Q6600 and I am happy that I did. It hit 3.2 ghz easily on a EP35-DS3P with ease. In benchmarks it eats the e8400. Sure the E8400 will hit 4 Ghz if you are lucky and don't mind going over the recommended voltages, but hell at 3.2 ghz there is no bottleneck. It screams and it stays within voltage limits and it is reasonable on temps.

I was so worried about low clocks but she clocks just fine.
 
For pure gaming, the 8400 gets the most out of a gpu in most games. In apps, at stock its a toss up. Evenly priced as Paul said, quad qould be a better overall choice for ocing/with productivity in mind. Theres no clear winner overall IMO. And if you upgrade often, yes Nehalem will require a new socket. So either way, theyre a deadend til the new arch comes out
 

Sure, most games the extra clock speeds may push the e8400 ahead even. I won't argue that the e8400 could keep up or even beat the Q6600 at stock speeds, or even maxed overclocked. But we are talking CPU scaling settings not real world gameplay. Who is going to game at 1024x768 no fsaa on such a rig? At this level CPU, your gaming experience will be mostly GPU limited once settings are tweaked for actual gaming. So what advantage does the e8400 have?

My point is, both are totally fine for gaming now. So if 1) we already see signs of the quad core shining in some games, like Lost Planet where a 2.4GHz quad beat the 3.85 GHz dual, and 2) neither will shine over the other at real world gaming settings, and 3) the Quad is as cheap or cheaper, then -----> why not go for the Quad? There is no way in the world that the e8400 at 4.0GHz will provide a better gaming experience than a 3.6Ghz Q6600. It's not going to happen, not even with SLI 8800U. So why spend as much or more for an e8400?

IMO if you want max 3dmarks or 10x7 cpu scaling benchies, sure go e8400. You'll own the benchie bragging rights with your 4GHz CPU. But If you want equal gameplay, better multitasking abilities, and to be better set for next year and beyond, get the Quad. Priced the same, I can't understand people flocking to the e8400. It's supposed to be a cheaper chip. It would have been similar to flocking toward the FX-55 instead over the X2 4800+ back when the FX-55 was winning almost all cpu scaling tests vs the lower clocked dual cores. And what happened shortly after that, games started to take advantage of dual cores and the X2 4800+ became way better than the FX-55. I only bought the FX-55 because I got it for half the going price, way cheaper than an X2 4800+. And I'd gladdly buy a sub $200 e8400 too. But If games over the next year or two are coded to take advantage of 4 cores we may very well see similar happen in e8400 vs Q6600. I would actually be surprised if someday in the next two years we don't at least see one or two games where this happens in a big way, kinda like Supreme Commander on a single core.
 
^ (edit : @ jaydeejohn) Yeah, I understand what you are saying and it seems we are of the same thinking on all this. There really is no wrong one to go for, just depends on pricing and desired use/results.

I'm happy at the time I went with the Q6600 over the equal priced e6850. But if I owned both chips (e8400 or Q6600) and could only keep one, I'd probably just sell off whichever I could get the most for at the time. If that amount was about equal though I'd keep the Quad.

Oh, Just so you know I wrote that book and got a phone call before submitting it, so I hadn't read the last couple posts before mine.

And one other thought. I'd be curious as to which does better recording fraps HD video while gaming. I've been having fun doing that with this build as the FX-55 one just wans't up to the task for high res video.
 
This thread has changed my mind soo many times but has given me alot of information. Im now converted back to Quad Core because as people have said, more updates for games may see that the game becomes Quad compatible. The only thing is that im dreading the new socket. Im guessing this means that given time, my motherboard and my CPU will amount to nothing?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom