Help - E8400 vs Q6600

[Waspy]

Im guessing this means that given time, my motherboard and my CPU will amount to nothing?

Yea Nehalem...will be a while before we see them reasonably priced though. Especially with AMD so far behind...what benefit does Intel get by releasing Nehalem for the mainstream at reasonable prices? It'll come, it'll just be a long time before they come down to real-world prices. Kind of like what those assholes over at Intel (edit: typo!) are doing on the QX9650 right now, grrr.

But regardless, what's new? This is how it's always gone in computing...and will probably continue to go for some time.

Paul and JDJohn, you guys were arguing practically the same point! LOL.

 

[Craxbax]

Now that the Penryn quads are out it would seem they are the way to go with perhaps the exception of the q9300. With it you are really only getting the performance of the Q6600 for more money. The Q9450 and x3350, on the other hand, are gettin 8+% better performance clock per clock and OCing as high as 4ghz on air. I like the Q6600 and despite better benches with higher OCs of the duals I still feel quads are the way to go but my recommendation is in Penryn colors. Of course there is the the retail premium right now but that too shall pass.

 

[amddiesel]

If youre planning on gaming, go with the 8400. The problem with future proofing on these quads today is, in a years time, theres going to be a socket change (Nehalem) and its a dead end. Performance wise, the 8400 is a better solution for gaming. Other uses like vid encode etc, then yes a quad will supercede the usage of a dual core, which are both dead ends as soon as Nehalem comes out

I was thinking the same thing.. When does the socket actually die?

 

[scottoliver]

Well what I think they should obviously do is make the best parts they can, stick with that idea and give it out so they make 0 profit. Then people can donate if they want =P

But seriously, looks like the Q6600 is winning but im defo going to look at the 9450 and 3350 however they will probably be way out of my price range that its not funny.

Thanks

 

[SpinachEater]

I think 775 will put up a good fight though. If you are talking about gaming, quad cores are neck and neck with the Wolfdales. Quads are still in their infancy regarding gaming. So what will 8+ cores really bring to the table?

Personally I could care less if it takes me 20 more seconds to rip some music. My comment is totally biased because I really only care about gaming performance but at this point, quad cores aren't even necessary with the great performance of the dual 45nms right now. Nehalam...nah...sure it will be a great CPU but software is still playing catch up with the quads.

I was thinking the same thing.. When does the socket actually die?

By definition, I guess when a new CPU won't be made for it which would = Penryns. BUT, I expect Intel to release later versions with higher multipliers. So if you define new steppings as a new CPU then 775 won't die soon. But I said it somewhere else, quads aren't even mainstream yet so I wouldn't worry about longevity.

 

[mikeny]

Hi, this is my first post here and would like to say that this is a very controversial debate.
Based on all the other Q6600 vs. E8400 threads I've seen, the question really boils down
to what you use your PC for. If you are into benchmarking, video encoding, editing, then I'd
suggest going with the quad core. If you are doing HEAVY multitasking (one guy was running
four instances of World of Warcraft on 4 different accounts), then go with the Q6600.

For general purposes and gaming, I would recommend the E8400.

I personally bought BOTH a G0 Q6600 and an E8400 and I'm selling my Q6600
as of this moment. Reasons: I am primarily a gamer and use my PC for my classes, I could overclock
to 4.0Ghz on a 90 dollar motherboard, Runs nice and cool, I could run at 3.6 with only 1.2VCore if I wanted.

Both CPUs will be comparable in gaming performance- it'll rely on your GPU a lot more.
One thing I noticed was that the Q6600 seems to handle COD4 a lot smoother, perhaps because
it supports the usage of all four cores. There is virtually no bottleneck from either chip.

The reason why I would pick the E8400 is that by the time you need more than 2 cores for gaming,
there'll already be cheaper and better quad core solutions than the Q6600. As of now, the low
number of games that support quads does not justify the extra heat and power consumption of the Q6600.

If you game and hardly use the 2 extra cores, what's the point? That's my justification for the E8400.

Then again, the E8400 is extremely hard to come by (I got really lucky with buying the LAST one from
a Local PC shop). I got the Q6600 for $210 at MicroCenter, E8400 for $250. Although I paid 40 more for a
dual core, I figure I'll be saving about $10 / month in the electric bill, so in the long run, the cost to me will be less.

Get the E8400 if you can for ~$200. If you can't, Q6600 G0 is still an excellent choice that will
last you a long, long time.

Which is better ATIx2 or NVidiax2?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

It appears that Nehalem will be introduced in Q4 08. and thatll probly be the top model, as has been done in the past, with westmere coming behind that at 32nm. Then Sandybridge with a few tweaks. So maybe a lil over a year before you start seeing Nehalem in quantity, and a gradual fade out of the 775 socket by late 09

 

[yipsl]

And PLEASE guys, dont list saying just get the next Q**** CPU, unless it will come out pretty much the under $300 AUD, because I cant really spend the extra money. *im broke as it is*

Thanks

I voted for the third option. I'd recommend getting a 780G motherboard (Gigabyte and ASUS have good models) with a B3 Phenom 9850 Black Edition. Reviews say it overclocks stable to 2.8 (from the stock 2.5) without voltage changes. It won't get up to 3.0, however.

The advantage is price/performance. You should also be able to put a 45nm Deneb in come next year. Grain of salt articles at The Inquirer and elsewhere say that AMD claims they'll get to 3.0 and 3.2 stock with Deneb upon release. Hopefully, it will be more overclockable than the B3 Black Editions.

The Q6600 is the best Intel choice now, but you'll have to buy a new motherboard when Nehalem arrives. So, over the next two years, the AMD solution I recommend is a good budget gaming build.

I'd also recommend against the 9800gx2. That's because the 4870x2 is just around the corner. If you want Nvidia now and can wait for 9800gx2 to drop in price and/or compare it to a 4870x2 in June or so, then get a 9600gt to hold you over. Then sell it when you get the new card. IMHO, the 9800gx2 is not elegant, does not cool well and it really is a mixed bag in terms of price/performance. It's bound to drop in price once the 4870x2 arrives.

Kind of like what those assholes over at AMD are doing on the QX9650 right now, grrr.

I'd just like to add that it's Intel who sets Intel prices. Competition is good, but don't blame AMD for you not getting the Intel CPU you want at the price you prefer. Intel could afford to sell for less, and has done price wars in the past. They've always charged a premium for their EE CPU's, even when those CPU's failed next to AMD FX.

So, Intel is charging a premium for their premium CPU. That's business. Don't blame AMD.

 

[englandr753]

I had the same delimma and chose the Q6600 and havent looked back since. I game and have an 8800 GTX ANS3 video card and soon to be 2 after I upgrade my PSU. I have the 780i mobo so I may go with 3 cards later.


There will still be some upgrade room from your Q6600 once the prices level out for the top end 775 socket cpus when the Nehalems are released.

If you are tight on a budget as you say you are then you should wait about getting a new setup. I know the temptation is too great and a lot of us fall prey to the endless cycle of upgrading. I just went thru a full system overhaul so what you have to do it look at the dollars you are about to spend and realize this will likely have to do u for a long time so choose wislely!
Choose your parts that you plan to use for 3-4 years or more. Sure newer parts will come out and prices will drop and you will want to upgrade again. This has been happening snce day one and I think a wise builder will have a lower spec system than a lot of people if he is on a budget.

I cant express that enough.

Good luck with your build.

 

[harmattan]

I vote e8400 as well if you're using the maching just for gaming and schoolwork. You'll get much higher OC with e8400 easier and Ghz is what counts right now and for the next year or so in gaming.

Why get a q6600 if two of the cores are going to sit in your machine doing nothing but using pw/$? The "future-proofing" argument is bunk imo: you'll almost definitely want a new CPU by the time four cores make substantial difference in gaming or general apps. I remember a lot of proponents of the "future-proofing" argument when talking about spending extra money on Pentium-D vs. single-core Pentium. How may people are using those hogs now...?

 

[englandr753]

Probably those that cant afford to upgrade again...

Good points from all sides, the thing is both of these chips will be less desireable in the future and is not a good point to argue. The Q6600 doesnt benefit to the max at the moment but if this guy is going to be stuck with this setup for the next 5 years I really have to think that the Q6600 is the better choice.

4Ghz could be childs play by then...

 

[boonality]

I believe that for the purpose of this thread the 2 processors need to be compared at current retail at stock speeds.

Which means that both perform perfectly fine... so just buy the cheaper one of the two and don't look back.

 

[Waspy]

I'd just like to add that it's Intel who sets Intel prices. Competition is good, but don't blame AMD for you not getting the Intel CPU you want at the price you prefer. Intel could afford to sell for less, and has done price wars in the past. They've always charged a premium for their EE CPU's, even when those CPU's failed next to AMD FX.

So, Intel is charging a premium for their premium CPU. That's business. Don't blame AMD.

Yea this was a typo, I meant to put Intel not AMD! LOL. I completely agree with everything you said, and am going to correct my typo. If you read that first line, "...what benefit does Intel get by releasing Nehalem for the mainstream at reasonable prices?" Then you know what I mean...the guys at Intel are being assholes by raping to the extreme.

 

[jitpublisher]

Get an e8400 for gaming.
For anything other than gaming, I would choose a Q6600.

 

[physx7]

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.

+1

 

[scottoliver]

How does the Q9450 fair up against all of these.

 

[darthvaderkenneth]

u should get the e8400 since games hav only begun using dual cores, it might take another 2-3 years for four cores to be used in gaming. U can upgrade to the highest end yorkfield quad core in the future since they will drop in price when nehalem comes out. No one will need octa cores for gaming.

 

[NightlySputnik]

Q6600!!!

Let me tell you that I presently use a E6600 @ 3.0GHZ, so a tad slower then the E8400 you mention. The thing is that I'm thinking about getting a Q6600 right now.

With all those application making good use of dual-core cpu, I often manage to get myself with both core at 100% use and I fell it's slower then it should. All of this with simultaneous application running. A quad-core will give you better responsiveness in general and you'll be better set for the future.

 

[mihirkula]

intel tricks people into believing the quad is faster than a dual core....and then people who buy it get disappointed and start living in denial and turn into zombies(also called fanboys)...then fanboy zombies brainwash unsuspecting young and easily led buyers into buying the q6600.

Buyer: "I'm thinking of buying E6750"
Fanboy waves his wand: "Overclocking!"
Buyer: "Ooer...4 cores...overclocks better...yes..but..games run faster in dual core.."
Fanboy: "Futureproofing!!!!"
Buyer: "Ouuch! Yes yes but everyone is going to upgrade next year anyways..i'l get the E8400!"
Fanboy takes out revolver: "Get the quad or die!"
Buyer: "Gaahh!! I want the q6600!!"

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I still dont like the fact that theyre not bringing out a 'X' or unlocked version of the dual cores. Its like Intels said, were going this way, and so will you.

 

[Mousemonkey]

intel tricks people into believing the quad is faster than a dual core....and then people who buy it get disappointed and start living in denial and turn into zombies(also called fanboys)...then fanboy zombies brainwash unsuspecting young and easily led buyers into buying the q6600.

Buyer: "I'm thinking of buying E6750"
Fanboy waves his wand: "Overclocking!"
Buyer: "Ooer...4 cores...overclocks better...yes..but..games run faster in dual core.."
Fanboy: "Futureproofing!!!!"
Buyer: "Ouuch! Yes yes but everyone is going to upgrade next year anyways..i'l get the E8400!"
Fanboy takes out revolver: "Get the quad or die!"
Buyer: "Gaahh!! I want the q6600!!"

[:mousemonkey:1] [:mousemonkey:5] And Yes, I do have a Quad (and an E6850 in the Sli rig [:mousemonkey:7] ).

 

[rockbyter]

The next generation will be a year away, which means we still have more 9000 series processors coming for 775. by the time intel is done with 775, there will be a last upgrade available for us that provides a nice jump in performance over the q6600. Whether its more cache or faster clocks there will be an upgrade in performance on this platform.

The only logical reason to go dual core over quad core is cost, not performance. You can land a quad core for 199-250. Dual cores have a nice range to save you a hundred bucks easy.

 

[mihirkula]

The only logical reason to go dual core over quad core is cost, not performance. You can land a quad core for 199-250. Dual cores have a nice range to save you a hundred bucks easy.

Give me three instances/applications where the Q6600 performs mindbogglingly fast when compared to the E6750. ... And by that i don't mean the 3 fps in supreme commander...i mean something worth $100.

 

[aevm]

Give me three instances/applications where the Q6600 performs mindbogglingly fast when compared to the E6750. ... And by that i don't mean the 3 fps in supreme commander...i mean something worth $100.

DVD Shrink (compresses DVDs), Xing MPEG Encoder (makes MP3s), Flight Simulator X

 

[mihirkula]

And thats worth $100?...sigh...