apache_lives
Splendid
zenze589 :
Well I don't know if you noticed but the E6850 scored better than the Q6600 at supreme commander, which is supposed to be a game that utilizes multiple cores, as well as nearly all of the other games tested.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the E6850 also has greater overclocking potential than the Q6600, which would also make it more appealing.
I bring this up because I am about to build myself a new computer because I am currently running a agonizingly slow Athlon XP 2000+. And one of the things that I have been researching heavily is the choice between the E6850 and Q6600. Based on what I have been reading on these forums over the past week I was fairly sure I was going to go with the Q6600, but after looking at those benchmarks I'm having doubts...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the E6850 also has greater overclocking potential than the Q6600, which would also make it more appealing.
I bring this up because I am about to build myself a new computer because I am currently running a agonizingly slow Athlon XP 2000+. And one of the things that I have been researching heavily is the choice between the E6850 and Q6600. Based on what I have been reading on these forums over the past week I was fairly sure I was going to go with the Q6600, but after looking at those benchmarks I'm having doubts...
supreme commander might utilize multiple cores but may not take advantage more then two, or the fsb may be capping it a little etc
as for some of the results, i wonder why the 5 series (1mb L2) P4 in some benchmarks beats the 6 series (2mb L2) in some and not in others? - http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page18.html - have a look at the 520 loosing to the 620, then further up, the 560 beating the 660??? even the latter vista scores show it?