Quad Q6600 (2.4ghz) vs. Duo E6850 (3.0ghz)

Intel cpu's, btw...same price (~$275)...which would you recommend?

ALSO...RAM...4x1, or 2x2...any differences?

ALSO...dual 8800GT's, or single 8800GTX...which would you recommend?

Thanks.

Between Q6600 and E6850 I choose E8400. As for memory go for 2x2Gbdayaccus007

Intel cpu's, btw...same price (~$275)...which would you recommend?

ALSO...RAM...4x1, or 2x2...any differences?

ALSO...dual 8800GT's, or single 8800GTX...which would you recommend?

Thanks.

ziegd

Go with Core 2 Duo E6850 for raw power, both IMO are good choices though

Just means you use up more RAM slots with 2x2, also you'll be able to dual channel for higher memory bandwidth. Probably cheaper too.

I would just go with single 8800GTX, although 8800GT SLI will be more powerful (and expensive) I believe

HD3870X2 any day over 2x8800GT or single 8800GTXdayaccus007

wont see much difference between 8800gts and hd 3870's only on 3dmark score

I would get the Q6600 over any dual core, the reason being is that the Q6600 does not bottleneck any graphics card out at the moment and I'm pretty certain when the next cards come out it won't bottleneck those either due to the fact it will have the extra two cores which will start to become more in use and therefore start outperforming all dual cores in future titles.

[QUOTE="dayaccus007"]HD3870X2 any day over 2x8800GT or single 8800GTXKisukexD

wont see much difference between 8800gts and hd 3870's only on 3dmark score

Are you sure?? http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3209&p=3

Wow...thanks for all the input.

I think I can get a couple of 8800gt's for $230 a piece (special sale at local MicroCenter) but I gotta hurry. 8800gtx are $500+ anywhere I've checked.

The E8400 is also on sale for $190...is that too good to pass up?

Wow...thanks for all the input.

I think I can get a couple of 8800gt's for $230 a piece (special sale at local MicroCenter) but I gotta hurry. 8800gtx are $500+ anywhere I've checked.

The E8400 is also on sale for $190...is that too good to pass up?

ziegd

Yeah, I'd definitely grab that E8400. As for the GPU, you could start with one GT and see if you feel the need to upgrade to a second one.

Not saying you should go this route, but you can get GTX's for under $400 and have been for a while. Here's one from a good brand and seller too. I've used and recieved their rebates before as well:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2570708&CatId=2513

I ended up going with one 8800GT (figured I'd add another later...sales guy said that with my 20" monitor, I wouldn't see a notable difference with two of 'em).

AND I got the q6600...just made sense for the long haul. More applications are going to start taking advantage of the technology, so I won't be needing to replace it anytime soon.

PSU...is 520 enough? I was thinking more like 600-750...again, so I won't have to replace it anytime soon.

FINALLY...somone suggest a good MoBo, SLI compatible, for under $200?

I ended up going with one 8800GT (figured I'd add another later...sales guy said that with my 20" monitor, I wouldn't see a notable difference with two of 'em).

AND I got the q6600...just made sense for the long haul. More applications are going to start taking advantage of the technology, so I won't be needing to replace it anytime soon.

PSU...is 520 enough? I was thinking more like 600-750...again, so I won't have to replace it anytime soon.

FINALLY...somone suggest a good MoBo, SLI compatible, for under $200?

ziegd

Probably looking at a 680i

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200280+107171927&name=NVIDIA+nForce+600

Probably looking at a 680i

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200280+107171927&name=NVIDIA+nForce+600

musclesforcier

I wouldn't reccomend a 680i anymore considering that they don't support penryn quad cores. Get the x38 instead.

EDIT: If you need SLI, you are much better off coughing up an extra $50 to get the 780i instead of getting a 680i.

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"]

Probably looking at a 680i

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200280+107171927&name=NVIDIA+nForce+600

Baselerd

I wouldn't reccomend a 680i anymore considering that they don't support penryn quad cores. Get the x38 instead.

EDIT: If you need SLI, you are much better off coughing up an extra $50 to get the 780i instead of getting a 680i.

But if he is buying a E8400 I doubt he would upgrade to a quad of the same generation, he would be better off waiting for nelham.

But if he is buying a E8400 I doubt he would upgrade to a quad of the same generation, he would be better off waiting for nelham.

musclesforcier

That is going to be the last generation of LGA 775 quad cores. So in a maybe one and a half years, when quad cores are needed, he will have to upgrade his mobo, cpu, and ram, instead of just cpu.

I would get the Q6600 over any dual core, the reason being is that the Q6600 does not bottleneck any graphics card out at the moment and I'm pretty certain when the next cards come out it won't bottleneck those either due to the fact it will have the extra two cores which will start to become more in use and therefore start outperforming all dual cores in future titles.

shearMario

q6660 has 4 cores and 8mb l2 cache

e6850 has 2 cores and 4mb l2 cache which one is better?

q6660 running at 2.4ghz has 4 cores and 8mb l2 cache

e6850 running at 3.0ghz has 2 cores and 4mb l2 cache

which one is better?

onuruca

corrected

[QUOTE="shearMario"]

I would get the Q6600 over any dual core, the reason being is that the Q6600 does not bottleneck any graphics card out at the moment and I'm pretty certain when the next cards come out it won't bottleneck those either due to the fact it will have the extra two cores which will start to become more in use and therefore start outperforming all dual cores in future titles.

mastershake575

Better performance yes but when games start getting much better performance with a quad (within a year) he will need to change his e8400 while I will be sitting nicely on the quad and not spent as much. The performance gained by owning a dual core now isn't good enough to out do buying the longer lasting Quad

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="shearMario"]

I would get the Q6600 over any dual core, the reason being is that the Q6600 does not bottleneck any graphics card out at the moment and I'm pretty certain when the next cards come out it won't bottleneck those either due to the fact it will have the extra two cores which will start to become more in use and therefore start outperforming all dual cores in future titles.

shearMario

Better performance yes but when games start getting much better performance with a quad (within a year) he will need to change his e8400 while I will be sitting nicely on the quad and not spent as much. The performance gained by owning a dual core now isn't good enough to out do buying the longer lasting Quad

Why will he need to change his e8400? Quad-core processor support isn't going to become standardized within a year. Yes, more games will support them but it definitely won't make dual core obsolete. A higher clocked dual core will likely perform better than a lower clocked quad for a while. Plus he can overclock that 8400 way past the limit of q6600s.

[QUOTE="shearMario"][QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="shearMario"]

I would get the Q6600 over any dual core, the reason being is that the Q6600 does not bottleneck any graphics card out at the moment and I'm pretty certain when the next cards come out it won't bottleneck those either due to the fact it will have the extra two cores which will start to become more in use and therefore start outperforming all dual cores in future titles.

Fignewton50

Better performance yes but when games start getting much better performance with a quad (within a year) he will need to change his e8400 while I will be sitting nicely on the quad and not spent as much. The performance gained by owning a dual core now isn't good enough to out do buying the longer lasting Quad

Why will he need to change his e8400? Quad-core processor support isn't going to become standardized within a year. Yes, more games will support them but it definitely won't make dual core obsolete. A higher clocked dual core will likely perform better than a lower clocked quad for a while. Plus he can overclock that 8400 way past the limit of q6600s.

Wow the performance of a dual core suddenly makes crysis go from an average of 20fps to a more playable 30fps, I doubt it would, if anything if a swapped my quad for the e8400 I very much doubt I would notice much of an improvement in the game at all or any game for that matter just decreased performace in supreme commander and future quad games. Yes my other two cores are useless right now but I know that given time I will be using my quad longer than someone could use their e8400 thats fact. Quads overclock to all you need, going to 4GHz+ isn't going to give you a big gain over my quad at 3.2GHz.

I myself decided to get an E8400 over a Q6600. I think both CPUs are great, but by the time games are fully optimized for quadcores (and actually require them for good framerates), the Q6600 will be obsolete. I just think it's silly to try and "futureproof" a PC beyond 3 years.

I will admit though, multitaskers will definitely get more mileage out of a Q6600.

Wow the performance of a dual core suddenly makes crysis go from an average of 20fps to a more playable 30fps, I doubt it would, if anything if a swapped my quad for the e8400 I very much doubt I would notice much of an improvement in the game at all or any game for that matter just decreased performace in supreme commander and future quad games. Yes my other two cores are useless right now but I know that given time I will be using my quad longer than someone could use their e8400 thats fact. Quads overclock to all you need, going to 4GHz+ isn't going to give you a big gain over my quad at 3.2GHz.

shearMario

2. depends on the game some game some its actually noticeable but quite a bit which isn't bad since you know its cheaper

3. the dual core will give you a 100% increase over quad cores for the next five years see i can play this make #$#$ up game all day too :roll:

4. and i can by a quad core in a few years that isn't a FAKE QUAD core like the q6600 and it will murder it whats your point ? by the time you actually NEED a quad core its artitchture will be outdatted dont' the core 2 duo and quad series currently use the same one ?

5. by the time games are fully optimized for quadcores ( required for good framerates), the Q6600 will be obsolete

6. doesn't matter id rather go the cheaper option that will give me better performance for the next year to two then jump to a quad core when i need it then buy a fake quad core and just pray that it will last me when games actually require quad core instead of making up fake predictions like your doing now if you feel the need to defend your purchase then by all means please continue

Get the Q6600 over the Duo E6850. Anyone suggesting the Duo over the Quad is a complete idiot. MageMaster7

Quads are pretty much a waste in terms of gaming right now. A couple games have some support but only a couple. The e8400 over the q6600 all the way. If your an over clocker then the q600 might be more worth it in the long run because you can easily oc to 3ghz.

But i say save the $100+ and get the e8400. then wait a couple years for the nex-gen quads when they will be more optimized.

Get the Q6600 over the Duo E6850. Anyone suggesting the Duo over the Quad is a complete idiot. MageMaster7

... says who?

[QUOTE="MageMaster7"]Get the Q6600 over the Duo E6850. Anyone suggesting the Duo over the Quad is a complete idiot. Baselerd

... says who?

I would get the quad over any dual core, yes dual cores perform better but its not really a big enough gain to make it worthwhile, the quad in games performs well enough and won't cause you any problems and you will also have the benefit of knowing when games start to utilise quad cores you will get better performance than with a dual core.

[QUOTE="dayaccus007"]HD3870X2 any day over 2x8800GT or single 8800GTXKisukexD

wont see much difference between 8800gts and hd 3870's only on 3dmark score

[QUOTE="KisukexD"]

[QUOTE="dayaccus007"]HD3870X2 any day over 2x8800GT or single 8800GTX9mmSpliff

wont see much difference between 8800gts and hd 3870's only on 3dmark score

yep heres proof

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3209&p=4

Thats SLI 8800GT beating it. Not a single 8800GT.

9mmSpliff

and? im pretty sure everyone realises that.

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Thats SLI 8800GT beating it. Not a single 8800GT.

musclesforcier

and? im pretty sure everyone realises that.

I chose it so both boards are Penryn compatible. Now factor in that the 8800GT SLI produces more heat, its louder. Along with the 3870x2 does not even have a supporting driver and I think you have your answer. 3870x2 FTW IMO

Fact 1:

At newegg, one can purchase two 8800 GT's for a total of $420, while a single 3870 X2 costs $440.

Fact2:

According to that Anandtech review, two 8800 GT's SLI perform better than a single 3870 X2.

Conclusion: two 8800 GT's kick 3870 X2's ass badly. Even when ATI's drivers begin receiving better support (if they will), this wont ever make a single 3870 X2 outperform two 8800 GT's, but maybe get really closer.

Fact 3:

If I overclock a Q6600 to 3.6 Ghz, I will have duo-like clock speeds while at the same time having two more cores. If I overclock the most powerful duo right now out there, say to 4.5 Ghz, the performance gain in games between 3.6 Ghz and 4.5 Ghz is almost unnoticeable, just like 60+ FPS begins to be unnoticeable. Now if a play a quad enabled game on a Q6600 at 3.6 Ghz, I would get unmatched performance.

Thanks.

Fact 3:

If I overclock a Q6600 to 3.6 Ghz, I will have duo-like clock speeds while at the same time having two more cores. If I overclock the most powerful duo right now out there, say to 4.5 Ghz, the performance gain in games between 3.6 Ghz and 4.5 Ghz is almost unnoticeable, just like 60+ FPS begins to be unnoticeable. Now if a play a quad enabled game on a Q6600 at 3.6 Ghz, I would get unmatched performance.

Thanks.

bandieramonte

The difference between a 4.5Ghz dual-core and a 3.6Ghz Quad-core will be just as unoticeable as using a quad-core or dual-core in a game with multi-core support. By the time the majority of developers specifically program to take advantage of 4 cores, that Q6600 is going to be severly outdated.

I would get the quad over any dual core, yes dual cores perform better but its not really a big enough gain to make it worthwhile, the quad in games performs well enough and won't cause you any problems and you will also have the benefit of knowing when games start to utilise quad cores you will get better performance than with a dual core.

shearMario

eh if you overclock the gain can be worthwhile a core 2 duo espically a e8400 can overclock alot higher than a quad core which isn't bad considering its cheaper and what benefit are you talking about ? i don't think having a fake quad core 1 ½ -2 years down the road when games require quad core to really play games decent is really something be glad about since espically since they both use the exact same architecture and how come every post you make it seem like the q6600 is some multi tasking monster ? you do realize that by the time quads become just used in majority of games its going to be oudatted

E6850 is a pointless sku as E6750 can be had for $100 less and easily oc'd to that and way above on stock cooling.

A higher clocked duo will outperform a slower clocked quad in anything that isnt coded for quads simply because of the higher clock rate.

I would go with an E8400 though if you have a board that supports 45nm chips.

[QUOTE="shearMario"]

I would get the quad over any dual core, yes dual cores perform better but its not really a big enough gain to make it worthwhile, the quad in games performs well enough and won't cause you any problems and you will also have the benefit of knowing when games start to utilise quad cores you will get better performance than with a dual core.

mastershake575

eh if you overclock the gain can be worthwhile a core 2 duo espically a e8400 can overclock alot higher than a quad core which isn't bad considering its cheaper and what benefit are you talking about ? i don't think having a fake quad core 1 ½ -2 years down the road when games require quad core to really play games decent is really something be glad about since espically since they both use the exact same architecture and how come every post you make it seem like the q6600 is some multi tasking monster ? you do realize that by the time quads become just used in majority of games its going to be oudatted

Thats not true actually. By the time games start using Quads, Quad core CPUs will just be starting out to show there real power for games. So if anything the Q6600 hasn't even starting showing it's self off yet.

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="shearMario"]

I would get the quad over any dual core, yes dual cores perform better but its not really a big enough gain to make it worthwhile, the quad in games performs well enough and won't cause you any problems and you will also have the benefit of knowing when games start to utilise quad cores you will get better performance than with a dual core.

DarxPhil

eh if you overclock the gain can be worthwhile a core 2 duo espically a e8400 can overclock alot higher than a quad core which isn't bad considering its cheaper and what benefit are you talking about ? i don't think having a fake quad core 1 ½ -2 years down the road when games require quad core to really play games decent is really something be glad about since espically since they both use the exact same architecture and how come every post you make it seem like the q6600 is some multi tasking monster ? you do realize that by the time quads become just used in majority of games its going to be oudatted

Thats not true actually. By the time games start using Quads, Quad core CPUs will just be starting out to show there real power for games. So if anything the Q6600 hasn't even starting showing it's self off yet.