Duo 3.0 or Quad 2.4 ? (E6850 or Q6600)

Iplayloud · 01-09-2008, 04:47 AM

I'm not a big gamer and I don't OC.. just having the itch to upgrade. I was thinking since most applications don't fully exploit multi processors would it not be better to have two fast CPUs than 4 slower ?

Kesava · 01-09-2008, 04:51 AM

personally i would go with the quad. its very fast and very future proof. i reckon its worth getting it.

well actually you would be better off waiting for the 45nm processors.

Iluvpenguins · 01-09-2008, 05:11 AM

You should either wait for the new 45nm cpus coming out in feb-march, or get an E6750. There is no justification to get an E6850 and the Q6600 isn't future proof enough to be worth dropping $280 on, especially when new cpus that will be better will fill in it's spot at that price range.

Vestitor · 01-09-2008, 06:12 AM

Well, I would definitely go with the quad core, because unless you are a big gamer you don't really need the extra mhz on the dual or listen to Iluvpenguins... he seems to have a good opinion to

...

fortyways · 01-09-2008, 08:38 AM

I don't understand why everyone's argument against quad-core is that applications aren't multi-threaded yet. Seriously. Do you read what you're saying as you're typing it? Unless your computer is running less than four processes, it's advantageous to have four cores.

That said, I'd get an E6750 or wait for newer quad cores.

hermeslyre · 01-09-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fortyways

I don't understand why everyone's argument against quad-core is that applications aren't multi-threaded yet. Seriously. Do you read what you're saying as you're typing it? Unless your computer is running less than four processes, it's advantageous to have four cores.

That said, I'd get an E6750 or wait for newer quad cores.

It's a natural argument. I have 31 simultaneous processes running right now, but all processes are not equal; none that I have running are demanding in the least. When I pop in a game(or the equivalent), which is inherently demanding of resources, there would be a reason for extra cores, unless of course the game is not coded for multi-threaded SMP chips. Then it's all for naught. The exception would be the avid multi-tasker, running F@H, Ripping an HD-DVD, gaming, any order of doings that managed to stress the quad to it's limit. I'll go out on a limb and suggest there are fewer of these people out there than otherwise.

Anyways, That wasn't his argument alone, it's secondary function was if the higher clock of the dual-core would be of greater service than the unoptimized-for, lower clock speed Quad, which should be responded to in the affirmative, as long as OP doesn't match the above description. Furthermore, At the rate we've been seeing application multi-threading expand, and considering the quality of the current "multi-threaded" programs, it's may well be quite a while till a quad core is utilized to it's full extant, by one, or two processes alone, which seems to be the preferred methodology.

footballdude2k3 · 01-09-2008, 10:54 PM

personally i am going to go with the e6750, i was going to get a quad, but i dont think that i can justify spending the extra cash on something that cannot be fully utilized right now, and i do not want to spend the extra 100 bucks on an extra 333mhz, so i would say get a duo until they start to fully utilize the quads, just my .02

Kodiak kid · 01-11-2008, 09:31 AM

IMO, the speed is only as effective as your FSB. an 800 mhz FSB will choke either a 3.0 dual core or a 2.4 quad...

SirKenin · 01-11-2008, 02:31 PM

I was actually reading a review the other day with a whack of benchmarks. In todays apps the C2D E6700 actually eats up the Q6600. While the quads are a good idea for commercial applications, it is completely and utterly pointless for the home desktop at this point, unless you're looking for bragging rights. I was thinking of replacing with my E6700 with the Quad, until I found out that my C2D outperforms it.

**oscaryu1** · 01-11-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirKenin

I was actually reading a review the other day with a whack of benchmarks. In todays apps the C2D E6700 actually eats up the Q6600. While the quads are a good idea for commercial applications, it is completely and utterly pointless for the home desktop at this point, unless you're looking for bragging rights. I was thinking of replacing with my E6700 with the Quad, until I found out that my C2D outperforms it.

The C2D probably outperforms it probably because the Q6600 was tested with a Dual Core supported coding... Thus only 2/4 cores are used.

01-09-2008, 04:47 AM	#1 (permalink)
Iplayloud Bronze Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 38	Duo 3.0 or Quad 2.4 ? (E6850 or Q6600) I'm not a big gamer and I don't OC.. just having the itch to upgrade. I was thinking since most applications don't fully exploit multi processors would it not be better to have two fast CPUs than 4 slower ?

01-09-2008, 04:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
Kesava Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: India Age: 17 Posts: 3,352	personally i would go with the quad. its very fast and very future proof. i reckon its worth getting it. well actually you would be better off waiting for the 45nm processors. __________________ Following my advice will harm your computer. Cpu:Intel Q6600 2.4Ghz @ 3.4Ghz Hsf:Zalman CNPS 9700 LED Ram:Generic 2 Gb 800 Mhz Gpu:XFX 8800 GT 512mb @ 700/1750/2000 Mobo:Gigabyte P31-DS3L OS:OSX 10.5.2 3dMark06:13518 MSN=kesava8@hotmail.com AIM=kesava8

01-09-2008, 05:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
Iluvpenguins Diamond Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Kitchener Ontario Posts: 1,293	You should either wait for the new 45nm cpus coming out in feb-march, or get an E6750. There is no justification to get an E6850 and the Q6600 isn't future proof enough to be worth dropping $280 on, especially when new cpus that will be better will fill in it's spot at that price range. __________________ My computer: Intel Core2Duo E6550 @ 3.01ghz Gigabyte P31-DS3L Patriot 2x1GB DDR2-800 @ 1032mhz EVGA GeForce 8800GTX Antec 500W w/32A on 12v rail WD 80GB HDD,WD 500GB HDD Ultra Aluminus Full Tower Case (Black Finish)

01-09-2008, 06:12 AM	#4 (permalink)
Vestitor Silver Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Age: 19 Posts: 104	Well, I would definitely go with the quad core, because unless you are a big gamer you don't really need the extra mhz on the dual or listen to Iluvpenguins... he seems to have a good opinion to ... __________________ AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Brisbane 2.2GHz @ 2.84Ghz Stable (35C-58C) CPU Temp G.SKILL 2GB DDR2 800(Running as DDR2 677 at 810Mhz(405Mhz) Stable GIGABYTE GA-MA69VM-S2 AM2 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 3870 512MB 256-bit GDDR4 hec Orion XPOWER585 ATX12V 2.01 585W Power Supply ViewSonic A90f+ 19" CRT Windows XP Professional 32bit Crysis SP Beta : 20-30fps, Everything High, 1280x1024 -----------------3DMark06 - 9306-----------------

01-09-2008, 10:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
footballdude2k3 Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: sheboygan, wi Posts: 424	personally i am going to go with the e6750, i was going to get a quad, but i dont think that i can justify spending the extra cash on something that cannot be fully utilized right now, and i do not want to spend the extra 100 bucks on an extra 333mhz, so i would say get a duo until they start to fully utilize the quads, just my .02 __________________ case- antec 900 Dell d840 cpu-intel e8400 @3.00ghz p4 2.0ghz memory- 4gb corsair 800 mhz 512 mb ram hdd- 500 gb western digital psu- 700 ocz video- evga 8800gt speakers- logitech 5.1 X130 dvd- lite on 20x os-vista home premium if anybody has any input on the left column thats what i want to get right now.

01-09-2008, 08:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
fortyways banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,134	I don't understand why everyone's argument against quad-core is that applications aren't multi-threaded yet. Seriously. Do you read what you're saying as you're typing it? Unless your computer is running less than four processes, it's advantageous to have four cores. That said, I'd get an E6750 or wait for newer quad cores.

01-11-2008, 09:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kodiak kid Bronze Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30	IMO, the speed is only as effective as your FSB. an 800 mhz FSB will choke either a 3.0 dual core or a 2.4 quad... __________________ Dell XPS gen 5 P4-D 3.6Ghz ATI radeon X850X PE WD 80 gig @ 10K etc, etc, etc... New custom build coming VERY soon :)

01-11-2008, 02:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	I was actually reading a review the other day with a whack of benchmarks. In todays apps the C2D E6700 actually eats up the Q6600. While the quads are a good idea for commercial applications, it is completely and utterly pointless for the home desktop at this point, unless you're looking for bragging rights. I was thinking of replacing with my E6700 with the Quad, until I found out that my C2D outperforms it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
E6850 3.0 Ghz reading 2.0 Ghz	SgtBobert	CPUs and Overclocking	8	01-06-2008 05:59 PM
Core 2 Duo 2.66, 3.0 or Quad 2.4?	The Jackyl	Laptop and Handheld Computers	9	01-03-2008 07:51 PM
Intel Duo Core 2 vs Intel Duo Core Quad	millertime85	Desktop Computers	20	12-29-2007 01:34 PM
Intel core 2 Extreme vs Duo vs Quad	nameIess	CPUs and Overclocking	11	07-09-2007 07:27 AM
Comparing Core 2 Duo vs. xeon quad core e5310 1.6ghz	remember	CPUs and Overclocking	12	12-17-2006 04:50 AM