Difference between E8400 and Q6600

Scubie67 · 03-02-2008, 03:42 PM

From what i have read people are getting on average 3.3 to 3.6 Oc on the aircooled Q6600 and 3.7 to 4.2 aircooled Oc on the e8400.Can you actually tell a difference in performance between those numbers in games or would you would be better off just getting the quad because of future programming in games to take advantage of multi core proc. as well as multitasking?The Quad being longer lasting down the road than the higher clock speed dual proc. as it were?

ETSA · 03-02-2008, 05:10 PM

It will be awhile before quadcore are utilized in gaming. For the fist time, as of lately, cpu's are no longer bottlenecks for gaming. They are also very cheap when compared to performance. Both will be monsters, but IMO I would go with the cheapest. A quadcore may give you an advantage for multi-tasking. I don't think the quad allows for any advantage because by the time quadcores are used in gaming there will be 8 core or 16 core processors at this rate. So IMO, go with what is financially plausible and what benchmarks the best.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=871&chart=419

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037

If you want a challenge OCing get the one that offers the most head room.

Scubie67 · 03-03-2008, 12:44 AM

With the amount of 400-600mhz higher clock speed could you tell a difference in playing a game between the 2 proc. with everything in the system being the same(MB,GPU,PSU,Ram etc.) between the two?

ThatGuy16 · 03-03-2008, 01:33 AM

For gaming i would get the E8400, by the time more apps and games will even utilize quad cores, it would probably be about time to upgrade anyway

MosIncredible · 03-03-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy16

For gaming i would get the E8400, by the time more apps and games will even utilize quad cores, it would probably be about time to upgrade anyway

Same thought I had. Better quad cores will be out by then.

ramodkk · 03-03-2008, 01:53 AM

Of course there is a difference. The Q6600 is a quad-core, the E8400 on the other hand is a dual-core. The second difference is that the E8400 has a newer architecture and has more OC'ing capabilities which let you OC it by 1GHz on air easily. And as ThatGuy16 said, the E8400 would win on gaming. For multitasking though, the Q6600 gets all the cookies!

Hope that helped!

Scubie67 · 03-03-2008, 03:26 AM

Ok thx for the replies all.The Q6600 has been getting overclock of around 1Ghz or better also since it starts at 2.4 ,The e8400 starts at 3.0 and most people get around 4.0 to 4.1 so isnt it the same amount of overclock from starting proc speed? I havent seen anyone getting 4.5 Oc on the 8400 on air so far,Maybe I missed someone posting that they hit that mark though .I wouldnt want to by a processor now then a year from now buy another.How many more frames per second playing a game like Crysis would you get with a E8400 over a q6600 with identical hardware in the rest computer build?Would it be too many variables estimate and need a real world test?

LCS/drummer · 03-03-2008, 05:47 AM

what do you mean what you guys say "multi tasking"? i understand that four cores can handle more, but give me an example of multi tasking. i too am debating between an E8400 and a Q6600, but i will be liquid cooling so OC capabilities are higher for me.

hackapelite · 03-03-2008, 06:57 AM

Multitasking is running several (usually CPU-demanding) programs/threads/processes/whatever at once, say, running crysis while running virusscan and compressing a few gigabytes of stuff would be multi-tasking...the more (CPU intensive) programs/task you use at the same time, the bigger the advantage of having more cores is.

ramodkk · 03-03-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCS/drummer

what do you mean what you guys say "multi tasking"? i understand that four cores can handle more, but give me an example of multi tasking. i too am debating between an E8400 and a Q6600, but i will be liquid cooling so OC capabilities are higher for me.

As hackapelite said, maybe you want to burn a CD, run an antivirus and play Crysis at the same time, you could do it with the Q6600 without your comp freezing on you. On the other hand, with the E8400 its more for like 2 heavy applications at the same time but again, the E8400 runs a bit faster.

03-02-2008, 03:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
Scubie67 Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 376	Difference between E8400 and Q6600 From what i have read people are getting on average 3.3 to 3.6 Oc on the aircooled Q6600 and 3.7 to 4.2 aircooled Oc on the e8400.Can you actually tell a difference in performance between those numbers in games or would you would be better off just getting the quad because of future programming in games to take advantage of multi core proc. as well as multitasking?The Quad being longer lasting down the road than the higher clock speed dual proc. as it were?

03-02-2008, 05:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
ETSA Diamond Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: WA Age: 24 Posts: 2,287	It will be awhile before quadcore are utilized in gaming. For the fist time, as of lately, cpu's are no longer bottlenecks for gaming. They are also very cheap when compared to performance. Both will be monsters, but IMO I would go with the cheapest. A quadcore may give you an advantage for multi-tasking. I don't think the quad allows for any advantage because by the time quadcores are used in gaming there will be 8 core or 16 core processors at this rate. So IMO, go with what is financially plausible and what benchmarks the best. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=871&chart=419 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037 If you want a challenge OCing get the one that offers the most head room. __________________ DESKTOP Antec P180B(4 x 120mm Tricool fans) Antec 500W neoHE Gigabyte GA 965p DS3 E6400 /w Zalman cnps9500 led 92mm (OC'ed to 3.2Ghz) 4 GB Corsair xms2 DDR2 800 HD4850 512mb ddr3 /w Zalman VF1000 (OC'ed to 690/1143) Soundblaster Audigy 4 LAPTOP Core 2 Duo T5750(2.00GHz)/4GB ddr2 667/250GB HD/8600M GT

03-03-2008, 01:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
ThatGuy16 Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,314	For gaming i would get the E8400, by the time more apps and games will even utilize quad cores, it would probably be about time to upgrade anyway __________________ CPU: C2D E8400 @ 4Ghz 1.24v HSF: Apogee GTX MB: Gigabyte X38-DS4 Ram: 2x2GB G. Skill DDR2-1068 HDD: 320GB Seagate PSU: OCZ GameXStream 700w OS: Vista Home Premium 64bit GFX: 2x HD4850 Crossfire LCD: LG 22" L226WTQ 3DMark06: 20826

03-03-2008, 01:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
ramodkk Diamond Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: There > Age: 16 Posts: 4,872	Of course there is a difference. The Q6600 is a quad-core, the E8400 on the other hand is a dual-core. The second difference is that the E8400 has a newer architecture and has more OC'ing capabilities which let you OC it by 1GHz on air easily. And as ThatGuy16 said, the E8400 would win on gaming. For multitasking though, the Q6600 gets all the cookies! Hope that helped! __________________ E2160 w/AC Freezer 7 Pro Gigabyte P35-DS3L 2GB BallistiX Tracers PC2-6400 Sapphire HD3870 Rosewill RD500 500W Antec Three Hundred (Modded)

03-03-2008, 06:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
hackapelite Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Solicitor's office Posts: 1,866	Multitasking is running several (usually CPU-demanding) programs/threads/processes/whatever at once, say, running crysis while running virusscan and compressing a few gigabytes of stuff would be multi-tasking...the more (CPU intensive) programs/task you use at the same time, the bigger the advantage of having more cores is. __________________ BY READING THE ABOVE POST, YOU AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: "The above post is provided solely for entertainment purposes and is not to be taken as professional advice. Therefore, I shall not be held responsible for any damage or losses that are result from anything I have posted, to the extent applicable by law. In the unlikely event that I CAN be held responsible, I have never been here, I am not here, and I will never be here, and it will be highly questionable whether I even exist."

03-03-2008, 12:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
Scubie67 Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 376	With the amount of 400-600mhz higher clock speed could you tell a difference in playing a game between the 2 proc. with everything in the system being the same(MB,GPU,PSU,Ram etc.) between the two?

03-03-2008, 03:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
Scubie67 Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 376	Ok thx for the replies all.The Q6600 has been getting overclock of around 1Ghz or better also since it starts at 2.4 ,The e8400 starts at 3.0 and most people get around 4.0 to 4.1 so isnt it the same amount of overclock from starting proc speed? I havent seen anyone getting 4.5 Oc on the 8400 on air so far,Maybe I missed someone posting that they hit that mark though .I wouldnt want to by a processor now then a year from now buy another.How many more frames per second playing a game like Crysis would you get with a E8400 over a q6600 with identical hardware in the rest computer build?Would it be too many variables estimate and need a real world test?

03-03-2008, 05:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
LCS/drummer Bronze Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 71	what do you mean what you guys say "multi tasking"? i understand that four cores can handle more, but give me an example of multi tasking. i too am debating between an E8400 and a Q6600, but i will be liquid cooling so OC capabilities are higher for me.

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
e8400 over the q6600	memory	CPUs and Overclocking	4	03-01-2008 05:36 PM
e8400 over the q6600	memory	Desktop Computers	9	03-01-2008 04:36 PM