Might upgrade to E8400

Shane

Shane

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hey guys,

Well i think its time to upgrade my old e6300,its the bottleneck of my system and i cant let it hold me back any longer.

ive always reccomended to people on here to upgrade to Quad core,especialy because games and more apps will take advantage of them soon,but this got me thinking.... say if i got a quad core (Q6600) now,by the time games do take advantage that processor will be so outdated anyway so do you think that sticking in an E8400 would be better for now in todays games?

I have updated my motherboards Bios so it can accept the E8400.

I know i could easily overclock the Q6600 to 3Ghz,but then the Q6600 is not 45nm so il be buying old 65nm tech again :(
 
Last edited:
Well, if you buy a dual, by the time games and apps can fully use multi-cores, you'll be even more outdated than you would if you'd have bought a Quad. That's how I look at it.
 
hmm suppose your right,i do like the idea of having 4 cores power but that stock 3Ghz of the E8400 and it been 45nm i realy like.

also E8400 has SSE4.1 over the Q6600 only having up to which i hear has good advantages

If only the Q6600 was 45nm :o,the 45nm quads are too expensive,Intel should drop the prices of them now becaise of the i7 out.

Funky,why did you stop at 3.2Ghz.....cant you get 3.4-3.5 with that memory you have?
 
Last edited:
As solid as the 8800GT is, I wouldn't say it's a huge bottleneck or anything.

An overclocked 8400 is probably gamer king right now, but not for much longer. An overclocked Q6600 would be a little more future proof, but a little less powerful right now. But unless you get a crazy GPU, I'd say the Q6600 would be more than enough.
 
Nevakonaza said:
hmm suppose your right,i do like the idea of having 4 cores power but that stock 3Ghz of the E8400 and it been 45nm i realy like.

also E8400 has SSE4.1 over the Q6600 only having up to which i hear has good advantages

If only the Q6600 was 45nm :o,the 45nm quads are too expensive,Intel should drop the prices of them now becaise of the i7 out.

Funky,why did you stop at 3.2Ghz.....cant you get 3.4-3.5 with that memory you have?
Click to expand...

ive dropped it to stock now!

i had it up to 3.6ghz but im awaiting my new componants then am gonna try get near as poss 4.0ghz
 
A lot of apps use 4 cores right now actually. I played Brothers In Arms Hell's Highway for about an hour and had CPU Monitor running in the background just to see what it needed from my CPU. The entire time all 4 cores were used. Core 1,2 & 3 were used between 20% and 60% the entire time. Not once did any core go below 20%. I would say they were between 40% and 55% for about 45 minutes of the hour. Core 4 was maxed the entire time I played. This game used all 4 cores from the minute I opened it. The E8400 will beat the Q6600 in most gaming benchmarks, but I think the quad is the way to go. Software developers have already started and will continue to expand the production of software that will use 4 cores. A lot of people talk about getting a Quad to be future proof....the future is already here:)

Start a CPU monitor program and just mess around or game for a while and then look at the CPU readings and see what it did.
 
Bartmasta said:
I'd go with the dual core because it's better than some of the cheaper intel quads for gaming

take a look

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-1680x1050,818.html
Click to expand...

Wrong answer!

Ok, take the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, that's at the top of the chart and is the most expensive Quad Core, right? Well, that's stock at 3Ghz and that beats all the Duals in that test, it also has the same amount of Cache as the Q6600. Not to mentio, the QX9770 is B3 stepping, so it'll run hotter.

The Q6600 used in that benchmark was stock at 2.4Ghz. The QX9770 was also at stock, 3Ghz.

If you take a Q6600 and OC it to 3Ghz, you've effectively got yourself a QX9770. If you take it further, like I have and get 3.4Ghz, what do you have then!? I bet your heads about to explode thinking about it... Oh no, it's not even on the chart!

Get a Quad and OC it, whoops ass!
 
Kornowski said:
Wrong answer!

Ok, take the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, that's at the top of the chart and is the most expensive Quad Core, right? Well, that's stock at 3Ghz and that beats all the Duals in that test, it also has the same amount of Cache as the Q6600. Not to mentio, the QX9770 is B3 stepping, so it'll run hotter.

The Q6600 used in that benchmark was stock at 2.4Ghz. The QX9770 was also at stock, 3Ghz.

If you take a Q6600 and OC it to 3Ghz, you've effectively got yourself a QX9770. If you take it further, like I have and get 3.4Ghz, what do you have then!? I bet your heads about to explode thinking about it... Oh no, it's not even on the chart!

Get a Quad and OC it, whoops ass!
Click to expand...

It also scores closest with the i7 (doing encoding, not games, etc)
 
forgot about overclocking

the dual cores will overclock decently too right, but the quads benefit moar from overclocking

amirite
 
I did the same research when I was upgrading from my E6300, all the people I talked to said the E8400 would be the best choice, for gaming and such, they also mentioned that nothing at the moment will utilize the Quad Core, and by the time anything starts to, it'll be obsolete.


Though I personally haven't tried the Q6600.



Bartmasta said:
forgot about overclocking

the dual cores will overclock decently too right, but the quads benefit moar from overclocking

amirite
Click to expand...


I doubt that's right, since it's coming from someone who didn't even build their own computer.
 
So? Does it matter if I built my computer or not? Oh wow I can assemble parts together, now I know how intel processors work despite the fact that I never had one.
 
Last edited:
Bartmasta said:
dats wat kool peepul do amirite?
Click to expand...

Dude, Enough already.

Shane, think of this way, you can OC a Q6600 to 3.4Ghz, easy! You can OC an E8400 to 4Ghz, easy!

Would you rather have double the cores, or an extra 600Mhz? May sound a little biased, but it's the truth.
 
yeah dannys right,ahh well looks like the Quad has won my heart :P

Danny this is the cheapest ive seen it...or do you know anywhere else cheaper?

http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?...GHz+1066MHz++8MB+Cache,+9x+Multiplier,+Retail

this is the good one right? SLACR - GO????

i see thats the retail version though with box and heatsink......well i dont need all that cant i just buy teh processor like OEM? without the fan and fancy box?
 
Last edited:
Kornowski said:
Wrong answer!

Ok, take the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, that's at the top of the chart and is the most expensive Quad Core, right? Well, that's stock at 3Ghz and that beats all the Duals in that test, it also has the same amount of Cache as the Q6600. Not to mentio, the QX9770 is B3 stepping, so it'll run hotter.

The Q6600 used in that benchmark was stock at 2.4Ghz. The QX9770 was also at stock, 3Ghz.

If you take a Q6600 and OC it to 3Ghz, you've effectively got yourself a QX9770. If you take it further, like I have and get 3.4Ghz, what do you have then!? I bet your heads about to explode thinking about it... Oh no, it's not even on the chart!

Get a Quad and OC it, whoops ass!
Click to expand...

No QX9770 and Q6600 don't have the same amount of cache

QX9770 has stock speed of 3.2GHz

QX9770 has better performance clock for clock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top