Q6600 or E6850

Nutter

Nutter

New Member
Hey, I'm in the process of building a gaming comp. Which CPU do you guys reckon will cut it? and last longer?

They both are about 350 Dollars.
Why would they be the same price if Quad core is better?

These are the specs for my build...

Intel Quad Core2 Q6600 - $359
Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 2Gb - $149
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R Motherboard - $221
Gigabyte 768mb 8800GTX - $789
500GB SATAII 16mb - Hard Drive - $185
Sony AWG170SB2 SATA - DVD Burner - $59
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer - 7.1 Channel - SoundCard $179
Thermaltake Saprano - Case - $139
OCZ GAMEXteme 850 Watts - $259
Zalman CNPS9700LED $85

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Go to clubit.com and order the Q6600 with G0 stepping for $299.99 shipped.

I wouldn't even consider a dual core that cost just as much.
 
Bl00dFox said:
Get the Q6600, youll be future-proof for a long time.
Click to expand...
With technology the way it is now, don't expect quad cores to be considered "future proof" any more then the rest of this year (if that). These days CPU's are becoming faster by the addition of more and more cores, and not so much faster clock speeds as it has been in the past.
 
[-0MEGA-];748766 said:
With technology the way it is now, don't expect quad cores to be considered "future proof" any more then the rest of this year (if that). These days CPU's are becoming faster by the addition of more and more cores, and not so much faster clock speeds as it has been in the past.
Click to expand...

I cannot see the industry being this exponential. We have always made slow, steady progress, I don't see that changing anytime soon. If it did, they'd be stunting themselves.. New faster technology, being made everyday would be bad for everyone, The market would become unstable, The consumers would be forced to adapt, we'd essentially be screwing ourselfs IMO.

I believe we need to make full use of todays tech, before moving on to tomorrows. Not doing so would be uneconomical.
 
hermeslyre said:
I cannot see the industry being this exponential. We have always made slow, steady progress, I don't see that changing anytime soon. If it did, they'd be stunting themselves.. New faster technology, being made everyday would be bad for everyone, The market would become unstable, The consumers would be forced to adapt, we'd essentially be screwing ourselfs IMO.

I believe we need to make full use of todays tech, before moving on to tomorrows. Not doing so would be uneconomical.
Click to expand...
There are already 8 core processors that are scheduled to be released either later this year or early next year, and there are prototypes for processors with 16 cores as well.
 
Yes but who says they catch on? Even the quad core has a user base of like .5%.

I'm all for newer faster tech, but I'm not so sure it won't be like the early dual cores... You need to have a reason to buy them.
 
hermeslyre said:
Yes but who says they catch on? Even the quad core has a user base of like .5%.

I'm all for newer faster tech, but I'm not so sure it won't be like the early dual cores... You need to have a reason to buy them.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying everyone will, but i'm saying processor technology is geared more towards having more cores per processor, rather then making faster and faster dual/quad cores.

If you look at the past we always used single cores since the invention of the CPU up until the Pentium D, which came out sometime around 2002-2004 or so. So then we had dual-cores, and then a few years later quad cores, and then in the next few years octo-cores, and so on.
 
[-0MEGA-];748766 said:
With technology the way it is now, don't expect quad cores to be considered "future proof" any more then the rest of this year (if that). These days CPU's are becoming faster by the addition of more and more cores, and not so much faster clock speeds as it has been in the past.
Click to expand...


I said it with respect to the fact that the Q6600 will be MORE future proof than the E6850.

Do you disagree?
 
Of course the Q6600 is more future proof, its newer, but that does not make it better value for money. There is a thread EXACTLY like this already.
 
elitehacker said:
Of course the Q6600 is more future proof, its newer, but that does not make it better value for money. There is a thread EXACTLY like this already.
Click to expand...

Haha, and there will be a dozen more. :D

I think it's plausible for the octo to catch on in a couple years, But it doesn't mean the quads will lose their future potential at the end of this year. Unless the "real" consumer market wakes up and runs out to buy a couple thousand dollars worth of equipment then i'm afraid our little niches adoption rate will stay low. Even if we have the ability to make Chips with dozens of cores. I for one am glad. I'm cheap, I don't want to have to upgrade like a maniac just to keep up. :D
 
Bl00dFox said:
I said it with respect to the fact that the Q6600 will be MORE future proof than the E6850.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Yes the Q6600 is more future proof, but I was saying that you cant get a Q6600 and expect it to still be considered high end in a few years.

elitehacker said:
Of course the Q6600 is more future proof, its newer, but that does not make it better value for money. There is a thread EXACTLY like this already.
Click to expand...
I know, lol. I'm surprised a mod hasn't combined the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top