Actual Performance

[GoodApollo]

As like all the other people, I am debating about the Q6600 and the E6850. According to some charts (Anandtech/Toms Hardware) It seems there is about an 8-30 FPS difference in games between the quad and duo. My question is what is the actual permorfance notice for different FPS's. Is a 10 FPS difference the difference between a skip or a lag? How much could you actually tell between getting 191 FPS and 168 FPS?

 

[The_Other_One]

The numbers you see are average frames per second. It's hard to say if those are low due to spikes(like 100 then down to 25 at some parts...). However, I suspect most are fairly consistent and simply are lower over all amounts than the other processor.

When you're looking at numbers over about 30FPS(or some people say 60), you really won't seen any difference visually. About all you will have is more of a "buffer", or less of a chance for it to spike down as I mentioned and really look noticeably slower.

 

[Cleric7x9]

yeah, i agree, i really do not think anybody can see the difference between 191 and 168. 60 in any game is enough to give you a nice, smooth picture. unfortunately lots of people are stuck between the same to processors you are. some argue that quad is the future, but by the time the future gets here there will be something else. i honestly think you would be very happy with either processor. just curious, what graphics card do you plan to use?

 

[GoodApollo]

Do those "spike downs" happen frequently? What I'm getting at is, for gaming, does that extra .6Ghz in the E6850 actually make a difference?

I plan on using an 8800 GTX.