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?
Difference between E8400 and Q6600
- Thread starter Scubie67
- Start date
ETSA
New Member
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_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=1096&model2=871&chart=419
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037
If you want a challenge OCing get the one that offers the most head room.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=1096&model2=871&chart=419
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037
If you want a challenge OCing get the one that offers the most head room.
MosIncredible
New Member
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
VIP Member
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!
Hope that helped!
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
New Member
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.
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
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
VIP Member
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.
