E8400 vs Q6600

Talk to OMEGA, he has owned both :P

You say the Q6600 will do 4.0Ghz? SOME will do 4.0Ghz with water, only benchmark stable. The E8400 will do 4.0Ghz stable on AIR. I have water cooling, and a very low voltage chip, i haven't even pushed it to its max stable OC.

Go with the E8400, this is the last time I'm going to say this. Maybe.. :D
 
ThatGuy16 said:
Talk to OMEGA, he has owned both :P

You say the Q6600 will do 4.0Ghz? SOME will do 4.0Ghz with water, only benchmark stable. The E8400 will do 4.0Ghz stable on AIR. I have water cooling, and a very low voltage chip, i haven't even pushed it to its max stable OC.

Go with the E8400, this is the last time I'm going to say this. Maybe.. :D
Click to expand...

If you read my post youll see that Omegas account may have been compromised :P
 
Read my original post on Page One. I've already said that you CAN get 4GHz out of it, 3.6Ghz pretty easily on air! Two more cores... You can't go wrong!

Shane, Get the Q6600, You won't notice the difference with the X10 Multi, They'll both OC the same.
 
yeah get a q6600. they are great and in my opinion you probaby wont notice a decrease in performance comapred to the E8400....
i have a q6600 now and its amazing.
 
Scubie67 said:
Oh no!!! ...Someone has hacked OMEGA'S account.Someone please report this as I remembered he had a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.8 Ghz and would never say such a thing! :D
Click to expand...
haha! Yes I did it have it up to 3.8GHz on water, but only 3.6GHz on air. The E8400 performs better clock for clock anyways because it has a 45nm process, and has an updated version of the Core 2 architectures.

cohen said:
hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600.... :cool::cool::cool::cool:
Click to expand...
Both can be good, but the E8400 is 600MHz faster stock, runs cooler, and can OC higher.
 
Q6600 is a better balance between Gaming and Other non-gaming apps. Why not take it when it's cheaper and will OC high enough to play whatever game you throw at it?
 
Q6600
Pros
Multitasking
Better @ Video Encoding
Overclocks around 3.5 w/ 3rd party cooler
4 Cores
Probably will be better @ gaming in the future.
Temperature sensors work

Cons
Older Architecture
Lower Clock Speed
Less power per clock

E8400
Pros
Higher Clock Speed
Overclocks to 3.6 w/ stock cooler, 4+ w/ 3rd party cooler
Currently better @ gaming
Newer Architecture
More power per clock

Cons
2 Cores
Temperature Sensors (They're faulty kinda)

Things to consider: do all those pros apply to you? If overclocking do you want to have to buy a third party cooler or will you just stick with the stock? Do you want the performance now or some future proofing for later? Or is it worth waiting for something even better to come out.

Just got a little bord and decided to input! I haven't put price in because its different everywhere and often to close to really matter. Plus it changes.

Enjoy.

PS: Don't quote me on those figures.
 
Excellent comparison of the two processors shenry. Very fair and unbiased summary.

Only thing I would have to take your word for is the temperature sensor comparison, anyone else have input on that?
 
i am the same as you epid but thanjks to this topic i think ill go with the more future proof cpu (Q6600)

thanks for making this thread
 
headcrabCAKE said:
i am the same as you epid but thanjks to this topic i think ill go with the more future proof cpu (Q6600)

thanks for making this thread
Click to expand...

NP.

I however am still not convinced. But I'm guessing its simply a matter of predicting the future. I guess i'll keep thinking about it but i still gotta raise $500 :mad::eek::D (but i get paid to sit in the sun and count heads occasionally save a life...lifeguard :D )
 
A friend of mine has his Q6600 running at stock (2.4Ghz) with the stock Intel cooler mounted and it does about 35/36 idle and 42/43 (43 at maximum, after an hour of stressing or something) at room temperatures of 21 maybe 22 degrees. I think you can do 8*333 easily without having to change the stock cooler if you don't want to OC all that high :)

(though I can't try that with his nor with mine because mine has a 3rd party cooler and his is a Dell, which have the Bios' totally locked as far as I know... Though I will look into it anyway...)
 
Steelshivan said:
Excellent comparison of the two processors shenry. Very fair and unbiased summary.

Only thing I would have to take your word for is the temperature sensor comparison, anyone else have input on that?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

You can sort of get around the temperature faults with real temp. It seems to be more accurate than all other temperature programs for the E8400 and was made for it specifically but works with other intel CPU's as well. It also tests whether your sensors are faulty or not.
 
If you are considering "future proof" CPUs, overclocking to 4 ghz is not an ideal approach. If you are going to overclock please do so in moderation to extend the life of the CPU.
 
Most 8400s do 4Ghz just above stock voltage. By the time a cpu would kill over in the long run from a stable overclock, they would be nearly extinct. I've never heard of someone killing a cpu from a shortend lifespan due to a overclock. Its all stories...
 
All the benchmarks I have read ave lead me to the conclusion that for the moment the dual core is better for gaming if you dont want to overclock. The quad will win out every time when it comes to apps.

As for overclocking, what you need to remember is that you can push both chips quite high and still wont see much differance between them in games at the moment. So realy I guess it comes down to personal preferance and budget. If you want out of the box performance in games then the dual core is for you, If you want future proofing and can spent the extra 40 or 50 bucks then go the quad. Wichever you choose, they are both good chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top