E8400 vs Q6600

[epidemik]

This debate was going on in two other threads and I still cant decide. Im going to be looking at it from a gaming perspective and would prefer not to have to updat for as long as possible.

Here are my thoughts.

Q6600
Its 65nm and not worse stepping (compared to E8400) which makes it not as good for overclocking. It has 4 cores making it more future proof so more and more games will start taking advantage of the 4 cores (but not for a while).

E8400
Makes a better overclocker (up to 4GHz on air!) but is only 2 cores. Currently it preforms better in games (than Q6600). Currently and for a while yet to come, games arent taking advantage of 4 core CPUs and therefore for gaming, its better to have the higher clock speeds with 2 cores rather than 4 cores with slower clocks.


So, Im leaning heavily toward the E8400. The only thing keeping me from going with it is the fact that currently games are mainly GPU Bound and therefore the Q6600 (as well as E8400) is overkill even for the latest and greatest games. If thats the case then wouldnt it make sense to get the Q6600 and be more ready for future games.

IDK, im kinda just thinking aloud (in text) but im also looking for your input. I guess its kinda a matter of predicting the future.

For a gamer who doesnt want to upgrade for a while (2ish years), which would you recomend?



Just for reference (not sure how much it matters), the rest of the build is probably an 8800GT and 4GB RAM.

 

[Kornowski]

I was actually in the same boat as you, but I jumped out after about 2 minutes. For me, The Q6600 won hands down!

Dude, You can get the Q6600 up to 3.6Ghz (If not higher), 400Mz difference and two more Cores, C'mon!

Also, Like you said, games will eventually start to utilize more cores, so it's more future proof.

 

[Ethan3.14159]

i would have to go with the q6600, because you mentioned you dont want to upgrade for a couple years, and in a year most intensive apps will perform better with an oc'ed quad core than an oc'ed dual core. most people can get the q6600 to 2.8 - 3.4ghz on air, but theyre both great choices.

 

[epidemik]

I was actually in the same boat as you, but I jumped out after about 2 minutes. For me, The Q6600 won hands down!

Dude, You can get the Q6600 up to 3.6Ghz (If not higher), 400Mz difference and two more Cores, C'mon!

Also, Like you said, games will eventually start to utilize more cores, so it's more future proof.

Is it true that in current games there will be no (or very little) difference between the E8400 and Q6600 because the games are so GPU Bound?

Ifthats the case, seems like i might as well get the Q6600


Thanks danny

 

[Kornowski]

Yeah, I mean, if you get a Q6600 up to 3.4Ghz, It'd be awesome!
And, Like you said, games are more GPU influenced...

No problem, dude!

 

[Shane]

im the same as you guys aswel,But im stuck between the Q6600 and Q6700.

 

[Scubie67]

I have read somewhere that if both the e8400 and q6600 are are overclocked that there is only a few FPS difference between the 2 with the same components playing current games.There are some graphs somewhere but I cant remember where I saw them as I look at several diffrent Comp sites.When games switch over to multi core there is suupose to be huge difference so I decided for myself it would be best to go ahead and get a quad,plus multitasking is better now with the quad.With the price drop they are about the same price anyways.

 

[Gareth]

I was stuck between the Q6600, Q6700 and Q9450. I chose the Q9450.

 

[Shane]

I was stuck between the Q6600, Q6700 and Q9450. I chose the Q9450.

ohh the Q9450 isnt a choice,i wouldnt pay that much

its between the Q6600 or q6700.

 

[Timo]

What the hell are you guys talking about... Q6600 G0, that will get up to 4Ghz as well.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/2/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index.html
It starts on Page two... I was too lazy to zap back.

And just because these guys got it up to 4Ghz... It doesn't mean others haven't gotten it higher. I've seen 4.15Ghz and even 4.2 (though the 4.2 was on water and the 4.15 was on TEC). But I've seen plenty 4Ghz and 3.8 / 3.9Ghz come past on some good air-cooling.

Chances are you're not going to OC either of them to 4Ghz anyways. 4Ghz is too much on either of them, only usefull in benching or perhaps Crysis if you have some killer Videocards... Which you don't because one 8800GT will have enough to do with a 2.4Ghz Quad. If you'd run three GTX 280's (which are the next killer cards to be... If you don't consider the price) then I'd suggest you OC to 3.6Ghz... But still 4Ghz is way out of the order right now.

 

[hermeslyre]

Plus even if the wolfsdale did have a smallish bit of extra OC headroom, It wouldn't truly mean that much FPS wise, Most games are GPU bound as OP mentioned.

And as soon as games start getting even crappy/unoptimized 3-4 core support, like crysis, the little bit of extra load will even things out, maybe even push things over the edge in favor of more cores.

 

[Timo]

What the hell are you guys talking about... Q6600 G0, that will get up to 4Ghz as well.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/2/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index.html
It starts on Page two... I was too lazy to zap back.

And just because these guys got it up to 4Ghz... It doesn't mean others haven't gotten it higher. I've seen 4.15Ghz and even 4.2 (though the 4.2 was on water and the 4.15 was on TEC). But I've seen plenty 4Ghz and 3.8 / 3.9Ghz come past on some good air-cooling.

Chances are you're not going to OC either of them to 4Ghz anyways. 4Ghz is too much on either of them, only usefull in benching or perhaps Crysis if you have some killer Videocards... Which you don't because one 8800GT will have enough to do with a 2.4Ghz Quad. If you'd run three GTX 280's (which are the next killer cards to be... If you don't consider the price) then I'd suggest you OC to 3.6Ghz... But still 4Ghz is way out of the order right now.

I'll repost it now... I want the maker to read this.

 

[Steelshivan]

Finally a thread without fifteen E8400-obsessed fanboys.

I agree with you all, the Q6600 is IMO the better buy right now, especially for the longer haul.

 

[Geoff]

Go with the E8400, games will perform better on a faster/more advanced dual-core then a slower/older quad core.

 

[cohen]

i say the Q6600 better for everything and is good for gaming

P.S. - This should've been a poll.

 

[Scubie67]

Go with the E8400, games will perform better on a faster/more advanced dual-core then a slower/older quad core.

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!

 

[cohen]

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!

hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600....

 

[epidemik]

hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600....

Thats exactly what I was thinking.
On my other thread, there wasnt a single person who said E8400.
Grr, such a tough decision (but im starting to wonder if it will really matter that much) .

 

[Scubie67]

Thats exactly what I was thinking.
On my other thread, there wasnt a single person who said E8400.
Grr, such a tough decision (but im starting to wonder if it will really matter that much) .

I dont think it matters much which was the point.The price right now is pretty close between the e8400 and the q6600.If you can handle giving up a few FPS short term right now on games the payoff comes when games become more efficient on using multicores later on as well as multitasking right now.I may be wrong but I dont know if the human eye can tell a diiffernce between getting 3 or 4 more Fps when comparing a e8400 system to a similar q6600 one.

 

[cohen]

The Q6600 is much better for everything