ZeroWing
New Member
Is the black PCI-E 8x or 16x? Cz the one I linked is 16x/16x so I cud get the most out of SLI/Xfire. What about the second mobo? I cant find anything on the page for speed.
Q6600 or E8400
- Thread starter ZeroWing
- Start date
Is the black PCI-E 8x or 16x? Cz the one I linked is 16x/16x so I cud get the most out of SLI/Xfire. What about the second mobo? I cant find anything on the page for speed.
ZeroWing
New Member
yesir
vix
New Member
From someone who owns both CPU's, for gaming, I'd definitely recommend the E8400.
My E8400 at an easy 4.2 GHz OC beats my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz, no doubt about it. (E8400 OC was easy... the Q6600 OC was a bit of a challenge)
There are many here who can speculate which would be better for gaming, but I've compared both CPU's firsthand, both with the same video card, OS and settings. If you need a gaming rig NOW, get the E8400. If you can wait a little longer, wait for Nehalem/i7.
My E8400 at an easy 4.2 GHz OC beats my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz, no doubt about it. (E8400 OC was easy... the Q6600 OC was a bit of a challenge)
There are many here who can speculate which would be better for gaming, but I've compared both CPU's firsthand, both with the same video card, OS and settings. If you need a gaming rig NOW, get the E8400. If you can wait a little longer, wait for Nehalem/i7.
ZeroWing
New Member
From someone who owns both CPU's, for gaming, I'd definitely recommend the E8400.
My E8400 at an easy 4.2 GHz OC beats my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz, no doubt about it. (E8400 OC was easy... the Q6600 OC was a bit of a challenge)
There are many here who can speculate which would be better for gaming, but I've compared both CPU's firsthand, both with the same video card, OS and settings. If you need a gaming rig NOW, get the E8400. If you can wait a little longer, wait for Nehalem/i7.
im guessing when the i7 releases its going to be a lot of money ($200+). Since I dont want to spend that much on a CPU should I just buy the E8400 now? Im kinda anxious for a new CPU.
ZeroWing
New Member
How do I know if a mobo is any good at OCing or not? Do I look @ the FSB?
CHeck this out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included
Seems like the Q6600 beats the E8400 :/.
CHeck this out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included
Seems like the Q6600 beats the E8400 :/.
Last edited:
red onion
Member
I just bought an E8400 retail off ebay ($185 CAN, delivered)
I wanted the low power consumption of the 45nm, and the speed of the dual core will handle any current game with ease. Later on when prices drop, I may upgrade to a Q9*** series if games start performing better with quads.
I wanted the low power consumption of the 45nm, and the speed of the dual core will handle any current game with ease. Later on when prices drop, I may upgrade to a Q9*** series if games start performing better with quads.
Calibretto
VIP Member
Just read reviews of different mobos to see which ones are better OCers.
I had the same question that you're having. Q6600 or E8400. I went with the Q6600 because I could easily OC it to 3.0GHz to match the E8400 and then some. Right now I have it at stock speeds and that is fine for me. My games still play as good as when I had it OCed to 3.0GHz. Plus multi-tasking is way better with a quad. Programs run a lot faster.
funkysnair
VIP Member
q6600 hands down for me!!! ive had mine at 3.6ghz stable but didnt need it so i dropped it back down to 2.4ghz-!
i am considering moving up the quad range so i guess you guys can over clock your E**** and ill over clock my quad and you can play your games really better than i can on my q6600 lol!!!
can anybody answer me-
if games are more graphics intensive than cpu why the hell do people need a high clocking dual core rather than a standard quad at 2.4ghz????
atleast with the quad you have future proofing?
i am considering moving up the quad range so i guess you guys can over clock your E**** and ill over clock my quad and you can play your games really better than i can on my q6600 lol!!!
can anybody answer me-
if games are more graphics intensive than cpu why the hell do people need a high clocking dual core rather than a standard quad at 2.4ghz????
atleast with the quad you have future proofing?
Last edited:
Calibretto
VIP Member
Well you need a decent CPU if you're going to have a great GPU or else bottlenecking will occur. But in this case, as long as you have a good GPU, than the Q6600 is great for gaming IMO. Plus, you have great multi-tasking abilities when the E8400 only has good multi-tasking abilities. Plus with a quad core, future proofing is guaranteed.
vix
New Member
The E8400 only has "good" multitasking ability? Where did you come up with that? I can be encoding video, editing pics, playing music, searching for something on the internet and still not even come close to tapping out the processor... I'd recommend listening to less hype and looking at more facts.
As far as "future proofing," that's one of the most ridiculous generic excuses I know of. Futureproofing may be a valid point if you plan on still running that rig 3 or 4 years from now, but for many/most here, that system will be long gone before futureproofing ever really applies.
Quads are great, but their potential is very limited when used for gaming or for desktop applications. They work well for server duty, but for gaming, a fast E8400 outperforms a fast Q6600.
ThatGuy16
VIP Member
Alot claim the E8400 is faster, and "snappier" than the Q6600. Thats coming from people that dumped the quad for the E8400. It can all be due to the core architecture. For example, the Q9450 at 2.6Ghz could outperform the Q6600 at 3.6Ghz. Of course those are just exaggeration examples.
Benchmarks are fun, but can and do not compare "real world" performance.
Both are fantastic CPUs for the price. It just depends on what your looking for.
Benchmarks are fun, but can and do not compare "real world" performance.
Both are fantastic CPUs for the price. It just depends on what your looking for.
Intel_man
VIP Member
Read his entire post before commenting. That is a must.
He just stated that so other people can understand the main difference between the E8400 and the Q6600.
Just because you SPECULATE that many of us won't still will sell their slower quads for better ones, it does not mean that everyone will and can. Some of them are on tight budgets and cannot have the financial capabilities of doing so.
bullzi
New Member
I fail to see how the E8400 out-performs the quad when gaming since no game that I'm aware of uses either of those to 100%. Even two of the Q6600 cores don't max out on any game I currently play. Future proofing is a valid excuse, games are already out that support quad core architecture and use all 4 cores. I know this because when I play games I watch the core activity graphs, not all games use 4 cores but for games that use 2 there really isn't a difference. Unless you have graphs that for a wide margin of games proves the E8400 is faster for gaming (which might be true for a handfull of titles) its a blatant falsehood.
scooter
banned
You shut your damn mouth...RIGHT NOW
BENCHMARKS ARE EVERYTHING...IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS B.S. I'LL TAKE 3RD SPOT..
..ungratefull....@#$%
vix
New Member
My point is that it's a bogus excuse used by the quad core fanboys to justify having an extra two cores. They never do anything that'll really utilize the extra cores, but they use it as a justification anyway.
THE ORIGINAL POSTER WANTED TO KNOW WHICH IS BETTER FOR GAMING. My response remains the same: My Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz gets beat by my E8400 @ 4.2 GHz. That's not speculation... that's tried and tested FACT. Same motherboard, same video card, same RAM and same hard drives.
I may seem like a rabid E8400 fan, but the fact remains that I have one E8400 and two Q6600's. I like both processors, but for gaming, the E8400 comes out ahead.