-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Same Price E8400 vs Q6600?
- Thread starter Kolath
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Location
- Irving, Tx
E8400 is better for the high FSB for gaming. The faster clocks will benefit you more for gaming while the extra cores in the quad will help out with video and graphics encoding. When the prices were $190 and $270 it was a tougher call. Now I think it is a toss up. The Q6600 has been out for a year and a half and the E8400 is brand new.
- Joined
- May 10, 2002
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
Till the apps fully start using the quad cores then best performance will be the higher FSB the E8400 seems to allow. The down side being you'll need higher rated RAM (even at 1:1) to use the potentially higher FSB when overclocking. Video editing and work associated with imaging is any area where the quads would be the winner. Comes down to your use. 
- Thread Starter
- #4
Except in games, GPU is the main limit. If the Q6600 is OCed to at least 3.2, there won't be much difference between it and the OCed 8400. See this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included
Granted it is very hard to pass up the coolness of having a 4.0 GHz CPU, but looking at it impartially, it seems the extra 400-600 MHz will have minimal effect on games (my only computing task besides multitasking basic apps).
Granted it is very hard to pass up the coolness of having a 4.0 GHz CPU, but looking at it impartially, it seems the extra 400-600 MHz will have minimal effect on games (my only computing task besides multitasking basic apps).
- Joined
- May 10, 2002
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
For gaming only, you are absolutely right Kolath. Also other things like word processing where my typing limits my higher FSB is of no value. For some of the other things that one normally do with a PC then the speed can help. As I said, it comes down to your use.
The other consideration is how long you'll keep your PC. If it several years, go with the quad as gaming and other apps will grow into it. If your upgrade within a year or so then I would just buy the cheaper of the two.
Good new is that you probably can't make a bad mistake either way. They both will work for you.
The other consideration is how long you'll keep your PC. If it several years, go with the quad as gaming and other apps will grow into it. If your upgrade within a year or so then I would just buy the cheaper of the two.
Good new is that you probably can't make a bad mistake either way. They both will work for you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 13, 2006
For gaming only, you are absolutely right Kolath. Also other things like word processing where my typing limits my higher FSB is of no value. For some of the other things that one normally do with a PC then the speed can help. As I said, it comes down to your use.
The other consideration is how long you'll keep your PC. If it several years, go with the quad as gaming and other apps will grow into it. If your upgrade within a year or so then I would just buy the cheaper of the two.
Good new is that you probably can't make a bad mistake either way. They both will work for you.
Exactly why i went quad (plus it's just cool to have lol). I usually have a 2-3 year upgrade path for cpu's (If it wasn't for big tax returns i'd still be using my 2 yr old 170) I don't see how i'm going to get a big help in gaming from going to a 4 gig 8400 from a 3.4-3.6 q6600. plus though i don't do it often converting video files on the quad is great. I know when I bought my 170 alot of people were still recommending single core for gaming becasue games were only single threaded but it didn't take too long for the games to catch up to cpu's.
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Location
- Kingwood, TX
E8400 or Q6600?
Burnett or blonde?
I bought the quad.
I married the blonde.
I haven't regretted it once
Burnett or blonde?
I bought the quad.
I married the blonde.
I haven't regretted it once
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Location
- Irving, Tx
I think it is easier to get 4.0 on the E8400 than it is to get 3.6 on the Q6600
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
IF you don't over clock the e8400 is better for gaming.
If you do over clock and absolutely need to see 4ghz+ then get the e8400.
If you want quad core and can settle with 3.2ghz+ then get the q6600 and overclock it. Most people don't run their CPU@ those speeds and high voltages 24/7. They rather have stable settings or cooler temps etc.
IMO the q6600 is still the preferred chip if you over clock. Even at 3.2ghz it is better in the long run and an overall better chip in multimedia and rendering because you have 4 cores. SSE4 doesnt compare to 2 extra cores in rendering and multimedia so the only advantage you really have is slightly better performance clock for clock going 45nm dual core.Taking away all the obscured sse4 related benchmarks the average is roughly 3% better which is not much. As what was said before your GPU is what affects gaming on the most part so going q6600 with a slightly high overclock can be much better in the long run once more progr4ams start utilizingmore cores.
At this time a little under 10% of sales are quad core but taken into consideration that intel released quad into mainstream prices about 6 months ago (200-300 dollars) that is really a big number. With more cores becoming a reality the industry will be forced to find a usefulness for it and soon these dual cores will be obsolete. Point is that if you dont upgrade often then get the quad because eventually you'll want one anyway. Also considering the fact nehalem will be out next year what ever you buy today will be obsolete and not supported much longer so might as well go for the quadcore and save yourself the trouble of going dual today then going quad for an upgrade a year or two from now. Maybe even wait for the q9450.
If you do over clock and absolutely need to see 4ghz+ then get the e8400.
If you want quad core and can settle with 3.2ghz+ then get the q6600 and overclock it. Most people don't run their CPU@ those speeds and high voltages 24/7. They rather have stable settings or cooler temps etc.
IMO the q6600 is still the preferred chip if you over clock. Even at 3.2ghz it is better in the long run and an overall better chip in multimedia and rendering because you have 4 cores. SSE4 doesnt compare to 2 extra cores in rendering and multimedia so the only advantage you really have is slightly better performance clock for clock going 45nm dual core.Taking away all the obscured sse4 related benchmarks the average is roughly 3% better which is not much. As what was said before your GPU is what affects gaming on the most part so going q6600 with a slightly high overclock can be much better in the long run once more progr4ams start utilizingmore cores.
At this time a little under 10% of sales are quad core but taken into consideration that intel released quad into mainstream prices about 6 months ago (200-300 dollars) that is really a big number. With more cores becoming a reality the industry will be forced to find a usefulness for it and soon these dual cores will be obsolete. Point is that if you dont upgrade often then get the quad because eventually you'll want one anyway. Also considering the fact nehalem will be out next year what ever you buy today will be obsolete and not supported much longer so might as well go for the quadcore and save yourself the trouble of going dual today then going quad for an upgrade a year or two from now. Maybe even wait for the q9450.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
What about the Q9450?
Are quads now Passe?
They do run around $350 at a few places. A Q9450 is 2.83Ghz stock. That should be a nice 3.6-3.8 OC
Are quads now Passe?
They do run around $350 at a few places. A Q9450 is 2.83Ghz stock. That should be a nice 3.6-3.8 OC
