Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 or Intel Core 2 Duo E8600

jakelovatto · 19 Oct 2008 at 00:31

I'm really torn between these two processors. I just can't decide. Which do you prefer. Which is better? Can anyone tell me also why I should choose an 8600 over an 8400, I can't find any difference apart from price.

Thanks

MeatLoaf · 19 Oct 2008 at 00:55

Welcome to the forums.

Out of the 2 id go for the Q6600 myself

Apart from the default clock speed the E8400 and E8600 are the same i think

vanquisher · 19 Oct 2008 at 01:15

What are you planning on using it for? I've had the same decision to make too lol. Since mine is primarily for gaming, I'm going for the E8600 and looking to clock it to around the 5Ghz mark with watercooling.

If you are doing things like video encoding, rendering etc, then a Q6600 might be more benefical. The E8600 is E0 stepping whereas the E8400 comes in both C0 and E0.

Lee456 · 19 Oct 2008 at 10:19

vanquisher said:
What are you planning on using it for? I've had the same decision to make too lol. Since mine is primarily for gaming, I'm going for the E8600 and looking to clock it to around the 5Ghz mark with watercooling.

If you are doing things like video encoding, rendering etc, then a Q6600 might be more benefical. The E8600 is E0 stepping whereas the E8400 comes in both C0 and E0.

I'm in the same boat as the OP - so quad cores aren't going to be used by games for a little while yet then?

jakelovatto · 19 Oct 2008 at 14:05

Gaming and video encoding and playback, although I may be wrong in thinking that the Graphics card is the main consideration? I have searched the forums and being a n00b have noticed this question is asked frequently so sorry to bore the regulars.
Looking at CPU charts it is really hard to notice a difference. The E8600 seems to be better for gaming and the Q6600 better for video encoding etc like you suggest. A big consideration is the difference in power consumption, 65W at default settings for the E8 v 95W for the "Energy Efficient" Q6.
It seems to be a bad time to build with the i7 so close, I don't want to buy and then see the Core 2 extremes drop to within mortals prices. What do you think?

Thanks for the replies

Vertigo · 19 Oct 2008 at 14:25

If it's mainly gaming with a bit of encoding go with the dual. If you do a lot of encoding then the quad might be worth it. On anything which doesn't make very good use of all four cores the dual will win easily at stock speeds and will clock further too in all likelyhood.

Forget i7, the architecture is more server-orientated than Core2 was and won't show much benefit in games yet will cost a fortune.

Happy · 19 Oct 2008 at 15:26

Vertigo1 said:
If it's mainly gaming with a bit of encoding go with the dual. If you do a lot of encoding then the quad might be worth it. On anything which doesn't make very good use of all four cores the dual will win easily at stock speeds and will clock further too in all likelyhood.

Forget i7, the architecture is more server-orientated than Core2 was and won't show much benefit in games yet will cost a fortune.

Sound advice

hernaldo · 19 Oct 2008 at 19:26

Very simple...

Q6600 = Video encoding\Rendering (Encoding xvid\h264\Adobe Premiere\3D Studio MAX\etc)

E8600 = You don't do any of the above for more than an hour a week AND you play LOTS of games.

Its as simple as that, and it doesn't really matter. I went for a Q6600 myself and have been using the extra 2 cores more and more for the tasks listed above...The E8600 isn't much better for games anyway, and its only of any use if your overclocking anyway.

(Can you see which one I'm recommending

)

Thanh55 · 19 Oct 2008 at 20:53

hernaldo said:
Very simple...

Q6600 = Video encoding\Rendering (Encoding xvid\h264\Adobe Premiere\3D Studio MAX\etc)

E8600 = You don't do any of the above for more than an hour a week AND you play LOTS of games.

Its as simple as that, and it doesn't really matter. I went for a Q6600 myself and have been using the extra 2 cores more and more for the tasks listed above...The E8600 isn't much better for games anyway, and its only of any use if your overclocking anyway.

(Can you see which one I'm recommending )

Everything in here so you have to decide your self.

PaulyD · 20 Oct 2008 at 02:01

I'm still torn between upgrading from my Q6600 to either a E8400 (which will go to missus build if i dont like/want it) or a Q9550 (in which case missus gets this Q6600). Do love the power of the quad though.

Decisions, decisions...

Its really down to preference on this one i think.

Very simple...

Q6600 = Video encoding\Rendering (Encoding xvid\h264\Adobe Premiere\3D Studio MAX\etc)

E8600 = You don't do any of the above for more than an hour a week AND you play LOTS of games.

Its as simple as that, and it doesn't really matter. I went for a Q6600 myself and have been using the extra 2 cores more and more for the tasks listed above...The E8600 isn't much better for games anyway, and its only of any use if your overclocking anyway.

(Can you see which one I'm recommending )

Does sum it up though!

Big.Wayne · 20 Oct 2008 at 02:12

An overclocked dual core is no slouch at video encoding!

I dunno, people still don't know the difference between dual and quad, most people who *really* could benefit from a quad don't post on these forums except for the folding@home boys!

linktoinsanity · 20 Oct 2008 at 10:13

If you don't overclock, then a higher speed dual core tends to perform better in most applications, especially if they are no optimized for over two cores. If you don't play many games however and use a lot of applications at the same time/use programs optimized for four cores, you are probably better off with a quad.

MooMoo444 · 20 Oct 2008 at 11:56

I went with an overclocked quad, some games I play use quad, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander etc. Those that only use 2 cores or less, will still run flawlessly on a high clocked quad.

It's a nice bonus to have extra cores and processing power for backround tasks. Also semi-futureproof.

I'm happy with my choice at the end of the day.

Big.Wayne · 20 Oct 2008 at 13:38

MooMoo444 said:
It's a nice bonus to have extra cores and processing power for backround tasks. Also semi-futureproof.

I don't see it that way myself, a vCore boosted/overclocked 65nm tech Q6600 running at 3600MHz is basically as power inefficient as you can get really, your basically burning through watts like there is no tomorrow!

Paying a higher useage cost for the two extra cores 'just in case' you need them is wasteful I think :confused:

Nitristion · 20 Oct 2008 at 14:17

Big.Wayne said:
I don't see it that way myself, a vCore boosted/overclocked 65nm tech Q6600 running at 3600MHz is basically as power inefficient as you can get really, your basically burning through watts like there is no tomorrow!

Paying a higher useage cost for the two extra cores 'just in case' you need them is wasteful I think

That said, the future of games and other applications will begin to use multi cores, and purchasing now will increase the time between you needing to upgrade.

Remember, there is no such thing as 'overkill' its just preparations for the future- eventually your 'overkill' system will become the norm, and will not be able to do all the latest games/apps at max settings.

MooMoo444 · 20 Oct 2008 at 14:52

Big.Wayne said:
I don't see it that way myself, a vCore boosted/overclocked 65nm tech Q6600 running at 3600MHz is basically as power inefficient as you can get really, your basically burning through watts like there is no tomorrow!

Paying a higher useage cost for the two extra cores 'just in case' you need them is wasteful I think

I don't use it at 3.6 24/7. Web browsing and some games don't need it

Big.Wayne · 20 Oct 2008 at 14:55

Hey Nitristion, we all have our own ideas on this subject and I respect everyones opinion, each of us use a PC in a different way and therefore see certain angles that might not be obvious to others . . .

I like fast computers, overclocking, tweaking etc just like the next fella however there is another aspect that I now pay very close attention to and that is power consumption and there is only very few people on these forums who also pay attention to their energy consumption.

Going back one year I didn't pay attention to how many watts my computer/s were pulling from the wall and it wasn't until I had left three PC's running folding@home 24/7 that I got a really big shock at how my electric bill had greatly increased!

Now I am obsessed by power usage in much the same way as some people may be obsessed about hitting 4.5GHz on their overclocks or having an uBer 3DMark score, fair enough it's what floats peoples boats and I have been there myself but now the only difference is that we are on the verge of an energy crisis, fuel costs are rising etc so it makes complete sense to me to begin paying attention to energy useage and also what hardware I recommend people purchase. . .

65nm tech is superseded now by 45nm tech, the power-user/gamer who wants a blazing fast computer *and* lower running costs will be running a 45nm tech Wolfdale dual-core or in extreme cases a 45nm Yorkfield quad core.

Yes I can see that 65nm tech is cheaper to purchase but it will cost you more to run it and use up more energy which seems a bad thing.

An overclocked 65nm tech Q6600 was all the rage last year (2007) but is old hat now, yes it still performs well but if you had any idea how much juice that set-up needs you would get shot of it in a flash and replace it will something more power-efficient :eek:

PaulyD · 20 Oct 2008 at 18:42

Well i've decided to go for an E8600 in the end

A lot of people would say not to upgrade from a Q6600 to one but i was only going to buy a cheap dual for the missus anyway.well she encodes a lot more than me so she gets the quad and i get a new toy to play with! Nice shiny new week 22 as well-lots hope they live up to the myth!

Big.Wayne · 20 Oct 2008 at 20:10

Crikey PaulyD you must have a personal money tree!

E5200 is my fave dual core atm, I mean look how well it runs at stock and overclocked and the price! :eek:

If I had funds to burn right now and I wanted to really *SPLURGE* then it would have to be an E8400 (e0), I mean ePeen aside what are you actually getting extra for your money with the E8600?

Think about it . . . . .

PaulyD · 22 Oct 2008 at 13:51

No personal money tree here

Got a good price from a friend so decided to go for that + the fact it would be a good clocker rather than the lottery that we are usually subjected to