• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3Ghz Dual or 2.4Ghz Quad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Serach or just go for the Quad.

If you will be basing your choice on how many people say the Q6600 or the E6850 then you may as well get the Q6600 since the majority of people will say the Q6600. Apart from the few donuts of course.

The E6850 is a waste of money.

The E6850 does indeed beat the Q6600 in games but the difference is minimal, its like comparing 150FPS to 200FPS, highly unlikely that you will actually notice the difference.

As well as that, if you do any kind of encoding, multiasking etc.. then the Quad wins hands down.

Get the Q6600.

/close thread.
 
Last edited:
Deff go for E6850!:p

EDIT:
Just kidding as you can see from my sig I have the Q6600, as stickroad says deff go for the Q6600, as everyone is gonna vote Q6600.
 
Last edited:
It isn't "close thread" as you have pointed out Stickroad. For the non overclocker the e6850 isn't such a bad option.

Kobrakai said:
Which do you think is the best choice: Quad Core 2.4Ghz or Dual Core 3.0Ghz?
Click to expand...

Now this depends on what you do with your PC. As well as if you are going to overclock.

Scenario 1: You do not want to overclock and you probably won't utilize dual core 100% on both cores, never mind four cores. In this case it's the 3Ghz dual core for you.

All other scenarios = Q6600.
 
Last edited:
After searching around a bit it seems that the dual core beats the quad core quite considerably in nearly every bench mark going. The question is, the time software and games that support multiple cores becomes mainstream, will this CPU be out of date anyway?
 
Kobrakai said:
After searching around a bit it seems that the dual core beats the quad core quite considerably in nearly every bench mark going. The question is, the time software and games that support multiple cores becomes mainstream, will this CPU be out of date anyway?
Click to expand...
The difference is so small, if 2 computers got built with everything identical except 1 being a 4ghz dual, the other a 3.4ghz quad (that seems to be what the current CPU's are getting on normal cooling), and afew people where asked to identify which one is which by running programs (everything like cpu-z etc not allowed, fps showing disabled on games), they wouldnt be able to tell which one is which, until they got to 3-4 threaded programs where the quad would win by far.
 
Last edited:
Kobrakai said:
After searching around a bit it seems that the dual core beats the quad core quite considerably in nearly every bench mark going. The question is, the time software and games that support multiple cores becomes mainstream, will this CPU be out of date anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be out of date but for all the multi-tasked programs it will lack the punch of the quads. I would buy a quad over dual but It wouldn't get utilized and would only be a 3dmark06 booster as it is to many people but at the price it's well worth it :). I'm an overclocker though so more cores = more fun for me so the E6850 wouldn't be an option although I'd love the QX6850 over the Q6600 ;).
 
I'd go for faster dual core for the normal user/gamer/multi-tasking.
If it's a server, CAD, 3D Studio rendering or video editting machine then go for the quad.
 
At this stage I'd just get the Quad, it's a tad more futureproof and tbh you won't really notice much difference between 2.4 and 3Ghz on many applications, obviously the Quad is going to perform better at apps that can use all the cores. Though these programs are more video editing and such, not many games really take much advantage just yet.

Most games for example at 1600x1200 or higher have like 1-3 FPS difference between a 1.8 Ghz E6300 and a 3Ghz E6600, CPU doesn't quite come into it too much for most games.
 
mattyrigby00 said:
The difference is so small, if 2 computers got built with everything identical except 1 being a 4ghz dual, the other a 3.4ghz quad (that seems to be what the current CPU's are getting on normal cooling), and afew people where asked to identify which one is which by running programs (everything like cpu-z etc not allowed, fps showing disabled on games), they wouldnt be able to tell which one is which, until they got to 3-4 threaded programs.
Click to expand...

They would if it was video endoding.;)
 
J.D said:
It isn't "close thread" as you have pointed out Stickroad. For the non overclocker the e6850 isn't such a bad option.



Now this depends on what you do with your PC. As well as if you are going to overclock.

Scenario 1: You do not want to overclock and you probably won't utilize dual core 100% on both cores, never mind four cores. In this case it's the 3Ghz dual core for you.

All other scenarios = Q6600.
Click to expand...


errm, if under scenario one you aren't using 100% of the core on both cores, then you have entirely no need for it to be at 3Ghz.

quad core, in every single situation, bar, none. benchmarks for cpu testing for gaming are shown in lower resolutions than the cards can handle to show a difference, once you get to the resolution your graphics card can handle at its highest quality levels while still smooth the difference between a 2.4Ghz, and a 4Ghz cpu becomes completely invisible to the naked eye in actual gaming. for anything like office work or internet surfing, in general it will all be fine on a 1Ghz cpu for now. in a couple years, you might need more power for something, in a couple years a lot of software, and most games will be able to use 4 cores, which gives the Q6600 gives you at stock9.6Ghz, and overclocked, even a poor overclock 12.8Ghz. the E6850 gives you 6Ghz at stock, and overclocked 8Ghz.

quad will last longer, be slower in basically nothing right now of any consequence, and be massively faster in the future.
 
just get a short term 2160 like i've done :) then go quad once the programs are there to utilise it
 
Don't get a E2160! Get the E2180 as it's guarenteed to be the M0 stepping so rules out the chance of a 1.325v L2 stepping overclocking lemon. ;)
 
quad-core has no real use at the moment, i mean what benefits from the extra cores, all they do is make more heat and use more power, for negligable performance increase (based on reviews) so sorry but im gonna say dual-core as long as its fair bit cheaper
 
Depends what you want it for.

I've just got a Q6600, but I don't think it's the master choice. The E6850 is better for games, and likely to remain so for the lifetime of your chip. I chose the Q6600 because I know the uses I'll put it to will benefit from it.

However, the Q6600 is the lower risk choice, the difference in performance core for core is tiny, however the potential benefit dual->quad is quite significant (not 100% as people like to quote, there is almost no use to which you can put your processor where it will not hit memory/system limits for at least some of it's time)..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom