• 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.

AMD v Intel

Will and overclocked Q6600, to a bout 3,2ghz be comparable to the q8 and q9 that are £250 and maybe the newer Xeon Processors that are abut £300?
Essentially im on a tight budget, about £150, I assuming that a q6600 would be as good as the q8200/q9300 if it overclocked?
Click to expand...
You are getting really confused here aren't you?

Core 2 was released with the codename "Conroe", this is the 65nm generation and includes ALL E2xx0, E4xx0, E6xx0 and Q6xx0 CPUs. The CPUs are referred to as Allendale (Dual Core with 2MB or less cache), Conroe (Dual Core with 4MB cache) or Kentsfield (Quad Core).

Note: All Core 2 CPUs are made as a dual core, Quads are two of them packed together.

Later Intel used a 45nm manufacturing process and revised the CPUs a little, calling the generation "Penryn". This includes E5x00, E7x00, E8x00, Q8x00 and Q9x00 series CPUs. They are referred to as Wolfdale (all dual cores) and Yorkfield (all quad cores).

The LGA775 Xeon CPUs are equivalent to the Desktop Core 2 versions so forget about them for now. If you really want to know the X3350 is same as a Q9450 and the X3360 a Q9550.

Performance wise Penryn (45nm) CPUs are always faster than Conroe (65nm) clock for clock but ONLY if cache size is equal. If cache is not equal then it starts to get complicated with performance depending on the application (and cache gulf).

In (very) rough terms a Q6600 will perform similar to a Q9300 (6MB) or Q9400 (6MB) clocked at the same speed but the Q9450 (12MB), Q9550 (12MB and Q9650 (12MB) will always be faster. The Q8200 is a freak and I would expect performance to be worse than the Q6600 (don't take my word for it, check reviews).

Wouldnt this (E8000) be lower performance than the quad?
Click to expand...
If the extra cores on the quad are used then yes it is slower. The quads are often faster at similar clock speeds anyway due to greater cache available and use of cores on other tasks. Overclocking is another variable that I won't go into.

In ref: Q8200; the massive cache cut makes it a dubious buy, I'd only pick it for CPU core-intensive (i.e. uses all cores) applications where cache is not important.

I'd stick with the Q6600 unless you can get a good price, in games a high clocked Q6600 compared to a high clocked Yorkfield isn't something you are going to notice.
 
Last edited:
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Just use the Q6600, it's a great CPU and... You've already got it... :confused:

Why bother swapping to a lesser or exactly the same CPU?
Click to expand...

My brother might buy my current system (that will be replaced), so i would have to by a new cpu as he would have the old one... So i would have to buy another one, so was asking which would be good!
 
AMD all the way, with the iminent arival of AMD's new SB750 Southbridge things are about to get a whole lot better for Phenoms to the point that they just might chew those Q6600's a new one.

Then theres AMD's new CPU's on the Horizon which could just blow Intel out of the water. This one is a wait and see but early reports are in favour of AMD.
 
Those who have problems with AMD either can't set them up or are using a VIA KT400 chipset. ;)

Little difference between the two chips: the AMD is - from the benchmarks I've seen - slightly faster on average in games, whereas the Intel is faster for encoding/rendering/zip-ing.

But something tells me you need to think a bit harder about what your next computer bit is going to be...
 
mrthingyx said:
Those who have problems with AMD either can't set them up or are using a VIA KT400 chipset. ;)

Little difference between the two chips: the AMD is - from the benchmarks I've seen - slightly faster on average in games, whereas the Intel is faster for encoding/rendering/zip-ing.

But something tells me you need to think a bit harder about what your next computer bit is going to be...
Click to expand...

Eh?
 
mrthingyx said:
Those who have problems with AMD either can't set them up or are using a VIA KT400 chipset. ;)

Little difference between the two chips: the AMD is - from the benchmarks I've seen - slightly faster on average in games, whereas the Intel is faster for encoding/rendering/zip-ing.

But something tells me you need to think a bit harder about what your next computer bit is going to be...
Click to expand...

Definately an out of date view. That's from years ago, keep up with the times! Intel's Core 2 cpus are currently much faster at most benchmarks, except for the odd test where the Phenom just about beats it. AMD were generally much better for games than Intel until the Core2 arrived. Now the Phenom is left in the dust for most applications.

Intel all the way, and if you have to buy a new CPU, I'd buy a Q4550 (2.83Ghz) as that gives you a good improvement over your old processor. If it weren't for your brother buying your old computer off you, I'd stick with the Q6600.
 
Last edited:
Swordfish125 said:
.
Which CPU is generally regarded as better for gaming and overclocking?
Click to expand...



Why build one now?

Wait a couple of months and both AMD and Intel will have new CPUs out, at best they might be a massive step up, at worst you'll be getting price drops on older CPUs anyway.
 
Shanghai is aimed at the server market, I'd wait for Deneb.

But Shanghai is far better clock for clock compared to Barcelona and cheaper :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom