AnandTech finally have Benchies for q6600 vs E6850

MumboJumbo · 17 Jul 2007 at 12:52

Cotti said:
Im going for root canal surgery this afternoon m8 if i dont make it back its all yours!

Not if i get there first!!!

To many people are going around saying "Quad cores are just for show offs unless you do encoding etc" The figures on lost planet prove that its worth planning for the future if you can get such a big lead on a duel core when they are coded to run on 4 cores. Therefore im not going to buy a duel core to have to buy a quad core 6 months down the line. Not everyone has enough money to upgrade every year or even every 2 years. Im 16 but i have to pay for everything i put in my pc so ive gota get as much future proofing as i can.

Posty · 17 Jul 2007 at 13:26

lost planet is a bad example for future games its a very badly done console port and the dx10 patch or whatever they put in it, does nothing graphically or performance wise. I have played it on both dx9 and dx10 and noticed very little difference apart from a lot slower frame rate in dx10. If you are going to plan for dx10 i would wait for a properly done dx10 patch or game as so far current dx10 (CoJ is ok but not great if you use nvidia) is in pretty bad shape at the moment and gives no reflection on what dx10 and hardware is capable to do

MumboJumbo · 17 Jul 2007 at 16:48

Posty said:
lost planet is a bad example for future games its a very badly done console port and the dx10 patch or whatever they put in it, does nothing graphically or performance wise. I have played it on both dx9 and dx10 and noticed very little difference apart from a lot slower frame rate in dx10. If you are going to plan for dx10 i would wait for a properly done dx10 patch or game as so far current dx10 (CoJ is ok but not great if you use nvidia) is in pretty bad shape at the moment and gives no reflection on what dx10 and hardware is capable to do

I wasn't talkingh about the game play or anything like that. I was mearling stating that in a game which is quad core enabled. You can see a significant advantage to having 4 cores over 2. As you would expect! I hope the same will be present in games such as alan wake (where the editors stated that quad cores are allowing them to progress that far in a video i watched). Therefore quad > duel in my mind as the games coming round the corner should be able to run better on a quad then duel.

Vertigo · 17 Jul 2007 at 17:48

Love how many people are screaming "but all games will support quad cores soon!" when hardly any support duals yet and how long have dual-cores been available!?

Although there are a few niche applications where quad cores score majorly, I still maintain that the vast majority of those going quad are doing so for bragging rights, just as those who spend a fortune on the top-of-the-range Extreme edition processors are

MumboJumbo · 17 Jul 2007 at 17:54

Vertigo1 said:
Love how many people are screaming "but all games will support quad cores soon!" when hardly any support duals yet and how long have dual-cores been available!?

Although there are a few niche applications where quad cores score majorly, I still maintain that the vast majority of those going quad are doing so for bragging rights, just as those who spend a fortune on the top-of-the-range Extreme edition processors are

How comes games are coming out that are ment to be supporting quads then? If a game like lost planet can, why cant others? Crysis, alan wake, bioshock etc?

FrankJH · 17 Jul 2007 at 18:03

Vertigo1 said:
Love how many people are screaming "but all games will support quad cores soon!" when hardly any support duals yet and how long have dual-cores been available!?

Although there are a few niche applications where quad cores score majorly, I still maintain that the vast majority of those going quad are doing so for bragging rights, just as those who spend a fortune on the top-of-the-range Extreme edition processors are

As dualies have only been around about a year, and to get *** most of a multi processor machine the application/game has to be designed from the ground up around such benefits - it was unlikely apart from the odd patch etc, that many games would be out by now (as games can take 18 months to a year to get completed) Maybe by Xmas we should see the start of "natural" dual/multi core games being released.

( I am basing this on the fact that while X2's where very popular for a time, it wasnt really until C2D was released that the general populace got into dual core + processors)

I do agree though that the majority of people who dont render etc are really only getting them for bragging rights (Im thinking along a Q6600 but not 100% convinced yet lol)

MumboJumbo · 17 Jul 2007 at 18:08

I just cant understand how buying a Q6600 over the E6850 is not the more logical thing for someone who wants to be able to use their CPU for longer before having to upgrade. Its also cheaper!

If all these new top games come out and they run better on the cheaper Q6600 all you people will be switching over to it and going wow i wish id not wasted my money buying the E6850 just before that price drop! Plus saying its all about bragging rights. A Q6600 isn't much to brag about tbh.

wuyanxu · 17 Jul 2007 at 18:30

i just don't understand why not get an E6700 or a like and overclock that? why choose E6850?

i personally would go for Q6600 IF it is below £170. otherwise, i'd go for the E6700 or the E6750 and overclock that past 3Ghz.

think about it. IF you overclock a q6600 to 3Ghz, running at the same speed and FSB as a E6850. would the dual core win in any single threaded applications?

no, it'd be even.

so quad cores are future proof AND fast enough if you overclock it. (what website are we ok? OCuk)

Vertigo · 17 Jul 2007 at 18:36

FrankJH said:
As dualies have only been around about a year

More like two.

8igdave said:
I just cant understand how buying a Q6600 over the E6850 is not the more logical thing for someone who wants to be able to use their CPU for longer before having to upgrade. Its also cheaper!

Because the E6850 is faster for most current games and apps outside niche applications such as encoding video or rendering. They're also the same price.

wuyanxu said:
i just don't understand why not get an E6700 or a like and overclock that? why choose E6850?

What I don't understand is why everyone insists on comparing an overclocked quad with a stock dual. Do you not think the E6850 will overclock by a significant margin also? Ok you're comparing dual with dual but the same applies - the E6850 may well overclock beyond what an E6700 could attain

Cotti · 17 Jul 2007 at 19:14

I read somewhere the other day Intel have realeased a delvelopment tool which easily allows production houses to dump existing code onto different cores although they still have to decide which cores run which bits of code its now easy to put new and existing code into a proper multi cored program/game.

Vimes · 17 Jul 2007 at 19:27

8igdave said:
................If all these new top games come out and they run better on the cheaper Q6600 all you people will be switching over to it and going wow i wish id not wasted my money buying the E6850 just before that price drop! Plus saying its all about bragging rights. A Q6600 isn't much to brag about tbh.

You could very well be right

I'm still dithering, no change for me there, and no doubt my basket will have stuff in and out right up to the point that I click on the 'buy' button...!!!

However I'm leaning towards a E6850 as I'm thinking that by the time that there are enough 'good' games available that can take full advantage of multi-cores (beyond two) I can well imagine that whilst the Q6600 might still be considered a 'reasonable' CPU the AMD's Phenom (some might argue a 'true' multi-core CPU) and the Intel Penryn might well be utilised better than the current Intel offerings.

For me I'm tempted to go for a P35 board (the 680i chipset ones seem too expensive) and I'm not too bothered that the Gigabyte board that I'm considering supports DDR3 as that is too far ahead to make me place too much emphasis on its value today, or tomorrow for that matter

Still I have been know to be wrong, way too often

Cotti · 17 Jul 2007 at 19:36

I think there are lots of people who cant make thier minds up m8 I myself switched back and forth bettween the two chips but at the end of the day they are both extremly good cpu's and will both easily do the job for at least another 12 months.

As for the argument about people just getting a Quad to brag about I doubt after the 22nd it will be much of bragging point as lots of people will have them, you just as easily argue people are only getting a E6850 so they can brag about hitting 4ghz (or however close they get to it).

I think the only real question you need to ask yourself is will quad games/apps come to fruition whithin the timescale you plan to own the chip? If the answer is yes get the quad if its no get the duo.

Thats my take on it anyway

10 Print "Thanks for listening to me ramble"
20 GOTO 10

MumboJumbo · 17 Jul 2007 at 19:59

Vertigo1 said:
What I don't understand is why everyone insists on comparing an overclocked quad with a stock dual. Do you not think the E6850 will overclock by a significant margin also? Ok you're comparing dual with dual but the same applies - the E6850 may well overclock beyond what an E6700 could attain

Because once clocking past 3GHZ you wont see much of an increase in performance anyway.

Point is, id rather play games like alan wake, crysis, bioshock etc with 4 core at 3GHZ, although the Q6600 will go up to 3.8 on water and i beleive 3.4 on air?? but anyway. id rather having those 4 cores working at that high speed then 2 cores working at 4ghz.

Vanilla · 17 Jul 2007 at 21:17

I was going to go for the E6850 because it showed that in todays games it does better. I'd only need the power for games, I don't do any kind of 3d Rendering.

I'm probably going to go with the E6600 because:

* It's good enough.
* The four cores mean that although today it loses on performance to the E6850 based on Ghz it'll be more future proof for games over the next year or two (I tend to keep my kit for a while, current CPU is an AMD 64 3000

).
* I'll overclock the 6600 to 6850 speeds (yes, I know you can then OC the 6850 even higher!).

[PTG]shogun · 17 Jul 2007 at 22:47

first Hi again dave

Vertigo1 said:
Love how many people are screaming "but all games will support quad cores soon!" when hardly any support duals yet and how long have dual-cores been available!?

Although there are a few niche applications where quad cores score majorly, I still maintain that the vast majority of those going quad are doing so for bragging rights, just as those who spend a fortune on the top-of-the-range Extreme edition processors are

im planning on going quad as i often have many apps open and use huge cavas's on PS CS3 for planets

but my main thing is gaming

and as it is about the same price

you say that about games and quad but dual and quad have come so close together developers are doing both at the same time read daves posts:

8igdave said:
I believe crysis will also be quad enabled? Im sure tat would run better on the Q6600 if it is.

8igdave said:
How comes games are coming out that are ment to be supporting quads then? If a game like lost planet can, why cant others? Crysis, alan wake, bioshock etc?

He has a point, crysis will love a quad, the source engin is getting a makeover to supports as many cores as ** PC has (i think if not they might just be doing quad then).

and alan wake takes advantage of quad, a lot, one core dedicated to physics to power the tornardoes and everything else etc.

oh and david you looking foward to my 16th tomorrow going bowling

MumboJumbo · 18 Jul 2007 at 01:46

But its almost 2am lol... *slumps off to bed*

ummm... wht he said? ^^^

bigmouse64 · 18 Jul 2007 at 03:18

Dl.tv Answer's a viewers question regarding the Q6600 vs E6850 matter.

Very cool!

wuyanxu · 18 Jul 2007 at 08:11

what im worried is that current core2quads are a rush project. just like the pentiumD series.

naz · 18 Jul 2007 at 09:30

Well cleaerly the better purchase for todays games is the E6850 CPU.
But as I only upgrade to a new PC every couple or years, I'll go for the
Quad, PC build in Sept. I'll see a signifigant gain in multi-threaded apps. and games during the next 12 months.

deadsquirrel · 18 Jul 2007 at 09:54

I think some people make the mistake of thinking that just because it took 2 years for dual core games to show up that it would take a further 2 for quad, and therefore, buying quad now is a waste of money. That is just rubbish as game developers don't develop for either 2, 4 or 8 cores. They program the threads to take advantage of what is available. So soon, games will use however many threads they can grab.

IMO you have to be nuts to buy a dual after the prices drop. Quads all the way, especially if you are not going to upgrade for a year or so.