Core 2 Duo E8400 Vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

[willhub]

Hi.

Well I'm upgrading my CPU soon and I'm getting stuck between the E8400 and the Q6600, people say the Q6600 is better due to the fact it has 4 cores but then people say its better to have the E8400 as it will most likely overclock much easier and run cooler, also most games and apps dont utilize quad core at the moment so it mkaes dual core even more worth while?

What do you think, I'm really stuck between these 2 CPU's.


Thanks.

 

[steve258]

If you just want to have fun overclocking and like to see the highest FPS count possible then E8400 it is. Otherwise I think a quad will be a better investment in the long run. Both will have similar game performance once graphics is maxed out at high resolutions.

 

[helmutcheese]

I think by times Quads come into there own and fully used in majority of app's, there will be faster, native Quads with more Cache and cooler running.

The Q6600 is old tech now on 65nm with 1066FSB (IMO)

 

[HighlandeR]

Forget about Quads being faster then the Core2duos.... even at the same mhz the Core2duos are matching it if not faster :

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=714&p=3

Am sure when alan wake arrives the time for Quads maybe there, but frankly doesnt look like quads taken off.

Blame Crysis and the other games, but I recall saying I bet crysis is poor and shows no improvement with quads only cos they said all there in house pcs are Core2duos so naturally it was gonna process and be built on those platforms 1st.

Id be more confident in a real winner between Quad vs Dual if someone showed supreme commander using core maximizer proggy using quad vs dual, but doesnt look like anyones bothered to see the difference

 

[willhub]

I dunno why, but in my head the E8400 looks better, I imagine it as black whilse the Q6600 blue and that alone makes it more tempting

Both of you ave good points I think, 1066fsb, old 65nm tech, but Quad Core could come in handy in the future.

Forget about Quads being faster then the Core2duos.... even at the same mhz the Core2duos are matching it if not faster :

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=714&p=3

Am sure when alan wake arrives the time for Quads maybe there, but frankly doesnt look like quads taken off.

Blame Crysis and the other games, but I recall saying I bet crysis is poor and shows no improvement with quads only cos they said all there in house pcs are Core2duos so naturally it was gonna process and be built on those platforms 1st.

Id be more confident in a real winner between Quad vs Dual if someone showed supreme commander using max core proggy using quad vs dual, but doesnt look like anyones bothered to see the difference

I was expecting the quads to jump all over duals in Supcom.

So you also say penryn dual?

**Edit** Quad has a small lead over the penryn there hmmm..

 

[Hayley-K]

I had the choice back in the day of the dual core x2 4800 or the top end unlocked multi single core fx57! When I made that choice hardly any games really made use of duel core but I went with the x2 and it paid off in the end

To conclude ... go for the quad

 

[gurusan]

I'm swapping my quad for this. Call me stupid but I want a change...

 

[helmutcheese]

Bit diffferent, thats cause on a Single Core it has to run Windows Services and every 3rd Party App's Services AND the Game.

If Gaming is your primary thing outside normal web/downloads/music playing, then its all over the review sites a higher clocked Dual is better (today).

 

[steve258]

I dunno why, but in my head the E8400 looks better, I imagine it as black whilse the Q6600 blue and that alone makes it more tempting

LOL what!!??

Looks like you've already made up your mind

I'd like a quad because I like the perspective of running 4x F@H + Dr. DivX + game at the same time

Dr. Divx with all quality settings at max takes a few hours on my E4300 to encode a film, so hopefully the Q6600 will manage a bit better!!

 

[C64]

The way things are going at the moment and i hope i am wrong quad being a big benefit for gaming is about 5 years away.
Keep hearing all the hype about blah blah game being better on quads and oh this game will be etc but it still hasn't happened.

 

[helmutcheese]

Is that how long it will take to fix Crysis ?

 

[willhub]

LOL what!!??

Looks like you've already made up your mind

I'd like a quad because I like the perspective of running 4x F@H + Dr. DivX + game at the same time

Dr. Divx with all quality settings at max takes a few hours on my E4300 to encode a film, so hopefully the Q6600 will manage a bit better!!

Nah I havent, besides its not just to help me, generall discussion of the Vs in here, thought it was best to create a thread specifically for that so there is no ruining the thread of the wolfs .

 

[86JR]

on e6300 @ 2.8ghz i can have 10 firefox windows open on sites including youtube, watch a dvd and it wont crash.

with quad core i could do all that and render in maya at the same time, or render in maya in half the time (it uses 800 out of 2000 mb of ram but both cpu cores)

for me 4 cores @ 3ghz > 2 cores at 4ghz.

plus i have a 360 for gaming, so should anyone else with some brains really. pc gaming is dead.

 

[helmutcheese]

 

[Hayley-K]

Bit diffferent, thats cause on a Single Core it has to run Windows Services and every 3rd Party App's Services AND the Game.

Today and near future games are making more use of duel core take that into the equation and it is not really that different i.e. 2 cores doing your gaming the remaining cores running windows and the 3rd Party App's.

I have duel core and it does struggle a tad as I like to record TV, encode, have tonnes of pages and downloads, word ect in the background whilst playing games (I am a girl ) so IF and WHEN I upgrade there is no doubt I will be overclocking a quad and not another duel core

 

[Lightnix]

The way things are going at the moment and i hope i am wrong quad being a big benefit for gaming is about 5 years away.
Keep hearing all the hype about blah blah game being better on quads and oh this game will be etc but it still hasn't happened.

I think five years may be stretching it a little. It only took what? 2 years for dual cores to start being used properly? (2005 introduction). I'm sure some clever sod one day will come out with a multi-core abstraction layer that allows programmers to write dynamically thread scalable code with relative ease. But until that day comes, we're stuck with relatively slow software support...

 

[helmutcheese]

But the Game does not make 100% of Both Cores, still has plenty juice to run everything else .

If it did not then the reviews would say a Quad is better for Gamers, they however do not.

@ Lightnix, I hazzard a guess he was being funny .

 

[Hayley-K]

But the Game does not make 100% of Both Cores, still has plenty juice to run everything else .

If it did not then the reviews would say a Quad is better for Gamers, they however do not.

Again they test them just running the game and not what I have already posted. Not all of us use our PC's purely for games

I have to reiterate people were not so long ago saying "if your a gamer all you need is single core"!

 

[helmutcheese]

And how many times have I clearly stated its for Primary Gaming that a Dual is REC'd over a Quad (in both threads) ?,

I also said it depends on the users use for the PC.

 

[willhub]

How much electric does the Q6600 G0 use compared to say an overclocked C2D? double? tripple? I cant have electric bill rising at a massive rate.

At the moment I usually play games like crysis and tdu and in abckground ahve Opera open with around 20-30+ web pages open, AOL VR Browser, MSN, Xfire and typical things like antivirus and windows side bar.