• 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.

Core 2 Duo E8400 Vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

those kinds of background apps won't really make a difference. Games always have higher priority and those other processes will just eat memory, not CPU power.

As for electricity an overclocked quad will use 150-200 watts at full load depending on the clock. Unless you manage to get 3.6ghz at 1.35v or something....

Also these new 45nm processors should be more efficient with the power.
 
Not sure what the locked Q9xxx's will clock to? But when I had the choice of G0 q6600 vs e6850 (got my q6600 cheaper than 6850 at the time). I went for G0 q6600 as they both would clock to 3.6 with 400fsb (1:1 ratio with my ram). Obviously temps on a quad are higher then a dual. But nothing high end air/water cooling can't sort out.
So basically it might me an idea to wait and see what kind of clocks people get out of the Q9xxx's before deciding. You might have to wait awhile for penryn quads, but your 3.4 c2d is certainly not slow and could easilly tie you over!
 
So the quads may well increase electric bill? If thats the case I think maybe dual is the only way? I cannot what so ever have the electric bill going up, thats like a disaster, I wonder what an E8400 at 4Ghz 1.45V would use? I suppose waiting is an option, but I dunno, depends how I feel.
 
You should have bought the Quad long ago if your even thinking about it.

Today is about higher FSB 45nm CPU's IMO, so either buy a E8X00 or wait on the new Quads.

Your CPU is fine for now. (and until now I read your Sig as a Quad, sorry so that makes some of posts I made not 100% accuate like your FSB limit etc).
 
May 29th 2007, before price drops, quad was not an option then. I might wait, just cant resist new parts :p.
 
Do you have your PC on 24/7?? I wouldn't imagine it having significant impacts on the electricity bill unless you have several machines all running 24/7 with overclocked quad tbh.

According to wiki the new Q9450 has the same TDP as the current G0 Q6600 95W so I'm a bit confused :confused: But if it's true then you won't be worse off electricity wise with a G0 Q6600 now.

The 45nm C2D is definately more power effecient than the Q6600 but when it's heavily overclocked and overvolted at 4Ghz+ is it really any better?
 
Not sure, I dont care about electricity as its cheap for me from the big Nuke station over river :).

I did not realise cost of it is an issue in the UK, I know some USA peeps claim it is where they are.

Correct Will, you would OC any CPU anyhow :)
 
helmutcheese said:
Not sure, I dont care about electricity as its cheap for me from the big Nuke station over river :).

I did not realise cost of it is an issue in the UK, I know some USA peeps claim it is where they are.

Correct Will, you would OC any CPU anyhow :)
Click to expand...

Dont you live in the UK?
 
Comparing a quad and a Dual core is a futile exercise.

Its not hard to work out what will bring the most benefit in the way you use your PC.
 
I would like to see power consumption levels of the new 45nm quads vs duals at both idle and usage. I don't game any more on the PC - I was waiting for the 45nm quads before I upgrade my old system, but now I am thinking about 45nm duals - mainly because of power usage.

I do need a upgrade as my PC is now doubling as a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player.

Electricity bills in this country are going through the roof and I couldn't justify quad if it's significantly more power usage if all I am doing is some web browsing. A few years ago back as a student I would have been programming and spending 99% of my day on it but not these days.

I think the OP's system is fine however. Look at how "old" my system is.. Perhaps you should wait until the 45nm quads are out and then make a decision? But then again the longer you wait Nahlem will get closer!! :)
 
Well if my parents are allready not liking the electric bill with a E6600 @ 3.4Ghz 1.47V what will a Q6600 pushing 3.4Ghz do to them?
 
willhub said:
I guess you would go quad then?
Click to expand...

I already have a quad running prime stable at 3.8ghz 24/7 and it benchies at 4.1ghz.

I think the 8400 and 8500's are pricey for what they are.

At above 3.6ghz Games will show no benefit as it then becomes the the GPU thats the bottleneck.

YOU WILL NOT NOTICE ANY IMPROVEMENT IN GAMES RUNNING EITHER 3.6GHZ QUAD OR 4.5 GHZ DUAL.

Period.

4ghz quad is no longer interesting and 4.5ghz dual is dull too.

If I was getting a E8xxx cpu it would have to be the 8500 to try and break the 5ghz barrier stable.
 
Ummm ok, Q6600 starting to sound like its best choice, but what with the Q6600 do to my parents when its overclocked?, they allready not happy with the £100+ electric bills every quarter so whats a Q6600 overclocked going to do to that? Also bear in mind I have a P35C DS3R. :\
 
willhub said:
Ummm ok, Q6600 starting to sound like its best choice, but what with the Q6600 do to my parents when its overclocked?, they allready not happy with the £100+ electric bills every quarter so whats a Q6600 overclocked going to do to that? Also bear in mind I have a P35C DS3R. :\
Click to expand...

Why get another dualcore when you already have a E6600 running @ 3.4ghz?

You will see no real benefit other than Super PI times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom