E6850 or Q6600 for Gaming

hcclnoodles · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:06

im building a new system and the CPU is the one thing i cannot make my mind up on. for £168 i can get a Q6600 at 4*2.4ghz or an E6850 at 2*3ghz. I will probably dabble a little in OC'ing but not much

My thinking is that the E6850 would be the best choice, would you all agree ?

Cheers

tsj · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:13

hcclnoodles said:
im building a new system and the CPU is the one thing i cannot make my mind up on. for £168 i can get a Q6600 at 4*2.4ghz or an E6850 at 2*3ghz. I will probably dabble a little in OC'ing but not much

My thinking is that the E6850 would be the best choice, would you all agree ?

Cheers

For now it would... but in a few months it will be Q6600

Once the games start using all four cores... I'd personally get a Q6600 and overclock it to 3Ghz+

hcclnoodles · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:18

thanks

Ive just read in another post that some peeps have got the E6850 up to 4.5ghz :eek:

so with overclocking taken into consideration is 4*3ghz better for games than 2*4.5ghz ???

psychas · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:29

na q6600 will kick ass as games in few months will go multicore

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:52

Doubt it. the games dont all fully use Dual Core yet, ones that claim to dont always use fully, Quad Core wont be the norm for a while until Native Quad is out and matures.

I would take the 3GiG that can run 4GiG on good air for gaming, unless you do lot of video editing, even then the APP you use needs to support the multi cores and not all do.

Shimmy · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:03

hcclnoodles said:
thanks

Ive just read in another post that some peeps have got the E6850 up to 4.5ghz

so with overclocking taken into consideration is 4*3ghz better for games than 2*4.5ghz ???

Thats with good cooling systems, water/phase.

Q6600's I believe can do 3.6Ghz on water.

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:09

The E6850 can do 4GiG on good Air, who says you need run it at that 24/7, to surf WWW and type a Word .DOC, you can use software to have some preset modes for gaming etc.

I think you will see the biggest gain from 3GiG to 4GiG, I do not think today the extra 500mhz to 4.5GiG will matter much esp as cost of cooling it.

The guy that bought one here left comment in stores comment section, he is at 4GiG on a cooler I class as not too good, (any Zalman infact)

" Reviewed by: kev

overclocked mine to 4 gig on air using zelman 9700 fan and asus p5k deluxe m/b stable as a rock nice "

VoG · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:23

psychas said:
na q6600 will kick ass as games in few months will go multicore

which games & how many months?

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:44

He does not know as we all dont, most game still dont 100% fully use dual cores, a few game will use them well, this is not going to suddenly jump to Quad support in a few months esp as they are not any real NATIVE Quads out till AMD hit, then Intel shortly afterwards.

Someone mentioned about 5 games supporting Quads in next many months well into 2008 (not sure where he got info but posted in here).

I would get the best Dual now if I did not encode movies etc and buy a real Quad sometime on 2008 when new CPU's are out as all current Intel are 1+ year old tech.

hcclnoodles · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:49

thanks all, im swinging slightly toward the E6850 once again

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:52

Hey its hard I know, they 2 CPU's are the best choice now but it all depends what you do with your PC, for me I would say I dont encode much these days and I dont care if it takes 10mins or 20mins, I game and have a 8800Ultra so I would need grab the best CPU/£ ratio and its the E6850, I would not buy a Q6850 lol, esp as not Native Quad and that price.

Mul · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:08

I wouldn't call the E6850 best performance for the money. Ignoring the fact that a Quadcore costs the same (you can add clockspeed but you can't add cores..), the E6750 is £60 less than the E6850 for just a 333mhz clockspeed difference. Any way you look at it, the E6850 isn't great value for money to be honest.

edit: personally the Q6600 makes more sense to me. If you don't feel Quad Core is worth it right now, grab an E6750. It's overclocking potential is no different to the E6850 except the lower multi.

Mul

Garyj881 · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:12

I would go down the E6750 route and upgrade to quad if needed in 6 months time or how ever long it takes for the to Games to utilise multi core tech.

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:16

Mul, I aint going to argue with you, I am talking about the CPU mentioned in this thread ok?, thats Q6600 or E6850.

Mul · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:30

Rest assured I have no intent to argue. Mearly expressing an opinion like you.

Mul

stickroad · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:43

I actually agree with what Mul has said, the E6850 isnt the best value for money to tell you the truth.

Personally i need to see some benchmarks with a E6850 at 4GHZ compared to say 3.5GHZ. If the diffrence is minimal why not just get the E6750 and clock it to pretty much near 3.5GHZ.

tsj · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:48

hcclnoodles said:
thanks

Ive just read in another post that some peeps have got the E6850 up to 4.5ghz

so with overclocking taken into consideration is 4*3ghz better for games than 2*4.5ghz ???

Very few people have got their CPU's that high... your probably more realistically guaranteed 3.4GHz any higher is a bonus. With the Q6600 heat is a issue so 3GHz without bringing the temps much higher should be possible.

I'd rather have 4x 3Ghz than 2x 3.6Ghz... the reason being... more and more applications and games are starting to use quad core.

helmutcheese · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:50

Do you not see this topic is about 2 certain CPU's, my comment was between these 2 not any other model you are throwing in the mix, so get back on topic please.

The OP will end up more confused, there is many peeps now deciding between these 2 CPU's.

And dream on if you think you are going to get great Quad support any time soon in lots of games and apps, these CPU's aint even real Native Quads, by the time there is good overall support there will be better/cheaper Native Quads outs, if you mainly game the e6850 is better choice.

stickroad · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:55

helmutcheese said:
And dream on if you think you are going to get great Quad support any time soon in lots of games and apps, these CPU's aint even real Native Quads, by the time there is good overall support there will be better/cheaper Native Quads outs, if you mainly game the e6850 is better choice.

At stock the E6850 beats the Quad but the diffrence is minmal.

Set up two pcs one with Q6600 and the other with a E6850, i bet you couldent say confidently this one has the E6850 in?

Like i said i need to see some benchmarks where the E6850 is at 3.5GHZ and at 4GHZ, the diffrence could well be minimal.

Im waiting for someone to post some results in this thread, then it might make it easier to decide over the E6850 or the Q6600.

Mul · 31 Jul 2007 at 15:57

Fair point, but surely there's no harm in suggesting an alternative if one believes it has better Value For Money for the thread starter? The E6750 is £60 less, it's 333mhz slower but has the same overclocking potential. Worthwhile suggestion right? At the end of the day £60 isn't a small amount of money.

Aside that, between the two I did indeed express my opinion that the Q6600 is better value than the E6850. Perhaps I phrased my previous post poorly.