• 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.

Intel Quad Cores

dave22

dave22

dave22

Permabanned
Joined
26 Dec 2008
Posts
104
Hey,

I know next to nothing about CPUs these days.

Why is the "Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - Retail" more expensive than the Q6700? The only difference I can see is the Q6700 has a higher clock at 2.66

Anyway my main question:

I am about to get a new system. I had chosen a "Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 2.80GHz (1066FSB) - Retail" as the CPU.

What would be better between this and a quad core such as the q6600?

Cheers, Dave
 
The reason for the price difference is simply that OCUK got a better deal on 6700s than they could get on 6600s. The 6700 is the better CPU.

Quad cores are great processors, but most stuff these days tends only to be single or dual threaded, so they're not as useful as you might expect. That said, personally I'd prefer to have a good spread of performance in all applications, and very well rounded Windows performance, than limit myself to two cores :)
 
I think I'll stick with the 2.8 dual core then. I only use my PC for fairly simple tasks these days and perhaps the odd game. Tbh anything I get will seem lightning fast as I'm upgrading from an Athlon 3200 64 :)
 
Stick with your dual. Faster clocked so better with most applications than a lower clocked quad. With regards to the quads you mention, the Q6600 actually has quite a following (you may've noticed) on here, so many people will recommend that over the Q6700 not actually realising that the Q6700 exists or is still sold, but the Q6700 is cheaper and is the better cpu of the two.
 
I was thinking the same, quad or better dual? I dont want to upgrade now as my e6700 is fine. But Eventually its going to need changing to a quad or a higher clocked dual core. Im just speculating atm.

Right now, the highest i can go (without changing board) is either q9650 or e8600. Would a 2.66ghz to 3.33ghz (600 mhz step up) be worth the money? As a 3ghz quad seems more worthwile.

Also with the e6700 being a 65nm processor, if i went for the q9650 with it being a 45nm would i see around the same temps as the e6700?

This has all come on pretty sudden coz i found out my board is actually only just out of date as it can handle 45nm & 1333fsb, which i thought it couldnt.
 
I went quad core for the simple fact that I run vmware on my system and can dedicate 2 cores to the virtual machine and 2 cores to the main rig. Now that I think about it.... I should up the ram in my system to 8 gigs so that I give even more to my VM.
 
i really would like to go for quad core right now, but im just concerened the quad will cost more to run, plus would i need to buy a new cooler? (zalman cnps 9700-nt nvidia btw) Does the die shrink make much of a difference in temps & power requirements?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom