• 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.

Q6600 better than 6000 AMD?

Associate
Joined
13 Jan 2004
Posts
543
Location
UK
I'm getting a new P5E motherboard this week and getting my first intel processor in years. I've been using the AMD 6000+ for some time and wondering if the well priced Q6600 gives a better performance than the AMD processor and will I notice it in games and such like with a GeForce 8800 GTX?

Cheers lads
 
lol.

yes.. the Q6600 will OWN the AMD.. esp if you overclock it; considering you ca hit 3.2/3.6 pretty consistently on that chip, your games ought to fly :)
 
If you're overclocking then get a quad as you can always clock it to the same speed as dual core if not more.

If all you do is games and you don't overclock then get a faster dual core. Although as said quad core support for games will only get better in the future. Some games including UT3 already shows good performance advantage with quad.

Q6600 is probably no faster than 3Ghz 6000+ in single threaded application but in all else the Q6600 is a lot faster.
 
I think you might be surprised how little difference you'll notice. In proper computational situations (Folding@Home, benchmarks etc.) the Q6600 is significantly better, but in games, with a really decent graphics card like the 8800GTX, I doubt you'll see a huge difference to be honest.
 
so basically a core duo overclocked to 4.4ghz (e8500)
is not gonna be better than a 3.6ghz (q6600)

im just curious has to the price bracket doesnt seem to justify the difference in my opinion...........being around the same price the speed has to count for something !!!
 
Quad versus Dual...is depending on what apps. If 99% of the time you're just in notepad then quad is pointless. But if you encode video/audio all day, then a quad is worthwhile.

At the moment I'd choose a faster dual, over a slower quad. Although "games" like FS-X do make use of quad, so if you're a die-hard FS go for the quads.

Ideally though I'd just use my 2.7ghz dual 4400x2, and get a 10ghz quad :-)
 
so basically a core duo overclocked to 4.4ghz (e8500)
is not gonna be better than a 3.6ghz (q6600)

im just curious has to the price bracket doesnt seem to justify the difference in my opinion...........being around the same price the speed has to count for something !!!

If you only want to do one thing, continuously, then an overclocked E8400 will outperform a Q6600 which will in turn an X2 6000.

BUT

If you're playing a game, where much of the processing hold-up is down to the graphics card, or the game is waiting for an input from you, then the CPU can't actually perform to it's fullest extent, then you don't actually get the full benefit. You know the power is there, but it's not possible to exploit it to the full.
 
hey byron, ive got a quick question.

What temps do you get on your AMD 6000+?

Coz my brother has that processor and he gets 60-65 degrees C, IDLE! and my overclocked q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz gets 30 C idle, and 60 C maxed out with orthos.

Thanks
 
so basically a core duo overclocked to 4.4ghz (e8500)
is not gonna be better than a 3.6ghz (q6600)

im just curious has to the price bracket doesnt seem to justify the difference in my opinion...........being around the same price the speed has to count for something !!!

Most people don't hit 4.4Ghz stable on an E8500 though.

Nearly all Q6600s will do 3.4-3.5Ghz

From looking around the average for E8500s is around 3.8Ghz-3.9Ghz

Its a no brainer imo that getting the q6600 is a much better idea based on that.
 
Wow this comes around every few days ! The price diff between the Q6600 and a comparative dual core isnt much, so you might as well have more cores for when you need them.
 
Back
Top Bottom