• 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 or E6850?

JamesC

JamesC

JamesC

Associate
Joined
30 Oct 2007
Posts
1
Hi guys, this is my first post on Overclockers and I'm after a little help if you can :)

I was just wondering if anyone could recommend me one of these chips? I've got an Asus P5W64 WS Professional mobo:

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?modelmenu=1&model=1341&l1=3&l2=11&l3=248

I'm torn between these 2 processors. Basically I encode a lot of Mpeg to XviD and at the moment I have a Pentium D 935 but am looking to upgrade. I've got a friend who has a Q6600 and he really rates it. But I had a quick look at toms hardware and it seems that the benchmark difference between the Q6600 and the E6850 is pretty small. Apparently my board will take the 1333MHz fsb of the E6850 ("It also can support Intel® next generation 45nm Multi-Core CPU. With new Intel® Core™ microarchitecture technology and 1333 / 1066 / 800 MHz FSB")- and the speed of the chip is 3.0ghz but it is only dual core. Whereas the Q6600 is slower, has 1066MHz fsb but is quad core. So which would be better? The pricing of these two processors is very similar so I can't even use that as leverage. One other point, at the moment I have Ballistix ram- 800MHz PC2-6400.

Thanks guys,

James
 
Go for the q6600 if i were you, on multiple core applications (not sure if encoding's counted in that) youll see a nice speed boost over the E6850, where as in standard applications you wont see much difference anyhow.

The E6850 if you want fastest speeds available now, dont want to overclock, and will happily upgrade in a few months.

The q6600 if you want a future proof(ish, nothings really future proof) system that will happily keep you going for a few years.

E6850 is a waste imo.
 
I've been chewing over this one for a while now. Here's the way I'm thinking. (I probably won't get into overclocking).

I run applications on my computer. Mostly games.

I don't manipulate grapics images, movies or sound files. I just run them occasionally. I don't do any CAD or similar. Currently I don't even have anything optimized for multi core usage.

The operating system is basically just a large number of processes running simultaneously. For the computer to be any use they have to be extremely efficient, not use much resource (like CPU time) and just sit quietly in the background doing their stuff.

I have a small number of background apps like virus scanner, graphic card nonsense, winzip etc which in theory are like the OS but generally not so well coded and slightly more of a hit on system resources (like CPU time). Especially the anti virus/spyware stuff!

When I'm running some games I like to have the internet open and maybe Exel and Word but in practice my existing Athlon XP 2400 handles that pretty much OK.

Now, applications manifest themself on my computer as a number of processes. One process runs on one core at a time (although timeslicing makes it look like mutiple processes are running simultaneously on the same core).

I ASSUME games currently have one major process once they get going, which wants all the system resource (ie CPU time and POWER) it can get its hands on. Leaving aside the graphic card power which I think is actually the key element for a game that determines the perceived speed and responsiveness of the game, the game's speed and playability is determined by how fast the key process runs on ONE of the cores.

Therefore it makes some sense to buy the fastest core possible for the money.

I don't use applications currently which are optimised to make use of multiple cores. I might in the future. Having said all that it would be foolish to buy a single core processor now. A dual core processor with high core speed gives a core to run the game's main process on and a core for all the other stuff chuntering away in the background, simplistically, though he OS may decide to allocate things a bit differently.

Dual Core SEEMS to be the best solution for me just now. If I buy a quad core processor I would get four cores each about 20% slower than the cores on a similarly priced dual core jobbie. My games' main process would be running 20% slower on a quad core processor. BUT I am debating whether I would actually notice this. The latent potential of the quad core jobbie would be largely unused. (Actually so would the latent potential of the second core of the dual core jobbie I suspect.)

In the near future games will probably be coded differently (please correct me if I am wrong on this someone). Instead of one main application process there will be several main processes requiring less absolute power each, but requiring several processes to run simultaneaously on several cores. In the future I see processors having more and more cores, possibly of less and less power with applications manifesting as more and more processes designed to run simultaneously on a larger number of lower power cores.

Bottom line - As an upgrade I think the dual core would benchmark as better solution for me just now, but in the real world I doubt I could notice the difference in application performance (now) between a faster dual and slower quad core processor. I am therefore leaning slightly towards the quad core (lower individual core power) solution to give my system more "headroom" until the 8 core processors come along. ;)

Note that the above arguments still hold if you are into overclocking unless one product overclocks vastly better or worse than the other.

NB Just to clarify - in the above ramblings I use "power" to mean processing power not electrical energy consumption.
 
Last edited:
E6850 if you dont want to overclock, maybe. However Q6600 will do 3Ghz easy 99% of the time, so buying the E6850 over Q6600 when intending to overclock makes little sence...
 
This was my first question on the forum and the responce in favour of the Q6600 was enormous. Since then there has been the better 95w Go version which makes even more sense. I was steered clear of the E6850 and was directed towards the quad, definitely the right way to go IMO. :)
 
I'd say go for the Q6600, for future games and application this should give better performance. If you instantly clock it to 3.0Ghz you have a E6850 with 4 cores, and 1333mhz FSB etc. Can't really go wrong there? :D
 
Just to stir things up a little :D

Go for a E2180, for less than £60 they are great value for money. Then when the Yorkfield's become affordable / available just maybe the need for Quad multi-core 'future use' might be a little less 'blury', if not then for £60 you have got a mighty fine chip :)
 
Go for the q6600 and make sure its a Go stepping and your pretty much guaranteed 3.6 Gig without too much trouble , best bang for buck chip out there
 
Have a look at this thread. Might make for some interesting reading.

I agree with Vimes, if you want dual-core, go with a E2xxx series, else if you're spending more, then get quad.

Why does your friend hate the quad? What's it doing to him or not doing for him?
 
If he's hating it, hey, I'll trade my 2160 for it, or wait no ... my sweet baby is staying with me <3

I absolutely agree with Vimes and ByteJuggler aswell, C2D = E21x0 series (pref. 2180) and if it's gonna be a quad then go for Q6600 G0
 
I was stuck trying to decide which one to go for planning my next upgrade, judging from the comments I think it's obvious which one I'll be getting now, thanks :D
 
Q6600 or cheaper dual core, the 6850 is a waste, but then so is not overclocking, and people still do that. :rolleyes:

i'll sell my x6800 for £169 :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom