Q6600 vs E6850, clash of opinions

MumboJumbo · 5 Sep 2007 at 21:42

helmutcheese said:
By then neither will cut it in top games and there will be REAL Native Quads well matured.

You think all of a sudden your going to need a native quad core to be able to run top games? Most games are GPU dependent more then cpu. A Q6600GO at 3.6 should last you a long time. You dont need to keep upgrading when you dont achualy need it.

helmutcheese · 5 Sep 2007 at 21:47

Did I say that, but who wants to use a Q6600 in 2 years (high end users) if new Natives are due soon ?, not saying it wont game well for 1-2years but I still rather have the newer CPU just around the corner.

I honestly could not give a monkey's for the current non Native Quads, I game mainly aside from surfing etc, my encoding days are over and even then the differerence is not massive for time being.

How many threads are they on this same topic, and the ones that crys "OHH get a Q6600" cant even see that not everyone wants or needs one yet.

There is 2 sides to this coin but the Q6600 users dont seem to be able to see it.

If you want to argue it out, you can also go argue in other threads with all other peeps, cause frankly the topic does not interest me anough to get too involved.

I gave my input to how long he wants to use CPU, but at this time I choose a E6850 for short term use, I normally use AMD anyhow.

mk17 · 5 Sep 2007 at 21:52

8igdave said:
...
A q6600GO overclocked to around 3.6 will last you probably over a year heck perhaps 2 years as far as games are conserened.
...

quoted for truth. early numbers on X38, and penryn don't show much more than a few percent improvements. And barcelona is still relatively unknown.

Of course x38, DDR3 and Penryn are nascent at the moment, so time and updates will tell, but for gaming the gpu will dominate near-term, so anyone on Q6600 has plenty of life remaining.

Once Nehalem is out about 6 months the story will be very different, but that's another story. Hopefully AMD can add to the mix, a lot, but their silence has been deafening of late.

stickroad · 5 Sep 2007 at 21:58

Still dont see the argument where if your going to be keeping the chip for a few months get a E6850?

helmutcheese · 5 Sep 2007 at 22:00

I never said that was what he should do, its what I did and what 100's of other threads on web are about with Q6600 v E6850.

I inputed very early in this thread, ideally dont care much about the topic to go on and on and justify my purchase.

stickroad · 5 Sep 2007 at 22:03

Like i said before i just cant see where the E6850 comes into play.

You have the E6850 where it beats the Quad in games but thats like comparing 150 FPS to 200 FPS, you would not notice the difference. Even if you did it would be minimal and by getting the Q6600 it certainly wouldent be like, dam cant play a ny games now becuase of my CPU.

If the E6850 beats the Quad by quite a lot so say for example the Quad got 20 FPS and then E6850 got 70FPS then i could understand going for the E6850 but its just not like that.

helmutcheese · 5 Sep 2007 at 22:06

I do not want a half breed Quad either, so why do E6850s get made and sell ?

I hope to be back on AMD soon and would be if Crosshair was not a dud and blew up with 6000+ in it.

As I said, I have seen enough of these threads, I inputed really early, never actually told him what to buy and thats all.

stickroad · 5 Sep 2007 at 22:09

helmutcheese said:
I do not want a half breed Quad either, so why do E6850s get made and sell ?

They are not native quad cores but they certainly do the job well.

People go for the E6850 becuase they dont take into account what i have said above.

helmutcheese · 5 Sep 2007 at 22:15

Well please go and tell every single peep who bought a E6850 in every single thread about Q6600 v E6850 and educate them with your wisdom

bfar · 6 Sep 2007 at 01:09

I'm not getting a new CPU for a couple of months, but I'd definately go for the one that's fastest in games

Could be years before games take proper advantage of Quads. Multithreaded programming is hard!

C64 · 6 Sep 2007 at 03:40

I disagree with the whole debate and look at it this way.By the time your playing games that utilize 4 cores your q6600 will be long gone replaced by a better chip.There's really no point having one yet apart from it making you happier and extending the old electronic sword a bit.I know i'd sleep better at night knowing i have an extra 2 cores.

melbourne720 · 6 Sep 2007 at 08:02

Azza said:
New sig.

I feel honoured, thank you

Nice sig btw :cool:

Macro · 6 Sep 2007 at 08:37

C64 said:
I disagree with the whole debate and look at it this way.By the time your playing games that utilize 4 cores your q6600 will be long gone replaced by a better chip.There's really no point having one yet apart from it making you happier and extending the old electronic sword a bit.I know i'd sleep better at night knowing i have an extra 2 cores.

Most sensible quote of the week award goes to ...

mattyrigby00 · 6 Sep 2007 at 10:03

there is a point in the lower dual cores than the e6850, i just cant see the point in getting a dual core if spending what a quad core can be gotten for, if getting a dual core, the e6750 is significantly cheaper.

fallbayuk · 6 Sep 2007 at 10:11

In my situation, if i want to get a Q6600 to perform on a par with a stock E6850, i'll need to upgrade my case and purchase additional cooling which is going to be at least an extra £100. Surely id be better off sticking that £100 in the future upgrade war chest?

melbourne720 · 6 Sep 2007 at 10:40

fallbayuk said:
In my situation, if i want to get a Q6600 to perform on a par with a stock E6850, i'll need to upgrade my case and purchase additional cooling which is going to be at least an extra £100. Surely id be better off sticking that £100 in the future upgrade war chest?

With a G0, I don't think you necessarily have to spend that much.

C64 said:
I disagree with the whole debate and look at it this way.By the time your playing games that utilize 4 cores your q6600 will be long gone replaced by a better chip.

Lost planet is already out, Crysis round the corner, demo in a couple of weeks, no sign of penryn...

Chimerical · 6 Sep 2007 at 11:56

At the end of the day, clock speed is a pointless thing to pay extra money for. It makes minor differences to Some games, not all (like Stalker, FSX). Having extra cores means better performance in the future rather than worse. It's like buying 2GB of super expensive 1600MHz DDR3 RAM over 4GB of 1066/800 MHz DDR2 while using Vista 64-bit. Why????

DavidB · 6 Sep 2007 at 12:07

clock speed is a pointless thing to pay extra money for.

Seeing as the clock speed is the one thing that can improve performance of almost the entire system i think thats wrong. In your RAM example the CPU is the bottleneck, having a faster CPU helps a lot. But id rather pay for potential speed than speed straight out the box (eg overclockability)

Von Luck · 6 Sep 2007 at 17:02

I'd go for the E6850. I don't overclock and want the best performance in games today, not in a year's time. For that, the E6850 is the better choice.

By the time titles appear which can fully utilise 4 cores it'll be time to upgrade anyway.

I'd be interested to see benchmarks comparing stock clocked E6850 and Q6600 in Crysis.

stickroad · 6 Sep 2007 at 17:05

Von Luck said:
I'd go for the E6850. I don't overclock and want the best performance in games today, not in a year's time. For that, the E6850 is the better choice.

By the time titles appear which can fully utilise 4 cores it'll be time to upgrade anyway.

I'd be interested to see benchmarks comparing stock clocked E6850 and Q6600 in Crysis.

Its not about games not taking advantage of 4 cores.

So you think if you get a Q6600 games are going to run like a dog compared to the E6850?

Its like comapring 150FPS to 200FPS, very hard to notice the difference.

If the Q6600 was miles behind the E6850, say for example 20FPS for the Q6600 and 70FPS for the E6850 then you guys have a case, but its not like that.