• 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 vs E6850, clash of opinions

Im with stickroad. I feel so many duel core people have their heads stuck in the sand. They insist on buying a dual core even for 4/5 months because it will give them 200fps over 150 with no real performance increase and then spend a whole new lot on a new cpu when they wouldn't need to if they bought a Q6600.

Further more people claiming ooo it will be years before we see quad core games. Lost planet is a crap game but benchs show twice as many FPS for Quads over Duels. You think it will take years for this to be commen? Im almost certain alan wake and crysis will show a similar thing.
 
8igdave said:
I feel so many duel core people have their heads stuck in the sand.
Click to expand...

you could say the exact same thing about some of the quad core folk matey. ;)

for instance, the most strenuous thing i do with my pc is play the occasional game of BF2142, for that, dual core is perfect for my needs, yet if some of you guys are to be believed i should ditch my 2160 & rush out & buy a quad. the fact that a quad would be totally & utterly wasted on me just doesn't seem to come into it. :rolleyes:

but still, must follow the herd & buy a quad, cos i'll be able to sleep so much more soundly at night with an extra 2 cores sat idle for 95% of the time. :)
 
NVM VoG, you and I will be on Real Quads by time it matters and they mature a little. ;)

For now the odd bit of encoding of 1080p Pr0n can take 10mins longer.
 
if you're the kind of person who upgrades once every couple of years then grabbing a quad if you're in the market for a new processor right now is a no brainer.

anyone with a current c2d dual core @ 3.4ghz+ really doesn't need a quad, it's a luxury not a must have.

anyone really serious into encoding already has proper multicore setups so the whole 'i do a lot of encoding' really doesn't fly with me.

and current gaming with quads is a joke, it's akin to buying a PPU when there's 2 games which can use it.

public service announcement over.
 
You have missed my point yes to the average user who's going to keep their cpu a long time obvious to get quad but for people who upgrade every few or 6 months it's hardly worth it is it?.

As for crysis nobody knows yet just how much of a difference quad will make my guess is not a lot and as for lost planet who cares?.Even if crysis meant smooth play on a quad and choppy on a dual it doesn't justify a stop gap upgrade for one or two games.

I bet "and you know who you are" don't have Q6600's in January.
Most advice now is 2160 or q6600 well how about something in between that can do 3.4-3.8ghz and run quite cool and keep that until better quads arrive.

My advice is get what you need to run any given game to your desired standards as and when you need it.You cannot be seriously suggesting quad core is worth it for 20 fps extra for a demo of crysis and then the full game.

It truly is all about the go faster stripes we all know it once bitten you just have to upgrade to the newer better cooler running shinier hardware.How many current quad owners have sold their old Q6600 just to get the G0 if at stock it was fine? kind of defeats your argument as you want G0 so you can get a higher clock speed.
 
Last edited:
VoG said:
you could say the exact same thing about some of the quad core folk matey. ;)

for instance, the most strenuous thing i do with my pc is play the occasional game of BF2142, for that, dual core is perfect for my needs, yet if some of you guys are to be believed i should ditch my 2160 & rush out & buy a quad. the fact that a quad would be totally & utterly wasted on me just doesn't seem to come into it. :rolleyes:

but still, must follow the herd & buy a quad, cos i'll be able to sleep so much more soundly at night with an extra 2 cores sat idle for 95% of the time. :)
Click to expand...

With the greatest respect, that isn't the topic under discussion. It's about e6850 Vs Q6600, the e2160 is far and away the best Core 2 chip in terms of price Vs real world performance, better than even the quad!:)

It's about why would you get an 2 core (pre-overclocked by Intel) chip for the price of a 4 core chip?

And the answer is, there isn't a (good) reason.
 
melbourne720 said:
With the greatest respect, that isn't the topic under discussion. It's about e6850 Vs Q6600, the e2160 is far and away the best Core 2 chip in terms of price Vs real world performance, better than even the quad!:)

It's about why would you get an 2 core (pre-overclocked by Intel) chip for the price of a 4 core chip?

And the answer is, there isn't a (good) reason.
Click to expand...

Thats in your opinion, not written in stone so dont speak for others.

Enjoy your Kid on Quad for now cause by the time a Quad is really, really needed there will be far superiour Native Quads out.
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
Thats in your opinion, not written in stone so dont speak for others.
Click to expand...

All I was meaning was that the thread was e6850 Vs Q6600, rather than e2160 Vs Q6600. As the e6850 and the Q6600 are roughly the same price, it makes for an interesting number of cores Vs number of cycles per second discussion.

If we throw the e2160 into the mix then the price becomes relevant, and you see that the number of e6850s or Q6600s with 60 to 100% overclocks is quite low (100% virtually impossible) whereas that happens fairly regularly on the e2160 series (motherboard permitting) on air.

helmutcheese said:
Enjoy your Kid on Quad for now cause by the time a Quad is really, really needed there will be far superiour Native Quads out.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, and I don't have a quad, but surely 2 free cores is a no-brainer?

In my humble opinion of course ;)
 
Not need right now for 99% of users and apps, and in a few days you get Native Quads anyhow.

Correct, there is supposed to be 2 CPU's only in this threads thats a carbon copy of 10x other threads topic.

Posting in this section now.
 
Last edited:
From what was written in Personal Computer World this week all the dx10 games will play like complete puddings in dx10 mode anyway with the current cards, making the processor debate for new titles a bit redundant. The key will be the inadequacy of the graphics card rather than the processor's clock speed/number of cores.
 
Last edited:
Dont know as it dont have a 1333 bus or as much Cache but your compairing a OC chip to a stock one, so the E6850 should also be OC to 4GHZ :p

I know where your coming from only joking.
 
[TW]Fox;10050751 said:
Stupid question:

How does my E4300 @ 3Ghz compare with an E6850 in todays games?
Click to expand...

Should be near enough the same. Both have the same bandwidth, and run at the same frequency. See my sig for the effect cache has on games (e2160 Vs e6600) and bear in mind that as your CPU has twice the cache of an e2160, the small effect there is will be much reduced.
 
VoG said:
you could say the exact same thing about some of the quad core folk matey. ;)

for instance, the most strenuous thing i do with my pc is play the occasional game of BF2142, for that, dual core is perfect for my needs, yet if some of you guys are to be believed i should ditch my 2160 & rush out & buy a quad. the fact that a quad would be totally & utterly wasted on me just doesn't seem to come into it. :rolleyes:

but still, must follow the herd & buy a quad, cos i'll be able to sleep so much more soundly at night with an extra 2 cores sat idle for 95% of the time. :)
Click to expand...


No i never said go ditch a dual. Im saying why say get E6850 over a Q6600. Your arguement is irelevent as its not what i was saying nore what others have been saying.

Nobody is saying you ahve a duel core go buy a Quad core. We are saying its stupid to say ooo get a duel core and then upgrade it in 6 months. Why not get a Q6600 and run it at 3.6 and it will last years before you NEED to upgrade it to keep up if playing games.
 
those 2 'free' cores are only useful if you are actually going to use those cores. I went for a 6750 in the end but i would have chosen a 6850 over the Q6600 because i just wouldnt ever use those extra cores before upgrading again, enough to make it worth the extra power used and heat output.
 
so if i was to get a new CPU which would be better for me?
i mainly use my pc for games and dont do that much encoding etc any more,
im still using windows XP :eek: so maybe it would be wiser to get vista instead ?

ps . dont do overclocking as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom