• 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 E840

Please use Search mate, its been asked 100x at least even before that it was a Q6600 v E6850. ;)

The Faster Dual core is better for now with games IMO and in may reviews. :)
 
I would go q6600 and overclock it.. Making up for any speed difference. Whilst giving you a good encoding or heavy worker machine.
 
q6600 uses a fair bit more power and gives off more heat, but then it has got the 2 extra cores.

If you've got the cooling, I'd go with the q6600, but the E8400 isn't bad (and may clock a little higher).
 
helmutcheese said:
Please use Search mate, its been asked 100x at least even before that it was a Q6600 v E6850. ;)

The Faster Dual core is better for now with games IMO and in may reviews. :)
Click to expand...

for gaming, is a 3GHZ wolfdale better than a 3 GHZ Q6600, is it faster clock for clock.

but i would say quadcore, i see no benefit to getting a dual core, many games do use quad core and even the ones that dont, im sure newer games will come out which use 4 cores nicely.

and your not just going to game, your going to do lots of other stuff, and quad makes everything faster. so id say the Q, not to mention you can overclock it insanely
 
Not all games are about CPU or GPU, it varies some games even need both to be balanced.

Example F.E.A,R is all about the GPU, don't mean you run a 1GHZ Socket A with a fast GPU on it though. :p

A GTX280/ATI counterpart is far more powerful than a CPU, its been that way for long time for GPU being better than the CPU (obv depends on models).

Some peeps seem to think its the other way around.
 
helmutcheese said:
Not all games are about CPU or GPU, it varies some games even need both to be balanced.

Example F.E.A,R is all about the GPU, don't mean you run a 1GHZ Socket A with a fast GPU on it though. :p

A GTX280/ATI counterpart is far more powerful than a CPU, its been that way for long time for GPU being better than the CPU (obv depends on models).

Some peeps seem to think its the other way around.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a Q6600 and E8400 here. Not a slow CPU and you seem to have things the wrong way around, the GPU is still the limiting factor even with a GTX280; unless you're playing a really low resolutions that is, and in the rare cases of a couple of titles you may get about 3fps more with a E8400 at 1280x1024. That's stock, OC a Q6600 and there's zero difference even if you OC the E8400 as well.
 
helmutcheese said:
So a GPU is still faster like current Flagships.

I argue the opposite of that and have for years.
Click to expand...

There is no 'faster,' there is "which is the limiting factor" and that has been the GPU for some time now. You can argue the opposite if you like but that doesn't make it right... Guru3d (I think it was them) did a good article on this recently.
 
I still say the CPU limits before a GPU, even the X-FI at launch had more power than the current Intel P4. :)

Too many variables and most game are about the GPU more so not CPU but if you could get one that was 50/50, the CPU would run out of steam well before a GTX280 for example.

Hence you need to OC the CPU but whats that for the most, about 3.6-4GB.
 
platinum87 said:
but i would say quadcore, i see no benefit to getting a dual core, many games do use quad core and even the ones that dont, im sure newer games will come out which use 4 cores nicely.

and your not just going to game, your going to do lots of other stuff, and quad makes everything faster. so id say the Q, not to mention you can overclock it insanely
Click to expand...

I see this statement about games using 4 cores, (how many is many?) but I have yet to see a list showing all the games on the market and then from that list the ones that benefit by using all 4 cores at the same time. Anybody?
 
Last edited:
Personally, given today's software, and the amount of heat the Q6600 pumps out, I think you're better off going with a dual core and clocking the socks off that. Looking at my Q6600's temperatures compared to my E6300 make me sad.
 
I've had both and if it's just for gaming you are better off getting the Wolfdale. It will clock a lot further than the quad, consume a lot less power and chuck out a lot less heat. No point in getting a quad if you are going to have two cores permanently doing nothing.
 
pastymuncher said:
I've had both and if it's just for gaming you are better off getting the Wolfdale. It will clock a lot further than the quad, consume a lot less power and chuck out a lot less heat. No point in getting a quad if you are going to have two cores permanently doing nothing.
Click to expand...

My sentiments as well. I had an E6600 for 1 year, a Q6600 for about 3 weeks and finally I ended up with an E8400. If I need to do something other than gaming I wait that extra time and it is not that much anyway, because the difference on frame rates in gaming on the overclocked E8400 over the Q6600 at 1920 x 1200 is quite marked. In fact I measured it at around 30% for the game I play.
 
helmutcheese said:
Not all games are about CPU or GPU, it varies some games even need both to be balanced.

Example F.E.A,R is all about the GPU, don't mean you run a 1GHZ Socket A with a fast GPU on it though. :p

A GTX280/ATI counterpart is far more powerful than a CPU, its been that way for long time for GPU being better than the CPU (obv depends on models).

Some peeps seem to think its the other way around.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek:

A E8400 at 3.6 will power any card thats on the market today and have plenty of power left in it for the latest graphics cards 1 - 1.5years time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom