• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

  • 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 E8500...is there really much difference

Rhaos

Rhaos

Rhaos

Associate
Joined
28 Apr 2008
Posts
674
Obviously one is a Quad core and the other is a Dual core.

And I already know that "if you encode blah blah blah get a quad if you game get a E8xxx

But performance wise and in general gaming is there a lot difference between the two. I mean is it significantly a MAJOR difference between the two whilst gaming? Is there a huge difference in frame rate or just a minor few frames here and there?

Personally I want an upgrade and I'm stumped wether to get a Q6600 or get a E8500. I game a lot but I do like to watch movies through the PC onto the HDTV upscaling DVD's using FFDShow which loves quad cores. But if it is a noticeable difference betwee E series and Q series in gaming then I'd go for the E series, but if its minor then I'd opt for the Q6600 and then wait until Nehelam is out.

Hopefully someone has made a similar change to there setup and can advise me.

Cheers
 
as above minimal fps difference but major increase in desktop performance, with enough ram and a fast disk subsystem i never see any bottlenecks with the quad @ 3.8.

i went from an E6600 at more or less the same speed to the quad and have never regretted the decision for a second.
 
Im going from a Q6600 to E8500 at the ends of this week so Ill let you know if I notice any difference in games and in general windows use :)
 
marscay said:
as above minimal fps difference but major increase in desktop performance, with enough ram and a fast disk subsystem i never see any bottlenecks with the quad @ 3.8.

i went from an E6600 at more or less the same speed to the quad and have never regretted the decision for a second.
Click to expand...

but what about at a reasonable oc, say at 3.0ghz??? Is the difference substancial enough to warrant a distinct choice??
 
I miss my Q6600. Should have gotten another one over the e8500. Only went for e8500 due to lower power and less heat. Vista just "feels" snappier with the quad. Will stick with my decision though.
 
i've thought about this also.

will i see a big difference from my E8400 @ 3.7ghz???

I've heard people say the Q6600 is excellent etc so will i notice any different and on my P35 mobo will i be able to clock it that high???

or should i just sit tight with what i've got?!!
 
magicroundabout said:
i've thought about this also.

will i see a big difference from my E8400 @ 3.7ghz???

I've heard people say the Q6600 is excellent etc so will i notice any different and on my P35 mobo will i be able to clock it that high???

or should i just sit tight with what i've got?!!
Click to expand...

Very little difference indeed unless you encode.
 
The crunch is how high you can get your q6600 to and how high you will get your e8500 plus your choice of graphics cards.

It has been reported that with very high end cards such as 4870 xfire and gtx280 that going well past 4ghz and right up to 4.5Ghz makes a noticible difference to the framerates in games whereas if you are gaming on just a single 4850/4870 8800gt/gts I doubt you would even notice the framerate difference between a high clocked q6600 and a high clocked e8500.

Personnally with my quad, apart from scoring higher and having a bigger e-penis with 3dmark06 and vantage I have seen hardly any gain in framerates once I am above 3.4GHz with my 8800GTS and now my 4870.

So if you are high end graphics and don't encode then get a e8500. If you encode of have a "normal" graphics card get the q6600 as you will see little difference in games but will gain big style with encoding.
 
Rhaos said:
And I already know that "if you encode blah blah blah get a quad if you game get a E8xxx
Click to expand...

Seems like you answered your own question! :)

However I would like to add an observation, we all use the computer is different ways and a mistake a lot of people make on this forum (including myself sometimes) is to think we are all the same.

I wasn't aware until recently that I am a demon when sat in front of the PC, apparently I click my mouse so fast and fly through dozens of windows that anyone watching just sees a blur! :o

I think I am playing a game with my PC, that is who is fastest. The thing that bugs me the most is *Computer Hesitation*, I don't like to wait for my PC to catch up with me, it disturbs my flow kinda.

Now as quick as I am at the PC I'm not the greatest multi-tasker (I'm a bloke remember!) so I rarely have 57 windows open doing all sorts of things, I tend to perform one or two task at a time and as such a dual core has been really good for me personally.

If you are a serious power-user and can multitask properly I dare say a Quad-Core would prove useful even for general computer useage. :cool:
 
Rhaos said:
Obviously one is a Quad core and the other is a Dual core.

And I already know that "if you encode blah blah blah get a quad if you game get a E8xxx

But performance wise and in general gaming is there a lot difference between the two. I mean is it significantly a MAJOR difference between the two whilst gaming? Is there a huge difference in frame rate or just a minor few frames here and there?

Personally I want an upgrade and I'm stumped wether to get a Q6600 or get a E8500. I game a lot but I do like to watch movies through the PC onto the HDTV upscaling DVD's using FFDShow which loves quad cores. But if it is a noticeable difference betwee E series and Q series in gaming then I'd go for the E series, but if its minor then I'd opt for the Q6600 and then wait until Nehelam is out.

Hopefully someone has made a similar change to there setup and can advise me.

Cheers
Click to expand...


Depending if the game can use the CPU or not, obviously if the game is made to run optimal on everything maxed @60fps with 2.6ghz CPU, then ofcourse it wont make much difference if u have 2.8 or 3.5.

If the game needs 4ghz to run optimally, then as you can guess having 3.4ghz will slow it down properly and you would see huge improvement.

Still small or not, I would go with the dual ;).

Pesh all you quad core lovers and your idling cores ;-) !.
 
People should keep their Task Manager open to see how often all 4 cores are used in general everyday usage too see if more than 2 cores ever fire up apart from when encoding.
 
I dont know what all the fuss is about........

We are seeing more and more applications appearing nearly daily that are truly multi core capable. ConvertXtoDVD now has multi core support and boy gum does it fly now.

Photoshop as well.

Jeepers......i didnt know that winrar was now too......it eats massive rar files for breakfast now and my 6600 is only running at a moderate 3.2



I honestly cant see any competition these days with the price drops of the 6600.



JJ
 
PhoenixUK said:
Depending if the game can use the CPU or not, obviously if the game is made to run optimal on everything maxed @60fps with 2.6ghz CPU, then ofcourse it wont make much difference if u have 2.8 or 3.5.

If the game needs 4ghz to run optimally, then as you can guess having 3.4ghz will slow it down properly and you would see huge improvement.

Still small or not, I would go with the dual ;).

Pesh all you quad core lovers and your idling cores ;-) !.
Click to expand...

Depends on your gpu. Your analogy only works if you have the high end graphics card otherwise all that extra power from the higher Mhz is wasted just like our idle cores on our quads. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom