• 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.

So who is getting Quad 6600 then at this new price?

I might do, may put my 6600 in my media center then upgrade my main frame
to quad, hopefuly my water cooling can handle the quad.

Rob
 
I've ordered mine :D

Sold my e6600 last night. Just in time before todays price drops.
 
I'm not sure, I keep asking myself - do I really need a Quad 6600, when can we expect games too fully make use of all four cores? 2 cores is good enough for me especially as all I do is surf the web, play games, office use & when quad-cores do make full use in games they will probally be a lot more cheaper than they are even now with the price cuts also Penryn may push the prices even lower within a few months after release.

Still tempted to buy one though, along with the new Viewsonic 24" & ATI R600 about to be released, & a nice new DFI P965-s Dark Infinity motherboard! :cool:
 
Last edited:
I was planning on getting a E6320.

Now im not sure becasue of this price, but would I actually use the 4 cores? And will I beable to afford myself a new case? :confused:


I do really hate computers with a passion.
 
I didnt buy 6600 when I heard of possible offers like this.

I know it is "useless" for now in games. But, with tasks like encoding, folding, or raw computation power (in one cpu package, without grid etc) it is the BEST value for money.

I would be happy if I could have folidng running, playing my favorite game and encoding some vids from my camera. All this for 350quid is not bad IMO.
 
easyrider said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I'd assume because a lot of folk with 6600's are barely even using 2 cores let alone 4 cores, and yes I know you do 3D rendering etc.

So it's keep your 6600 and spend nothing and have the same performance, or shell out + £230-250 and get a performance boost in maybe 5% of the applications out there that actually use 4 or more cores, of which most people will use 1% of that 5.

It makes sense to me anyhow :p

* In Q3 when the 2.4GHz Q6600 comes down to $226 (£160) then I'll be interested.
 
it only makes sense if your a professional that needs the extra bang. { time = money}

makes no sense for a consumer , not yet, and when it does the technology will have advanced, and if you buy now it will be relatively dated by then.
 
drak3 said:
I didnt buy 6600 when I heard of possible offers like this.

I know it is "useless" for now in games. But, with tasks like encoding, folding, or raw computation power (in one cpu package, without grid etc) it is the BEST value for money.

I would be happy if I could have folidng running, playing my favorite game and encoding some vids from my camera. All this for 350quid is not bad IMO.
Click to expand...

you got enough ram and a good hdd for all that ?
 
Nope no point what so ever imo being a gamer i see no point in getting anything above my [email protected] ghz let alone quad core.More interested in 8800 price drops
than cpu's.The pricing is most strange the 6400 is dearer than the 6420 all over
which is just bizzare.I'll pick up a quad when it's around £100 thanks hehe.
 
Last edited:
Might make the jump to quad core when Crysis comes out as that is supposedly optimised to make use of multiple cores. It will probably require a beast of a machine to make full use of all that DX10 goodness.
 
trojan698 said:
More to the point, why would you need the extra 2 cores? What do you use your PC for primarily?
Click to expand...


Video Editing mainly using Adobe Production studio.

I have 3 monitors and when I'm working on a video project for example I will have Premier open on one,Audition open on another and after FX open on another screen.

With all these apps open you could be rendering a DV video with real time FX in the timeline while working on the credits in after fx in real time while having 64 audio tracks open in audition and mastering your sound track to a stereo master or 5.1 surround sound master.

All this is going on without any lag whatsoever and can make one more productive.It also gives you confidence to try new things too,as the time to try an effect in realtime then decide you don't like it is a lot faster.Heavily increasing ones creativity.

Although C2D@ 3.8ghz is no slouch at doing this,I would have a quad back anyday and will look forward to getting a Q6600.But at the time of me having Qx6700 I did feel a tad guilty in spending 670 on a cpu.Thats one of the reasons I sold it.

If they were still going to cost 670 I would not buy one again.As I can manage with what I have.But at 350 they are too good not to have.Especially after the sale of the 4300 and 6300 meaning I only need to shell out 160 for one now.
 
not I, it's not worth it for what I use the computer for. When I can score one for under 200 quid I'll think about it.
 
Buffalo2102 said:
Might make the jump to quad core when Crysis comes out as that is supposedly optimised to make use of multiple cores. It will probably require a beast of a machine to make full use of all that DX10 goodness.
Click to expand...

i am so tempted, specially as i can get one from the states which would work out to about £250~ but i don't want to pay for something that i am not going to use. I will wait to see what crysis is like with quad core vs dual core and then decide if the performance wise its worth it. To be honest only really upgrading for this game(ok maybe others too), i know its sad :o
 
Not worth it unless you encode a lot etc.
It would be like buying an 8800 gtx for running 800-600 low details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom