as we all know the price cuts are coming soon, so I was going for the get the Q6600 but then I found out Intel will be releasing the E6850 too, which got me thinking, now I ain't sure, which to get.
please help me decide:juggle:
Printable View
as we all know the price cuts are coming soon, so I was going for the get the Q6600 but then I found out Intel will be releasing the E6850 too, which got me thinking, now I ain't sure, which to get.
please help me decide:juggle:
Do you overclock?
The E6850 is going to be one hell of a chip, great for overclocking, which is what i am waiting for.
So it gets my vote over Q6600:)
might overclock, not something im going to do as soon as I get the chip
Will the E6850 be quicker than the Q6600 at stock speeds? I'm guessing not as it's only dual core!?
It depends what you use your computer for really.
If you're doing heavy video editing / 3D design then a quad core will be the best choice.
I'd also choose the Q6600 if you plan on overclocking as both chips will reach similar speeds but obviously you'd have twice as many cores.
However, if you'll never overclock, and you don't use your computer for major multi-tasking, I'd go for the E6850.
That would depend on what you're using it for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin87
If you're using programs that only utilize one (or a maximum of two) core(s) then yes, the E6850 will be quicker. However, if you're using programs than make use of multiple (two or more) cores, the Q6600 will dominate.
When are these CPU's going down in price again?
July 22nd is apparently when Intel cut them but it'll take a good few weeks for retail prices to reflect this.
main uses will probably be gaming (DX10)
Personally I'd get the Q6600, some PC6400 memory, overclock it to 3GHz, and then chuckle to myself.
do they overclock well, and I heared they get really hot (Q6600)
From what I've read 3GHz shouldn't be a problem at all.
Yeah they do run hotter than dual cores but with a decent cooler and a good case you should be able to keep it under the magic 65ºC mark.
Though to be prefectly honest at 2.4GHz it's not gonna be bottlenecking your graphics card so leave it at stock until games start to demand more.
im getin the q6600 jusg for th reasons that nightshadowUK says.
but i will OC straight away cos im a whore....
then once thats all battered, i will get a penryn chip....
then i will take over the world:)
Is it worth changing to either of these from an E6600?
My E6600 is oc'd to 3GHz...
Again, it would depend on what you use your computer for?
Gaming mainly...
Very few, if any games, can make use of dual cores yet alone quad cores. Quad cores are only useful (at the mo) for video editting/ 3D design as mentioned above and even then only with the heavy duty pro packages.
I second that - games are all about what graphics card you have. So long as your CPU's not bottlenecking, you don't have to worry about it.
I know for sure Bioshock, one of the upcoming DX10 games will be heavily multithreaded (8 threads :O_o1:). I also believe Crysis is -- no reason to believe it isn't -- but I haven't looked into that so I won't present that as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy
So the Q6600 will definitely be king of the hill, it's got my vote anyways ! *Goes back to drooling over Bioshock and Crysis for a few months more...*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightshadowUK
HuH only 3ghz? My cheapy E4300 is running sweet at 3ghz......I'm not interested in changing unless 4ghz plus is the norm for overclocking.
But then that's 3GHz on 4 cores, plus you've gotta take the extra heat into consideration.
buy quad core.
even if you are running a single dual core application, it allows all your processes and other apps such as winamp or utorrent to run on other threads or cores ;)