Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

  1. #1
    No-one's Fanboi Thorsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Neverneverland
    Posts
    2,749
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked
    93 times in 92 posts
    • Thorsson's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-V PRO
      • CPU:
      • i5 3570k
      • Memory:
      • 2x8Gb Corsair Vengeance PC1866
      • Storage:
      • 256M4 SSD; 2Tb 7200RPM Barracuda; 2Tb Linkstation
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX970 SC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX650
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Win10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2515H
      • Internet:
      • Fibre Optic 30Mb

    Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    Interesting review on Xbitlabs: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q6600.html

    Their conclusion is that if you OC then Quad wins all the way.

  2. #2
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    1,014
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    It depends on what you do, if an app only loads 1 or 2 threads, then the other 2 cores sit idle, so obviously a higher clock is preferable to 2 more cores. I'm bored of these short sighted reviews tbh, they never show a complete picture of what's going on. Generally speaking a Q6600 is the better buy, they're cheap, fast even for stupid apps, and the amount of applications that are becoming 'n' core aware are on the rise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Warminster, Wilts
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked
    23 times in 18 posts
    • Nemz0r's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • i7 3570k @ 4.5 GHz (+0.2V) w/ ThermalRight Ultima-90i (modified to fit S1155 with a hammer...)
      • Memory:
      • 16 GiB (4x 4GiB) Samsung PC3-10700 (1333) @ PC3-16000 (2000) 9-14-14-36 1.55v
      • Storage:
      • 1x 500 GB Crucial MX200; 1x 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11; 1x 500 GB Samsung Spinpoint T166
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon R9 290 4GiB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860 80Plus Platinum
      • Case:
      • Antec P180B
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • 27" Dell P2715Q
      • Internet:
      • ICUK ADSL2+ ~4 Mbps (sadface)

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    It depends on what you do, if an app only loads 1 or 2 threads, then the other 2 cores sit idle, so obviously a higher clock is preferable to 2 more cores. I'm bored of these short sighted reviews tbh, they never show a complete picture of what's going on. Generally speaking a Q6600 is the better buy, they're cheap, fast even for stupid apps, and the amount of applications that are becoming 'n' core aware are on the rise.
    Did you read the article ? It showed that Q6600 @ 3.6GHz > E6850 @ 3.85GHz in single threaded application.

    edit: and wow @ Lost Planet using 4 cores .
    Q6600 2.40GHz 81FPS
    E6850 3.00GHz 62FPS
    Q6600 3.60GHz 118FPS
    E6850 3.85GHz 80FPS.
    Last edited by Nemz0r; 01-09-2007 at 03:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    1,014
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    I did read the article, and synthetic benchmarks prove nothing, it's physically impossible for a slower clocked chip to beat a faster clock chip in singled threaded performance even if the slower chip had 36 cores in it, nor did I see any *true* uni-threaded applications there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Warminster, Wilts
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked
    23 times in 18 posts
    • Nemz0r's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • i7 3570k @ 4.5 GHz (+0.2V) w/ ThermalRight Ultima-90i (modified to fit S1155 with a hammer...)
      • Memory:
      • 16 GiB (4x 4GiB) Samsung PC3-10700 (1333) @ PC3-16000 (2000) 9-14-14-36 1.55v
      • Storage:
      • 1x 500 GB Crucial MX200; 1x 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11; 1x 500 GB Samsung Spinpoint T166
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon R9 290 4GiB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860 80Plus Platinum
      • Case:
      • Antec P180B
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • 27" Dell P2715Q
      • Internet:
      • ICUK ADSL2+ ~4 Mbps (sadface)

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    I did read the article, and synthetic benchmarks prove nothing, it's physically impossible for a slower clocked chip to beat a faster clock chip in singled threaded performance even if the slower chip had 36 cores in it, nor did I see any *true* uni-threaded applications there.
    I meant the gaming benchmarks.

    "F.E.A.R. is actually a single-thread game. Nevertheless, the overclocked to 3.6GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 is considerably faster than the dual-core Core 2 Duo E6850 working at 3.85GHz. This time the graphics driver optimizations played a crucial role."
    -Copyright (c) 1999-2007 X-bit labs

    For the Quad it's 23.4MHz per frame. The Duo 26.2MHz. So the quad at 3436MHz, would, theoretically have same performance in a single threaded game as the E6850 at 3.85GHz. I think this would be even more profound on the 2900XT, as it's CPU overhead for making stellar use of it's superscalar architecture is larger than that of the 8800 series.
    Last edited by Nemz0r; 01-09-2007 at 03:39 PM.

  6. #6
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    1,014
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    That is a lie, F.E.A.R. may not be a multi-core optimised game, but it's by no means a single thread program. A thread may only exist in 1 core at a time, if F.E.A.R. ran everything in only 1 thread it would only utilise 1 core, and thus CPU frequency would be the determining factor, not core count. It's been a *long* time since I've seen a game that runs purely in a single thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Warminster, Wilts
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked
    23 times in 18 posts
    • Nemz0r's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • i7 3570k @ 4.5 GHz (+0.2V) w/ ThermalRight Ultima-90i (modified to fit S1155 with a hammer...)
      • Memory:
      • 16 GiB (4x 4GiB) Samsung PC3-10700 (1333) @ PC3-16000 (2000) 9-14-14-36 1.55v
      • Storage:
      • 1x 500 GB Crucial MX200; 1x 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11; 1x 500 GB Samsung Spinpoint T166
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon R9 290 4GiB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX860 80Plus Platinum
      • Case:
      • Antec P180B
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • 27" Dell P2715Q
      • Internet:
      • ICUK ADSL2+ ~4 Mbps (sadface)

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    But you have to remember that even if an application is only using one thread, your graphics card driver is making use of other cores (albeit only a little bit), dependant of what game you're running.

    edit: Anyway, whatever the truth, lets not argue: as to your first post we on the most part agree, the Q6600 is a better buy .
    Last edited by Nemz0r; 01-09-2007 at 03:47 PM.

  8. #8
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    1,014
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6850

    Bloated/buggy drivers using other cores perhaps, drivers should never eat large enough chunks of CPU time to warrant multi-core setups.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PSU Calculator
    By Hullz-Modz in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 07:07 PM
  2. Replies: 484
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 08:17 PM
  3. Quad Core Processors - Generic Plus AMD specific
    By ikonia in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 22-07-2007, 02:21 PM
  4. Intel Core 2 Duo Quad Extreme QX6700 What Motherboard Supported???
    By malice19 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 11:24 PM
  5. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 - £328.93
    By Azza in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 02:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •