Intel C2D E6850 or Q6600; Best performance?

[2Cold Scorpio]

I'm putting a new rig together and am split between two processors:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache

I can get both for the exact same price; I want the one that will offer the best performance. Normally, I'd assume that more cores would be better, but the E6850 has a faster clock speed and FSB...

I'll be using XP Pro SP2 & Vista (32-bit), 2 GBs of 800 MHz RAM, and a nVidia GeForce 8800 GT. I don't plan on doing much (if any) overclocking. I plan on using the machine primarily for gaming (though for a while, it'll primarily being older games like HL2, Fear, and Oblivian rather than Crysis and UT3). And most of my gaming will be done in XP.

Which processor, performance-wise, is the better deal? Especially for older games that may or may not utalize quad-core.

[staffsMike]

Q6600 no question. It's not just games that benefit from it afterall. Mainly they are great for general multitasking, ie gaming while you have video encoding going on etc..

you should search though, it's been done to death recently

[silentvoice]

You'll generally find the E6850 will be slightly faster since few games take advantage of more than 2 cores. This will change though. However, since most games are limited by the graphics card, you'll tend to see that there is not a great deal of difference (most of the time) between the E6550, E6750, E6850 and Q6600. Take a look at some of the articles showing CPU scaling, i.e. here. (They have similar articles for other games too.)

If you will be doing a lot of multi-tasking and encoding as well, then the value of the Q6600 comes into play. You'll need to assess exactly what you want to get out of your computer (and think for the long(er) term as well).

If it really is mainly for gaming, I would personally buy a E6750 for £115 (unless you can get the others really cheaply) and possibly slot in a quad-core penryn processor when you feel you'll make use of it.

It depends on how frequently you wish to upgrade too.

[Rosaline]

Older games will not benefit from the extra cores that quad core provides, you really need to look at UT3 and crysis before it becomes worth it, especially as you are not planning to overclock.

However quad core is more future compatible, and that is a very nice graphics card which really would like newer games.

I suppose the big question is, what is your upgrade plans? If you plan to buy a new CPU again this time next year (perhaps getting a nahelem based one), then go with the E6850. If you are looking for a longer lifespan for your CPU, quad core is essential.

[Lee`]

Here is a toms hardware chart that will let you quickly and simply compare benchmark scores for the 2 CPUs in question;

CPU Charts | Tom's Hardware

I hope this helps.

[masscrazy]

Just played the Crysis demo on my quad, plays fine. GPU is the one you should be looking at. Infact i saw in the benchmarks for the game, that a 2.1 or 2.4 dual core can play the game just aswell.

[s3ds]

Here is a toms hardware chart that will let you quickly and simply compare benchmark scores for the 2 CPUs in question;

CPU Charts | Tom's Hardware

I hope this helps.

very interesting especialy if you count the tests that both chips are present in.

for me the software i use only uses one core so i went for E6850 when the software uses more ill buy a new chip

[2Cold Scorpio]

Thanks for everyone's imputs.

I don't do any video encoding, and about the only audio encoding I do is ripping CDs or converting to one format or another as needed. I tend to use high bit-rates, though, to preserve quality...

The main thing that got me wondering about this wasn't so much processor speeds (the difference isn't *that* vast...and I *could* overclock the quad if I wished, I suppose), but the dual core had a higher FSB along with the higher processor speed, as opposed to the quad having more cores and a higher L2 cache.

On multi-tasking, unless you count having a couple of browser windows (and a few tabs in each, whether it be one window or two), and WMP11 running in the background, I don't do a lot of what you would call multi-tasking. I don't tend to try to do a lot of work during system-intensive tasks (i.e. CD/DVD burning, installations, etc.). So in this respect, other than being future-proofed for the future (especially newer games as they come...I do have my eye on UT3 eventually...), I fear the extra cores may go to waste. Also, how well does Windows XP Pro utalize quad cores?

On the other hand, upgrading the processor myself (though I know it'll need to be done eventually), is the one I'm least comfortable in making (due to the increased likelyhood of breaking something vital). In this case, the quad-core would be ideal, I suppose... Then again, would the increased speeds of the E6850 actually give it greater longetivity? Maybe someone else can answer this for me. Upgrade plans are...I don't want to have to change the processor for a while; either it being when needed in a couple of years, or when I feel more confortable with doing it (I'm relatively green at updating hardware; my new rig is being half built by CyberPower PC, and with the remaining pieces (mainly optical drives and extra RAM) being installed by me).

I'm currently trying some of the tests from Tom's Hardware Lee gave me (thanks!), and seeing what I come up with... Still, more imput from you guys is always welcome. I also want ot thank everyone who has posted here so far. Its greatly appriciated!

[2Cold Scorpio]

It seems like half the test favor the E6850, the other half Q6600. Grrr.... The games tended to favor the E6850, though the framerate difference was rarely more than 10-20, which really isn't noticable. The dual core also performed better on the Photoshop test (by about 30 seconds), but in other tests, such as the Windows Experience Index (CPU score), the Deep Fritz, and various SiSoftware test favored the quad. Bloody heck...

[Rosaline]

Interpreting test results and converting the jargon into real-world meaning is hard, isn't it? :S

I do think now that the decider is that you do not plan to upgrade your CPU again soon, yet would like whatever CPU you get to keep on performing well as new products come out. That clearly means that you should go with the Q6600, which is now showing real promise with games like UT3 performing better in that than on the E6850.

Don't worry too much about the FSB speed changes, the difference for real world usage is not that noticible. More importantly, get yourself a quality heatsink-fan to replace the stock intel one, and then either enjoy a quiet system, or overclock it a little. Clunk's guide is excellent, and focuses on keeping it simple and safe - just what you want

[TooNice]

It's not just games that benefit from it afterall. Mainly they are great for general multitasking, ie gaming while you have video encoding going on etc..

You know, if I was to build a PC today, that is what I would be tempted to think.

But the fact is that I do not do video encoding when I play games, I doubt I really need 2 extra cores to run a small number of office applications, my dual core setup on an obsolete platform (939) run fine. In fact, I sometime have to disable one of the core because some older games do not like having multiple cores and I do not even feel a genuine loss in gaming performance - so much so that I forget to re-enable the core until a few days later.

And the benefits of quad-core in games like Crysis and Unreal Engine 3 pretty much disappears in the higher (and I do not mean stupidly high) resolutions. And that's assuming even clock speed. At stock clock, the E6850 is probably going to be faster than the Q6600 (but again, only in resolution people probably do not use these days). Basically, Quad-core is 'sexier' to the ears, I suspect it has the potential to surpass the E6850 eventually.. but by the time the applications are optimised to benefit from that many cores (I give it another 1.5 to 2 years), the platform may well be obsolete already. Of course, by the time Quad is that well established we'll probably be debating Quad v. Hex v. Oct

[staffsMike]

You make the choice due to your own needs. I use those examples as I often want to play a game while the pc is encoding video and have to wait...

If i was going to get a dual core I think i'd get the E6750 rather than the E6850

[2Cold Scorpio]

You make the choice due to your own needs. I use those examples as I often want to play a game while the pc is encoding video and have to wait...

If i was going to get a dual core I think i'd get the E6750 rather than the E6850

To the first part, I understand completely. Thats what I'm trying ot figure out; which fits best.

To the second: Really? Why would you go with the E6750 over the E6850? Just curious.

To TooNice about resolutions: Well, I'll be using a Samsung 226BW (lucked out and got an S model ), which has a suggested resolution of 1680x1050; I don't think it can actually go any higher (to my knowledge), so insanely high resolutions is not a consideration for me - 1680x1050 (if not lower at times, if it looks good enough) is what I'll be playing my games at. And the 8800GT vid card seems to do quite well in that range, so it'll help take some burden off of the processor (especially later when I add i na physics card, if they prove worthwhile...).

Don't worry too much about the FSB speed changes, the difference for real world usage is not that noticible. More importantly, get yourself a quality heatsink-fan to replace the stock intel one, and then either enjoy a quiet system, or overclock it a little. Clunk's guide is excellent, and focuses on keeping it simple and safe - just what you want

I actually have considered overclocking if I got the quad-core. My 750w PSU oughta have juice to spare, and the Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro 92mm cooling fan I'm putting in *should* keep the processor plenty cool (also given I intend to fill every case fan slot possible...especially now that I hear the 8800GT cards run pretty hot). Not massive overclocking, mind you, just enough to get a performance increase and not risk frying my nice new shiny chip. Clunk's guide (which I've read) won't be to helpful, I fear; I'll be using an EVGA 122-CK-NF68-A1 nForce 680i SLI mobo (I already asked about it in that thread actually, a few weeks back). I was given a link to a PDF file about overclocking 680i boards, but it isn't a lot to go on for a first-timer. lol Well, I'll cross that brigde if I come to it; first priority is just to get the new rig built and working.

[staffsMike]

Because the E6750 will overclock to 3.5GHz without any problems.. and I can't imagine needing that much more to be honest.

If it were me and I had £165 to spend, it wouldn't be on a dual core.

[2Cold Scorpio]

Because the E6750 will overclock to 3.5GHz without any problems.. and I can't imagine needing that much more to be honest.

If it were me and I had £165 to spend, it wouldn't be on a dual core.

I have heard the slower-speed Duos overclock quite a bit. And I couldn't imagine needing more than 3.5 Ghz either. You likely wouldn't notice the increase much, and things would start getting way to warm, I would think.

At this point, I am starting to lean towards the quad-core, just for future-proofing sake if nothing else I'm not so much a serious gamer that I need every frame I can get...as long as I can make it look good and squeak out 30-60 FPS, I'm happy. Heck, I was playing KotOR on a P3-M chip with a GeForce 2 GO 32MB card...which didn't even meet the games minimal specs. Game worked well enough with detail levels at the bare bones. lol Its stuttered some, but it ran better than one would think...

Speaking of overclocking, though, what kinds of (safe) numbers can one expect with the Q6600? If that thing could be bumped up to 2.66ish or even 3.0 GHz safely, that'd be pretty awesome.

[kungpo]

You'll get at least 3.2 out of it, with decent air cooling. Some have reported higher, but 3.2 is probably more than enough.