Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 39

Thread: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

  1. #17
    Cov
    Cov is offline
    Covenant Cov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    On the other side
    Posts
    563
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    19 times in 14 posts
    • Cov's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Intel DH77DF
      • CPU:
      • i5 3570k
      • Memory:
      • G.Skill 16 GB
      • Storage:
      • Intel X25-M Postville & WD20EARX
      • Graphics card(s):
      • HD4000 & GF8800
      • PSU:
      • Be Quiet! 480
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG IPS 236V
      • Internet:
      • o2 (6MB Broadband)

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    @ TooNice

    ... but we are not going to see SSD measured in TB in the next two years ...
    Yeah alright, let's give it 2 to 3 years for SSD to replace our HDs instead.

    A 64GB Mtron costs from £850-£1000 ...
    Overclockers.co.uk offer the 32GB Scandisk / 2.5" SATA for £ 311.36
    and the Samsung 64GB / 2.5" SATA for £ 587.49 ... yeah, still phantasie prices.

    And yes, the GFX card has priority over the CPU.
    Your comparison of the Q6600 and the E8400 confirms what I said ... the choice doesn't make such a big difference anymore.

    ... one could say that the 65nm process is more mature/stable ...
    The 65nm process might be more mature than the 45nm one ? Hmmm, that's a brave statement. We could have said that at many changes of CPU generations:

    Pentium 4 (Willamette) / release end of 2000 / from 1.4 GHz / 180 nm !! / socket 423 + 478 / 256KB Cache
    Pentium 4 (Northwood) / released beginning of 2002 / from 1.6 GHz / 512 KB Cache
    Pentium 4 (Prescott) / released 1st Feb 2004 / 90 nm !! / LGA 775

    @ Wombar

    See, that is what makes me confused and I wished I were rich so I could do extensive testings by myself, because some publications of test results do contradict each other a little. Some report: Quadcore is faster over Dualcore in PC gaming. The question of utilizing more than one core is apparently not that easy to answer. Still mysterious to me. That speaks for Quad Core.

    Then again I heard many times that Software Developers have a hard time to program for multicore. It's not straight forward ! That'd speak for Dual Core.

    @ peterb

    However technology does move on and the number of RW cycles will improve, so I'm sure we will see large flash drives at some point - but not in the next couple of years. (Makes mental note to bookmark this post so I can look at it in two years time and see how wrong I was )
    That made me laugh, hehe.

    and @ kalniel

    But if it's reducing the lifespan from 15 years to 10 years say it's hardly going to matter to overclockers who change their components every 2-3 years.
    Thanks for reminding us ... yeah, this opinion is valid universal for Computer components in general, very true.
    Think back in time now ... how many of the items you had bought in the past do you still use ?
    I really do re-new my complete PC in less than 4 years to keep pace ... or does anyone still use a 80486 or a Pentium II ??? ... Hahahahaha !!
    Last edited by Cov; 23-01-2008 at 01:54 PM.

  2. #18
    Senior Member GSte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    1,538
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked
    76 times in 64 posts
    • GSte's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P6T Deluxe
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @ 4.2GHz / TRUE
      • Memory:
      • 6GB GSkill 1600MHz cas6
      • Storage:
      • 250GB Barracuda, 2 x WD 500GB AAKS, 1TB Caviar Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX470
      • PSU:
      • NorthQ Black Magic Flex 850W
      • Case:
      • X-Clio Windtunnel
      • Operating System:
      • XP Home, Vista Home Premium X64, Win7 Home X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 245B
      • Internet:
      • Be Not So Happy

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice View Post
    It is very rare for me to be this assertive with future predictions, but I have to go ahead and say 'not a chance'. They may become big, cheap and consistently fast enough to replace the Raptor for storage enthusiasts, but we are not going to see SSD measured in TB in the next two years notwithstanding RAID-ing multiple very expensive drives. A 64GB Mtron costs from £850-£1000, even assuming that capacity doubles each year while price halves, we are still looking at almost £1 per GB in 2 years.
    You can get a 32GB at the minute for £111:

    32Gb Transcend SSD Solid State Disk; external memory for laptops and desktop computers

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    10 times in 10 posts
    • EarlGrey's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z77-Extreme6
      • CPU:
      • 3570K @ 4.2GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 256GB SSD + 2TB + 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX 980 Ti
      • PSU:
      • 600 OCZ Stealthstream
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC7-S
      • Operating System:
      • Win7
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ 120Hz 3D Vision
      • Internet:
      • Infinity

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    E8400 will be faster in benchmarks, but both will be more than fast enough
    As time goes by you would get more benefit from the quad core however...

    How long do you want the PC to last? In 2008 the E8400 will give you faster framerates - in any software/game that only really takes advantage of one or two cores - which is most of them. Already some games use 4 cores well (Supreme Commander springs to mind) and future games are more than likely to use more cores. There will come a point when in most applications/games the 4 slower cores of your Q6600 will outperform the 2 faster cores of the E8400.

    If you reckon that this will be the case in the 2009, and you want to still be using your PC in 2009, then go quad

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,457
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    @Cov & GSte: Yes you can much cheaper SSD today. I can only imagine that the one used in the EEE PC didn't cost very much. The reason I picked the MTron though, is that it may well be the one that decisively faster than a Raptor in raw measurements. Every single SSD (AFAIK) will beat traditional HD when it comes to access speed, but just as transfer speed is not a definite a definite sign of a drive's superiority in all application performance, access time is not either. I am pretty sure the 64GB MTron is the only one that currently beat the Raptor in all raw measurement, and came very close to (but not quite) beat the Raptor in all applications tested in a review I read (Anandtech? - Not sure anymore).

    For reference, the MTron has a sustained transfer rate about twice that of the still expensive Samsung. The Transcend is a cheap way to have a drive with low access time, but with sustained transfer rate of 25-30MB, is not exactly a well-rounder (it will do some things better than a Raptor, but there will be applications where a decent 7200 will be faster).

    Anyway, sorry for the OT-ness. Back on topic I agree it is worth evaluating how often you upgrade. In my opinion, it'll be another 18 months before quad-core will be faster than dual core in most games. But lets say 12 months. If you upgrade every 18 months, then you'll have 12 months with a chip that is faster in games and 6 months that is slower in games versus another that is 12 months that is slower in games and 6 months faster. Yes, in practice, it probably doesn't make that much difference, but you are still paying more for those 6 months advantage. Now if you keep your CPU for 3 years on the other hand, it's a different story (assuming it takes 12 months for quad to be widely optimised).
    Last edited by TooNice; 23-01-2008 at 03:53 PM.

  5. #21
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    83
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Winkle's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5KC
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballistix 8500
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 500Gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 8800GTS
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Infiniti 650W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Monitor(s):
      • 17" LCD

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by 306maxi View Post
    Not really true. Plenty of games benefit from more clockspeed. My PC is still limited by the CPU when I'm playing Team Fortress 2 with an E8400. I was considering getting a quad core but I would have been worse off for gaming (with current games) with the quad.
    I struggle to believe that a game based on an engine that's over 2 years old is limited by an E8400 cpu. Unitl recently i was happily running Team Fortess 2 on a Pentium 4.

  6. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    • 306maxi's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • E8400
      • Memory:
      • 4gb Corsair Dominator 8500
      • Storage:
      • 36gb raptor
      • Graphics card(s):
      • HD4870 512
      • PSU:
      • Antec NeoHE 550W
      • Case:
      • P180
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SM2433BW

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by Winkle View Post
    I struggle to believe that a game based on an engine that's over 2 years old is limited by an E8400 cpu. Unitl recently i was happily running Team Fortess 2 on a Pentium 4.
    Not really. Firstly it's a new version of the source engine which is new to TF2 and Ep2 and secondly as I said the 1st core is maxxed out 99% of the time while playing TF2 Hence it's CPU limited. It's not limiting my experience so to speak and I still get good constant FPS but I was just making a point I simply don't think that a Q6600 is going to give you better results in a game over an e8400.

  7. #23
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,083
    Thanks
    1,494
    Thanked
    2,918 times in 2,365 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by Winkle View Post
    I struggle to believe that a game based on an engine that's over 2 years old is limited by an E8400 cpu. Unitl recently i was happily running Team Fortess 2 on a Pentium 4.
    How about we put it another way? Like most older games, it's not limited by GPU, ergo it is limited by CPU (most likely).

    Quote Originally Posted by 306maxi
    secondly as I said the 1st core is maxxed out 99% of the time while playing TF2
    Although, that's not actually a sign of CPU limiting - any process should be at 100% load when it's the sole thing running.

  8. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    • 306maxi's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • E8400
      • Memory:
      • 4gb Corsair Dominator 8500
      • Storage:
      • 36gb raptor
      • Graphics card(s):
      • HD4870 512
      • PSU:
      • Antec NeoHE 550W
      • Case:
      • P180
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SM2433BW

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Although, that's not actually a sign of CPU limiting - any process should be at 100% load when it's the sole thing running.
    Not really. Should word use 100% of the 1st core if it's the only thing running?

    Just went into Day of Defeat Source and it was nowhere near loading up the core to 100% You draw your own conclusions from that

  9. #25
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,083
    Thanks
    1,494
    Thanked
    2,918 times in 2,365 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by 306maxi View Post
    Not really. Should word use 100% of the 1st core if it's the only thing running?
    Only if it's single threaded. If anything can multi-thread in parallel then you'll get usage over other cores too.

    Just went into Day of Defeat Source and it was nowhere near loading up the core to 100% You draw your own conclusions from that
    They optimised TF2 to use both cores better than DoD?

  10. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,094
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    77 times in 75 posts
    • LuckyNV's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI GD65
      • CPU:
      • i5 750 w/ Thermalright Ultra120X
      • Memory:
      • 2x2GB DDR3-1600 Cas7
      • Storage:
      • 640GB.AAKS, 2xSamsung F1 1TB, 2xSamsung 64GB SLC SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire HD6870 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF-932
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG W2286L
      • Internet:
      • Be* Unlimited@21Mbps w/ Draytek 2710n

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    TF2 uses the newer EP2 Source engine that supports multicore BUT Valve has disabled it for TF2 due to bugs.

    Valve expect to release multicore support for server clients first, then TF2 will support it, CSS will also be bumped up to use the EP2 engine.

  11. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    • 306maxi's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • E8400
      • Memory:
      • 4gb Corsair Dominator 8500
      • Storage:
      • 36gb raptor
      • Graphics card(s):
      • HD4870 512
      • PSU:
      • Antec NeoHE 550W
      • Case:
      • P180
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SM2433BW

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Only if it's single threaded. If anything can multi-thread in parallel then you'll get usage over other cores too.



    They optimised TF2 to use both cores better than DoD?
    Perhaps I should take some shots of my G15 LCD.

    DoD:S uses less of the core it's running on.

    TF2's Dual Core support hasn't been disabled but it is ****. They've only offloaded particle effects onto the 2nd core. But I have heard rumours that TF2 will get proper Dual core support on client side soonish

  12. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,457
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    I disagree that the CPU usage in games is always an indication of CPU limitation. The reason being, a game may be simply be requesting for additional cycles to improve performance further whether it brings user benefit or not. Let assume that you are playing something that is in no way GFX card limited. Your frame rate will keep increasing with additional CPU power. Unless the game limit itself, e.g. at 60fps, and stops requesting more CPU cycle after that, there is nothing stopping it to request all available CPU resource (whether it is 500Mhz or 5Ghz) to run the game at 1000 fps.

    This is a different from, say, h.264 software decoding where the software will not seek to decode as quickly as possible but only as quickly as necessary. In this case, a CPU which is twice as fast would only require 1/2 the cycles to get the job done.

    Funnily enough, I've tried some games designed for the 386 on a PII a long time back. Unlike modern games where 600fps will not make a game 10x faster than 60fps, some of the earlier games did not lock the speed of the gameplay. Those games will still use most of the available PII power to make the game run so fast it was unplayable without an application like SlowMo.

  13. #29
    Senior Member GSte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    1,538
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked
    76 times in 64 posts
    • GSte's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P6T Deluxe
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @ 4.2GHz / TRUE
      • Memory:
      • 6GB GSkill 1600MHz cas6
      • Storage:
      • 250GB Barracuda, 2 x WD 500GB AAKS, 1TB Caviar Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX470
      • PSU:
      • NorthQ Black Magic Flex 850W
      • Case:
      • X-Clio Windtunnel
      • Operating System:
      • XP Home, Vista Home Premium X64, Win7 Home X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 245B
      • Internet:
      • Be Not So Happy

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    I don't personally think that holds true though (second time I've contradicted you in this thread), when playing Oblivion for instance, my CPU usage is never 100% even though the game using more CPU power would theoretically improve performance (because the graphics card can't handle the game completely). Isn't the CPU just used for certain tasks, that when fulfilled are fulfilled, and that's that?

  14. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,457
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    I reckon that in most games, there can be two instances where the CPU run at 100%: one is when the game request all the CPU cycles available to guarantee a fluid gameplay, and when there is a 'real' bottleneck i.e. the game needs 2Ghz but only has access to 1.5Ghz - in that case, I'd expect the game to slow down and the CPU to run at 100%. That's why I said 'not always'.

    Consider a benchmark application like 3DMarks. Yes I realise that it is not a game, but it should illustrate my point. I am quite sure that an old version of 3DMarks (e.g. 2001) will still use ~100% of a single core CPU or the 1st core of any CPU during it's CPU test. It won't just go "Ah, one core of the Q6600 is so much faster than a P2, hence I will just use a fraction of it's power to this test". I suspect that programmers can require more, or less CPU cycle to be used at their discretion (subject to thread priority). I can also imagine that some games will have sections where the CPU is allowed to 'idle' more. It would not surprise me if the CPU close to 0% during the player's turn in a standard chess game.

    I won't bluntly say that CPU usage is no indication, but I just don't think it is a reliable indication. Oblivion's performance has it's oddities and I sometime wonder how well optimised to make use of system resource. The classic methodology for testing CPU limitation is to run games at such low resolution/details that the GFX card is not likely to be a bottleneck. Under those circumstances we can usually observe increasing fps with a faster CPU (until it is the GFX limiting once again).

  15. #31
    Senior Member GSte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    1,538
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked
    76 times in 64 posts
    • GSte's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P6T Deluxe
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @ 4.2GHz / TRUE
      • Memory:
      • 6GB GSkill 1600MHz cas6
      • Storage:
      • 250GB Barracuda, 2 x WD 500GB AAKS, 1TB Caviar Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX470
      • PSU:
      • NorthQ Black Magic Flex 850W
      • Case:
      • X-Clio Windtunnel
      • Operating System:
      • XP Home, Vista Home Premium X64, Win7 Home X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 245B
      • Internet:
      • Be Not So Happy

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice View Post
    The classic methodology for testing CPU limitation is to run games at such low resolution/details that the GFX card is not likely to be a bottleneck. Under those circumstances we can usually observe increasing fps with a faster CPU (until it is the GFX limiting once again).
    Interesting, I might have a play about and see what I come up with.

  16. #32
    Senior Amoeba iranu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    On the dinner table. Blechh!
    Posts
    3,532
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked
    156 times in 106 posts
    • iranu's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus Gene VI
      • CPU:
      • 4670K @4.3Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8Gb Samsung Green
      • Storage:
      • 1x 256Gb Samsung 830 SSD 2x640gb HGST raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R9 390
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620W Modular
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Silencio 352
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 ultimate 64 bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 23" DELL Ultrasharp U2312HM
      • Internet:
      • 16mb broadband

    Re: Q6600 vs E8400 for gaming

    I'd like a complete list of games, past, current and future and the number of cores they use/likely to use.

    I found this yesterday and multi-cores don't seem to be producing a huge increase in FPS but that's probably because of the games chosen. Dual-Core Processors in 3D Games

    In my experience the graphics card makes more difference - I'm still running an opty 146 @ 3ghz and I've run COD4 etc without any problems at all.
    "Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Q6600 overclocking on the 680i, How to. (56k killer!!!!!!)
    By daza in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 13-03-2009, 05:01 AM
  2. Q6600 with P5B Deluxe
    By Muhammad Usman in forum Help! Quick Relief From Tech Headaches
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-10-2007, 10:36 PM
  3. Q6600 System Advice, Opinions etc
    By alexkoon in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 09:12 PM
  4. 3.0 ghz OC on a Q6600 [G0] - What air cooling ?
    By godsdog in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 21-07-2007, 07:25 PM
  5. E6850 or Q6600?
    By vegettoxp in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 20-07-2007, 12:12 PM

Posting Permissions

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