Printable View
I apologise in advance if this question has been asked 1000x times, but i'm a new user who intends to upgrade his PC in the next few days and i've been getting differing opinions on which way I should go.
My girlfriend and I mostly use the PC for gaming, mainly World of Warcraft, Sims and soon Spore. I know WoW only uses 2 cores of any processor right now. Can anyone advise on which option would be best? (We won't be considering overclocking)
Q6600, will easily run alost anything that only support 2 cores, plus you have another 2 for other tasks or other games that DO use 4 cores. I'd consider overclocking it though, for the sake for 2 mins of your time in the BIOS to change a couple of settings (literally) you can be running at an easy 3-3.2Ghz.
Hope that helps. Enjoy :)
Steve
If it's just for gaming the E8400 is fine. Q6600's won't improve games right now or in the very near future but they will eventually mature into the chip of choice.
Gaming isn't really bottle necked by the CPU above 2.2Ghz on a dual core, it's mainly down to the graphics card anyway. With that in mind you may wish to opt for the cheaper E7200 (2.5GHz). If you do change your mind on overclocking this chip will easily hit 3.5GHz.
Quad core will allow you to run cpu intensive tasks in the background of games but if you don't need that sort of functionality then stick with dual but you might as well go with the cheaper dual imo.
If it really is between just the E8400 and Q6600 I'd go with the Q6600 given it won't bottleneck your games anyway and has that element of future proofed power.
The Q6600 has a bottleneck in the 266Mhz FSB especially as it's a quad core. The 333Mhz FSB of the E8400 (along with its higher clock) will outpace the Q6600 easily in pretty much everything apart from video encoding. Be aware though that the Q6600 will hit 333Mhz FSB and a 3Ghz clock with just 2 mins in the BIOS (as mentioned above). This would largely negate the advantages of the E8400 but it would suck a lot more power.
On the basis that you won't be overclocking, the E8400 is by far the better buy on stock speeds. If you do intend to overclock a little bit, then the Q6600 is better as it can reach the same speeds while offering 2 more cores.
The E8400 is faster than the Q6600 in most real world situations.
If you exclusively run programs like 3d Studio Max or if you're running a server operating system then the quad core is a little bit faster, but hardly anything takes advantage of all four cores nor is likely to in the lifetime of an enthusiasts cpu.
2 cores running at 3Ghz is faster than 2 cores running at 2.4Ghz. End of story. Look at the CPU charts at Tom's Hardware. The Q6600 is a bit ahead in rendering, but not by a lot, and the E8400 absolutely wipes the floor with the quad core in games and most other applications. The Winrar test for example. E8400: 145 seconds Q6600: 171 seconds
I'm ordering my upgrade on Monday and I considered the Q6600 until I looked at the performance differnnce. I'm getting the E8500 which is almost identical in price to the Q6600 but is faster in the Quake 4 benchmark in the chart than the Q9650 which currently retails at over 600 quid.
As games is mostly where I notice performance (or lack of it) it makes sense to me to buy the chip which is best for games.
The dual core is also good for overclocking. I've heard of E8400s hitting 4Ghz without too much trouble
if you dont fancy overclocking at all (tho you should :p) then the e8400 is the one to go for
if you upto overclocking then go for the q6600 as it will overclock 3.0ghz+ and will be future proof for many years to come :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaoman
You make it sound like the Q6600 gets slaughtered by the E8400.
Clock for clock, price per pound.
The Q6600 wins out.
(i vowed not to post here again but i couldnt help it :p)
Not overclocking = E8400
Overclocking = Q6600
How so? For a start the Q6600 is £10 more expensive than the E8400 and if you look at any of the real world benchmarks apart from 3d rendering the dual core is faster. In the Photoshop benchmark the dual core is 22 seconds faster. There will presumeably come a time when all the applications we use four cores but they don't yet. A dual core running at 3Ghz (and capable of being overclocked to about 4) is going to be faster than half a quad core running at 2.4 (and clockable to about 3.6 I understand)
Having thought about it, I think the e8400 would be a much better choice.
Core speed: e8400 is 3ghz vs e6600 2.4ghz (e8400 better)
Bus speed: e8400 1333Mhz vs q6600 1066Mhz (e8400 better)
Cache: e8400 3mb per core vs q6600 2mb per core (I think e8400 is better)
Manufacturing process: e8400 65w vs q6600 95W (e8400 better)
Approximate OC: e8400 ~4ghz vs q6600 ~3.6ghz (e8400 better)
Price: Similar
:)
It's not really as simple as that though is it.
Look at the figures for real word apps. Very little difference but if all 4 cores can be used the e8400 is left for dead.
Still I think a cheaper dual would suit this situation.
Sorry to jump in on this thread but I've spent hours choosing between these two processors and was told by my local shop to go for the Quad as I mostly use my PC for music and video editing.
Anyway I've just purchased the Q6600, hope I made the right choice.
True, but it seems the OP wants the best gaming cpu without any overclocking, but to be honest both CPUs will handle any game/app very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by staffsMike
So a dual core 2 is better than a quad for gaming taken into account the price/speed
Is the E8500 a good overclocker? thanks
But that's the point. IF all 4 cores can be used you're perfectly correct. But hardly any applications and no games that I'm aware of utilise 4 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by staffsMike
A higher clock speed (and higher L2 cache) will be much better for gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by shrek101
If your budget can stretch to the e8600 then they are supposedly very good O'clockers. They seem to go to 5ghz.