Core 2 Duo E6850 VS Quad Q6600 In a AMING PC....Which one should I use?

[Prober]

Hi, I am a 14 year old aussie gamer.
I'm building a new rig and need your recommendation on which processor I should use.

The components I will be running with the processor are as follows:

Motherboard: Asus P5K SE
RAM: 3GB DDR2 AD PC5300
HDD: Segate 320GB Internal IDE
Video card: Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512mb
Optical Drive: Aopen IDE OEM DSW 2012PA

I would like to know which Processor out of a "Core 2 Duo E6850 or a Quad Core Q6600"
would be better for a gaming PC?

 

[LOUISSSSS]

delete

 

[Prober]

Oh and by the way I would Prefer not do do any over clocking.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

u should use the search on which is better quad or dual =)

 

[chinaman1472]

E8400 > Q6600 > E6850 for gaming.

 

[Prober]

Ok so we have established that the E6850 is better for gaming....What If i wer to over clock the E6850 to 4.0GHz and the Q6600 to 3.2Ghz which one would be the better gamer then?

 

[myocardia]

E6850's don't clock to 4 Ghz. Almost everyone who bought one topped out between 3.7 & 3.8 Ghz. Xbitlab's ES E6850 did 3.85 Ghz, though, and they compared it to a 3.2 Ghz Q6600, luckily for you: link to the article. BTW, welcome to anandtech.

 

[Prober]

thanks

 

[LOUISSSSS]

where did u figure that the e6850 was better for "gaming" and what games?

 

[Prober]

have a look at the link that "Myocardia" posted. the link that says "link to the article"

The E6850 is best for Gaming (Although the Q6600 is better for Apps) if you are not going to over clock,
But if you are going to over clock them then the Q6600 is a clear winner.

 

[Prober]

the thing is i don't really plan to over clock, I may in the future but not yet

 

[LOUISSSSS]

why are you even considering an e6850?

 

[Borealis7]

dont even look at the E6850, there is a newer version of a 3GHz dual called the E8400 which is 45nm instead of 65nm and more cache.
also dont bother with the E8500, not worth the extra for only 160MHz.

in my opinion, the E8400 will do better than a Q6600 in current games.

 

[hennethannun]

E8400 is the way to go for a gaming pc. It's cheaper AND better than the E6850. If you can find one that is definitely the way to go.

As for E6850 at 4ghz v Q6600 @3.2ghz. It's sort of a moot point. the E6850 is faster at stock anyway, and there are VERY few games that actually take advantage of all 4 cores anyway, so the E6850 will still be faster.

Also, most E6850s have trouble hitting 4ghz on air. Most E8400s can do it, but that brings us back to my first point...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
in my opinion, the E8400 will do better than a Q6600 in current games.

How do people get into the habit of this? Your opinion doesn't mean anything to how these parts actually perform. Your opinion really only matters when it comes to pricing or potentially how you'd use the processor (but that has already been expressed with the focus placed on gaming with a preference not to overclock).

Nobody's opinion will change the fact that the E8400 is going to be better than the Q6600 in most games in CPU limited situations save a few niche scenarios such as FSX that can actually push more than two cores.

Opinion would really only come into play if the E8400 was more expensive than the Q6600, however it isn't.


Gaming + no overclocking...

performance
E8400 > E6850 > Q6600

price (where less is greater)
E8400 > E6850 > Q6600


although if we consider overclocking...
E8400 > E6850 >= Q6600 (while the Q6600 G0 should be able to largely keep up with the E6850, you'll most likely be restricted by cooling unless you pay even more money to take that variable out of the equation)


However when we also consider how most games are going to be largely GPU limited even at the Q6600's stock speed (consider this thread, where we see an E6600 - of which the Q6600 is essentially two slapped together - vs. an E6850) THEN we can start considering opinion because if the differences in CPU is ultimately negligible because we're going to be GPU bottlenecked, then we have to really start considering things such as pricing or how long we want to go without upgrading.

So I really think it comes down to this: Right now the E8400 seems like the clearly better choice if only because of its lowest price. However, by the time we start encountering situations where we're not as GPU limited, those games that are pushing the CPU all the more very well may favor the Q6600's two extra core's far more than the E8400's higher clock speed (take FSX as an example).


Now my normal advice might be to try and nab the E8400 for now and upgrade to quadcore later, but because the OP is young this might not be very convenient to him. Thus grabbing a Q6600 might be a better path to take for a longer run approach - especially if he considers overclocking, at least at some point in the future so he doesn't have to front the cost of aftermarket cooling right off the bat.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
why are you even considering an e6850?

yup

 

[Arkaign]

Wait 30 days, get a 9450, spend 10 minutes figuring out how to overclock, run it at ~3.2ghz with ease, enjoy for years. That's it.

 

[Denithor]

Bunnyfubbles +1

e8400 FTW

 

[LOUISSSSS]

people should also consider that getting either the Q6600 or E8400 WON'T MAKE OR BREAK ANY GAME. if a game isn't playable with your video card IT WON'T BE PLAYABLE BECAUSE U HAVE A FASTER DUAL CORE (e8400) over the (q6600) HENCE, i recommend getting the Q6600 because u will still be able to play THE SAME GAMES that you'd be able to play with the given video card. + u get 2 more cores for other tasks, such as running multiple spyware/virus scans + gaming + folding @ home AT THE SAME TIME with no slowdown, where there might be a slowdown with a dual core, + faster video encoding with a quad core + newer games such as crysis (and probably more upcoming games) will utilize 4 cores.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
people should also consider that getting either the Q6600 or E8400 WON'T MAKE OR BREAK ANY GAME. if a game isn't playable with your video card IT WON'T BE PLAYABLE BECAUSE U HAVE A FASTER DUAL CORE (e8400) over the (q6600) HENCE, i recommend getting the Q6600 because u will still be able to play THE SAME GAMES that you'd be able to play with the given video card. + u get 2 more cores for other tasks, such as running multiple spyware/virus scans + gaming + folding @ home AT THE SAME TIME with no slowdown, where there might be a slowdown with a dual core, + faster video encoding with a quad core + newer games such as crysis (and probably more upcoming games) will utilize 4 cores.

Agreed. I'm using a E2180 @ 3.2ghz and have no problem playing Crysis, COD4, etc.

 

[hennethannun]

It's true that most games are WAY more GPU restricted that CPU restricted. but that in and off itself would be an argument to get the cheapest processor (the E8400) allowing the marginal savings to be spent on a better GPU.

As for bunnyfubbles point that "by the time we start encountering situations where we're not as GPU limited, those games that are pushing the CPU all the more very well may favor the Q6600's two extra core's far more than the E8400's higher clock speed", that is a very subjective statement. It's hard to tell what the gaming world will look like in 2-3 years. there probably will be many more games that benefit from quad-core (or maybe even octo-core since those should be out by 2009). But one could argue that even if that is the case the vast majority of PCs owned by gamers will still be dual-core, meaning that games will still be designed for dual-core systems.

In general it would be hard for the OP to go wrong with the E8400 or the Q6600 (no need to look at the E6850), but overall my personal suggestion would be to go with the cheaper E8400 and spend the extra cash on a better GPU. He gets the best possible gaming perfomance (for his budget) in the short term and in 3 years, if quad-core is really important for gaming, there will be a nicely priced Q9xx0 available as a drop-in replacement.