Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad

[dcova]

The motherboard that I am considering to purchase supports both Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad. It's the Intel LGA775 socket.

I am trying to decide between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz for $279 or the Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz for the same amount, $279.
I also noticed that the Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz sells for $315.

+------------------------------------
| CPU ------------------- Price
+------------------------------------
| quad Q6600 2.4GHz -- $279
| duo E6850 3.0GHz --- $279
| duo E6700 2.6GHz --- $315
|
+------------------------------------

These are all close it price, but I would think that the core2quad would be a better value for my money.
And, why is a slower 2.6GHz duo more expensive than the faster 3.0GHz duo?
What is your opinion? You feedback is most appreciated.

 

[brainhulk]

core 2 quad G0 stepping. mine does 3Ghz on stock volts.
probably need aftermarket cooling (some sort of heatpipe cooling at least) if u OC though.

 

[MarcVenice]

The e6700 is discontinued and and is no longer being produced. Depending on your usage, the e6850 or the q6600 is a better choice. And, if you are able to overclock your CPU might make things easier as well. The q6600 overclocks to 3.0ghz fairly easy, so if you can do that, it has 4 cores, instead of 2, and runs at the same speed as the e6850, for the same amount of money. You can argue that the e6850 can be overclocked as well, sure you can, but you can't add 2 cores on it.

So depending your use, gaming or heavy apps like photoshop/encoding, you go with a e6850 or a q6600.

 

[NXIL]

For a gamer who does not want to overclock: The dual core 6850.

Gamer, overclocker: Q6600 quad core.

Video encoder, video production, music, etc: Q6600.

I also do not understand Intel's pricing, with some of the older 1066 FSB chips priced higher than the newer, higher clocked, 1333 bus chips.....I would guess it has something to do with overclockability--I think I read that in the right motherboard, the 2.4GHZ 1066 FSB bus CPU (266 X 9 = 2.4GHZ) becomes a 9 * 333 = 3.0 GHz CPU with not much effort.

Or, thy want to phase out the 1066 bus CPUs.

Here are some of those CPUs compared side by side:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...2c3028%3a25342&bop=And

The q6600 is essentially two E6600s slapped together--twice the CPUs, for an extra $50... that is pretty amazing. And, I would guess you will get a lot of people recommending the q6600: that is why--it's pretty insane...

HTH

NXIL

 

[Denithor]

Save yourself $100 and get the e6550 for $175 and OC it to 3GHz.

Just make sure your motherboard will support the new 45nm Penryn series so you can upgrade to a quad in a year or two once more programs take advantage of the additional cores.

 

[austonia]

i had the same question in mind before a recent build, my first in 5 years. i decided on the q6600, which is pretty damn cheap at $260. I read that most G0 steppings will OC to 3Ghz on stock voltage, or 3.6ghz with a higher vcore. i can confirm this with the chip i got from ClubIT. with the price difference being so little, it just makes sense to buy the quad even if you don't really need the extra pair of cores at this point. it will prove useful as apps and games transition to multi-threaded over the next couple of years.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quad without a doubt. The performance gain per core is higher in a quad than a dual in SMP capable programs that can utilise more than 2 cores

 

[nyker96]

yes if buying new Q6600, overclock it to 3gh and it'll be a power house.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: NXIL
For a gamer who does not want to overclock: The dual core 6850.

Gamer, overclocker: Q6600 quad core.

Video encoder, video production, music, etc: Q6600.

I also do not understand Intel's pricing, with some of the older 1066 FSB chips priced higher than the newer, higher clocked, 1333 bus chips.....I would guess it has something to do with overclockability--I think I read that in the right motherboard, the 2.4GHZ 1066 FSB bus CPU (266 X 9 = 2.4GHZ) becomes a 9 * 333 = 3.0 GHz CPU with not much effort.

Or, thy want to phase out the 1066 bus CPUs.

Here are some of those CPUs compared side by side:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...2c3028%3a25342&bop=And

The q6600 is essentially two E6600s slapped together--twice the CPUs, for an extra $50... that is pretty amazing. And, I would guess you will get a lot of people recommending the q6600: that is why--it's pretty insane...

HTH

NXIL

Absolute truth

 

[Acanthus]

The G0 X3210 quad cores at clubit are a pretty good choice for the money, spend the leftover cash on a high end HSF.

 

[Cairo777]

Although the concept of the Q6600 quad core sounds amazing, and price wise it's a pretty simple decision if you are willing to spend the $300... I keep scratching my head what exactly it does better... well for me anyhow. My e6600 and e6850 are all awesome chips. I have yet to bring either of those chips to their knees. In fact for I would say 95% of what I do the 2 extra cores just sit there and no nothing. I can honestly see the first 2 cores being used for many things but justfying those other cores is pretty hard.

Again it's nice in concept but for the average gamer, music listener, html programed etc... heck it was a nice to have...but pretty much it. I was really hoping it would help me compress and uncompress my massive files I constantly work with but side by side the Q6600 and e6850 both running at 3 Ghz (q6600 oc'ed and e6850 stock) there is practically no difference in speed. In fact I figured out that it's my storage system really that's holding me back.

I don't do anything cutting edge and i could not care less for software benchmarks designed to stress multicore platforms when they do nothing for what i do. Personally if I could do it again and only had one choice in CPU I would go for the e6750. It still gives you the choice to OC rather wel... runs cool with proper HS/f and costs considerably less and does it all.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Cairo777
Although the concept of the Q6600 quad core sounds amazing, and price wise it's a pretty simple decision if you are willing to spend the $300... I keep scratching my head what exactly it does better... well for me anyhow. My e6600 and e6850 are all awesome chips. I have yet to bring either of those chips to their knees. In fact for I would say 95% of what I do the 2 extra cores just sit there and no nothing. I can honestly see the first 2 cores being used for many things but justfying those other cores is pretty hard.

Again it's nice in concept but for the average gamer, music listener, html programed etc... heck it was a nice to have...but pretty much it. I was really hoping it would help me compress and uncompress my massive files I constantly work with but side by side the Q6600 and e6850 both running at 3 Ghz (q6600 oc'ed and e6850 stock) there is practically no difference in speed. In fact I figured out that it's my storage system really that's holding me back.

I don't do anything cutting edge and i could not care less for software benchmarks designed to stress multicore platforms when they do nothing for what i do. Personally if I could do it again and only had one choice in CPU I would go for the e6750. It still gives you the choice to OC rather wel... runs cool with proper HS/f and costs considerably less and does it all.

How is it hard to justify the 2 extra cores if they OC within 200mhz of each other... and they are the same price?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: dcova
And, why is a slower 2.6GHz duo more expensive than the faster 3.0GHz duo?

There's a very simple answer to this question, so simple that most people overlook it: they were bought at a higher price, and that's the cheapest they can sell them, without losing money.