Core 2 E6850 vs Quad Core 6600?

[Energizer Bunny]

Hi Guys,

Just researching an upgrade and am torn between these two chips, which are roughly the same price.

Aware the whole dual vs quad core thing tends to hinge on what you use it for. To explain my own position, I'm going to be using it purely for gaming. I don't need to be using multiple applications/video editing and all that gumf.... I just want to bolt the thing down with an 8800 GTX and have my games look nice and shiny.

My understanding is that given that information, I am better off going for the higher clocked chip (i.e. the dual core), since very few games take any advantage of quad core anyway. Would that be a fair assumption or am I looking at this too simplistically?

Thanks in advance for any responses

Cheers

p.s. I can build my own systems but I'm not particularly confident overclocking, so if it makes any difference to the answer, please assume I won't be overclocking anything

 

[Valour]

Like you (and a ton of other people), I recently was making the same decision. Also like you, I am using this new PC as mostly a game PC. I decided on the E6850 and don't regret it in the least. You are right that it matters what you will use it for etc. It also matters when you expect to upgrade next. If you're in it for the long haul, the Q6600 might be the better choice. If you don't mind potentially popping a new CPU in a year from now, I'd say E6850. Even with all the quad hype, I really don't think it's going to be a mind-numbing advantage in games for a while. I made this same type of decision back when the AMD dual cores were coming out. I could get one of those or the faster single core 4000+ (in games). I went with the 4000+ to get the best bang for the buck THEN, rather than getting something a little slower that had POTENTIAL in the future.

When the games that claim to take advantage of quad cores actually come out, we'll all know for sure how much of it is hype versus over-kill. If they have an amazing performance boost, pop in a newer quad core CPU (probably true quad core by then) *IF* you are disappointed in the actual game performance on your own E6850 rig. I myself doubt that I will be disappointed in my rig for a while.

Also another reason I went with the E6850 was case temps. It can get hot in my computer room, so I like to keep it as cool as possible. Obviously I spent a little extra to get the heatsink I have, but my CPU is nice and icey.

 

[Energizer Bunny]

Thanks Valour. Prompt response much appreciated.

 

[Shimmishim]

i too vote for the 6850. you should be able to o/c the 6850 a bit higher than the Q6600 (4 core oc vs. 2 core oc).

there are a few games that take advantage of quadcore... so if one of those games you play (a lot) can take advantage of it... then it might be worthwhile to get quadcore... unless you plan on using dual core for now and then upgrading to penryn quadcore (yorkfield) in the nov/dec time frame.

 

[asdftt123]

My vote goes to the Q6600. It's been personally stated by Crytek that Crysis will run optimally on a Quad-core processor versus Dual. Also, I don't think it would make sense for the OP to upgrade to Penryn so soon as the only quad core release scheduled by the end of the year is the high-end QX6950 that will be about $1000. It's not worth spending $1300 in such a small time frame, IMO. Depending when you upgrade yuo might get more life out of the Quad-core.

 

[RussianSensation]

There will be absolutely no advantage in games of E6850 at 3.9ghz+ over Q6600 at 3.4-3.5ghz. You can never make up for the lack of 2 cores but by the time 3.4ghz C2D architecture starts to limit games, it's not like 3.9ghz will be enough. Resale value with an overclocked Q6600 will be far higher down the line as well. You won't have to compromise various tasks when you load a game. IMO, if the price is similar, it only makes sense to get a Quad. However, you said you most likely won't overclock and you are using it 100% for games (so comparison is 2.4ghz vs. 3.0ghz). Then I would probably go with the E6850 for your purposes. But if you learn overclocking, Q6600

 

[Capt Caveman]

I also recommend doing a search on this very same subject as there are a dozen other threads asking the very same question with lots of useful responses in them.

 

[imported_rod]

Q6600!

How can anyone vote for the E6850 over the Q6600. The slightly lower clocks and OC potential are nothing, compared to the extra two cores.

 

[Energizer Bunny]

I also recommend doing a search on this very same subject as there are a dozen other threads asking the very same question with lots of useful responses in them.

Point taken. I just did a search and there is indeed quite a lot there.

Thanks again for the responses guys.

 

[LightningRider]

I recommend you the Q6600.

As the others said, you can always OC a CPU, but you can't grow more cores on a CPU.

Most new games coming out now support at least dual core. Bioshock supports quads, Crysis supports quads. Even if your game doesn't support a quad core processor, one core on the Q6600 is more than fast enough to run any game out today and once games DO start using more cores, performance will only increase.

 

[Valour]

Just don't forget that "supports quads" doesn't define any potential performance increases. We must wait and see how well *real* games designed for quad core cpus perform versus dual cores, etc.

As the OP said, he's basically looking for the fastest gaming PC now with no intentions of overclocking. Currently, out of the two he mentions, the E6850 is the better (fastest) choice for *his* criteria. The only true question then is what happens when these "quad ready" games are released, and how well will they actually perform. If they're phenomenal, maybe he should have gone with the quad. If they're not, he has the faster of the two cpus, and will have to make a similar decision down the road with his next upgrade. Wash, rinse, repeat cycle.

If he doesn't plan on keeping this new system for the long haul, go with the quad. If he is going to upgrade in a year or so, go with the fastest now. My own preference is to never chase potential. Get what is best now, not what might be in the future. If anyone bought a 8800 GTX because it was DX10 compatible, they are probably seeing now that it should not have been a selling point. Getting the best DX9 performance then (and now) should have been the selling point, not the potential for what might be in the future.

As a pevious poster said, there is so much data on this already that this is just rehash. I know I actually bought a Q6600 first, had it delivered, and never opened it, sold it for a slight loss, and bought the E6850 instead. Needless to say, I know how the OP feels trying to make the decision.

 

[Zenoth]

I'd go for Quad-Cores, but only with Penryn (I'm waiting for Penryns for my next upgrade, and it shall be a Quad-Core). I'm already using a Dual-Core, so by "upgrading" I don't want to actually stay at Dual-Core, but literally upgrade, moving to Quads, which in turn has potential for the future games. I'd rather have that tranquility of mind knowing that whatever games can use 3 or 4 Cores won't be slowed down by my 2 Cores, than knowing it's not performing optimally as intended by the developers, even if the actual number of games themselves using 3 or 4 Cores is negligible.

There's little better than tranquility of mind for a consumer, in my opinion. Always better to think of the near future than just thinking with the present, because present needs and technologies change so fast, you might just go and buy yourself a super fast Dual-Core but then the next thing you know is that next "big thing" game being developed by one of your favorite developers that's going to use 3 to 4 Cores ... then you would feel strange inside, probably thinking "damn ... should have went Quads instead". That's what I'm trying to avoid.

 

[swtethan]

I dont know what everyone is talking about, but my chip grows two cores every week
if only that were possible...... Get a 6850 if you want performance now, but it is damn easy to get a Q6600 G0 to 3.0 with stock volts... all you would change is the fsb. Dual for now, Quad for now and little longer.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Russian Sensation kind of nailed it. When a 2.4Ghz Core 2 isn't enough for games, it's not like a 3.0Ghz Core 2 is going to make that much of a difference.

Either way you can't really lose, but games are still gpu limited in most real world scenarios, so quad core seems to make a lot more sense than a paltry .6Ghz (assuming no overclocking).

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Another vote for quad.

If games support dual core - you don't want your background processes to get in the way.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Personally I'd be looking at a lower end CPU at this time. Unless you need a quad for your work that is.

What I mean is spend alot less on an E6750 or E6550 etc or check FS/FT maybe get lucky somewhere. Then wait for the Penryn quads since they will run cooler, use less power, likely be faster.

I too was looking at Q6600 or maybe upgrading to something higher end in a dual core to overclock higher. Gave up because Penryn is pretty close and I want to see how those quad CPUs perform. Also, the PWM area on many boards hits a high temp causing crashes/bsod with an overclocked quad. Hopefully the Penryn will not have this happen as easily.

I do overclock and that's the basis for my recommendation although it would be wise to buy cautiously until we know more.

 

[Energizer Bunny]

Thanks for the continued responses guys.