Difference 6750 vs 6850

[Tangman85]

If I am using it for a gaming computer, 1280 * 1024 with an XFX Fatality 320MB + 4Gigs of TWIN2X2048-6400C4DHX.
It is a hefty money difference, I don't mind paying the money but if I can run World of Warcraft, new UT, Crysis etc fairly smoothly (doesnt have to be FLAWLESS), is it worth still getting the 6850?

 

[bryanW1995]

if money is not an object get the e6850. If you are like most of us and don't like throwing your money away at the rate of 10 % improvement for 50 % more cost, get the e6750.

 

[newschool]

or get a e4 300 or 400 for 120$ and o/c to the speed of a e6700.

 

[Tangman85]

I wish newschool, I'm not an overclocker though, I barely even understand the concept
I'll be running with stock settings most probably! But thanks, I'll give it a thinker I guess, games I play are not very demanding, mostly MMOs and/or single player RPG/RTS like Warhammer, Wow, etc as I mentioned with plans of doing some Crysis and so, but if both run it just fine, I'll bare that in mind.
Thanks again!

 

[tommullie]

We all pay steeply for power. Speed up 13% for 36% on cost seems attractive, assuming you are unable to overclock it yourself.
But anyways, if you can afford to, wait for Penryn. Even if you aren't interested in the new stuff, one can only assume current gen chip prices will fall.

 

[TC91]

if you are not overclocking, get the e6750 since the difference between it and the 6850 is not enough to justify the difference in price. in gaming, expecially in higher resolutions, the cpu does not make much of a difference (in most cases) compared to the graphics card. but if you can wait, i would do that and pick up a penryn.

 

[Oyeve]

After reading this post I now understand why I dont see many E6850 chips is most game benchmarks. ATs UT3 bench excludes the E6850 from the cpu list as do most places. I guess the price/performance ratio is not worth it. Still love my E6850 tho.

 

[hans007]

the cost difference between the 6750 and 6850 is too much.. like $80 for only 333 mhz more. i'd say the 6750 is the sweet spot right now (its like $20 more than the 6550... the 6550 needs to be like $140 for it to really be not worth getting a 6750)

 

[Skott]

I agree the E6750 is a good midrange proc wether you like to OC or not. Where it sits in the pricing structure makes it hard to pass up.

 

[bryanW1995]

well, the e6850 is in a bad position b/c it goes head to head with the Q6600 G0. If it were still Q6600 B3 then you would probably see many more e6850's out there imho due to less overclocking and higher heat, but G0 has improved both of these areas quite a bit. e6850 does seem to get a much better oc than e6750, maybe even close to the original 333 difference however. e6850 is a good chip for the power user who understands that quad core won't be necessary for many years still and doesn't want to get raided by Al Gore Inc for incresaing global warming

E6750 is also a good "interim" chip for users like me who don't mind upgrading every 6 mos or so. We now see the light of penryn at the end of our long, dark dual-core tunnel.

 

[Denithor]

Ummm...AT's UT3 review most definitely *does* include the e6850 as part of the review.

And actually, the chart here shows the answer to the original question in this thread. Don't waste the money on an e6850 as you will only see a minor increase in framerate for a major outlay of additional cash.

Just make sure you get one of the e6xxx series with the 4MB cache, that seems to have more impact on performance than raw speed. I wonder how the Penryn chips will behave with their higher 6MB cache?

EDIT: As pointed out above, the q6600 is the same price as the e6850. If you are seriously considering spending those bucks, the quad-cores *did* show better performance in UT3 than the dual cores (not as large as 1->2 but an improvement nonetheless) and would tend to be a bit more future-proof than a faster dual core chip.