E8400 vs Q6600 for $200

[Penley]

Microcenter is selling E8400s for 190+tax and Q6600s for 200+tax (link). I wanted an E8400 due to price/performance, but at basically the same price, which one is a better deal? My main use is gaming.

As mentioned in another thread, I RMAed my original E8400 for the temp issue. I live right near an MC, but E8400s have been OOS all week (seems to be a major shortage going on!). They get a good supply of Q6600s. I was planning on waiting until saturday to see if they get any E8400s in but now I'm not sure if I should just jump on it.

 

[Arkaign]

Gaming, now and in the next 12-18 months, probably the E8400.

Encoding/Rendering/Whatever you can make use 4 cores, the Q6600.

I'd actually recommend the Q6600 + really nice cooler. Run @ ~3.2Ghz, it will still be more than fast enough for any game you can throw at it, and it'll probably last longer as games start to utilize 4 cores for real (Alan Wake, anyone?).

 

[MarcVenice]

For gaming, the e8400 is still better then the q6600. In the long run though, an overclocked q6600 to 3-3.4ghz is going to last longer then a e8400 overclocked to 4.0ghz. Could go both ways really.

Arkaign beat me to it.

 

[aigomorla]

OP listen to both the previous post.

You get a quad if you need it, or if your upgrade cycle is more then 1 yr.

Otherwise get the E8400. You'll be lacking in the GPU department faster then CPU department when you game.

Realistic OC on a E8400 is around 3.9-4.0ghz dependant on ambients. The highest prime stable i can get without frying the chip PDQ (pretty darn quick) is 4.3ghz on water @ 1.57Vcore.

If you want to think of realistic application, i dont see how you could ever be cpu limited on a Q6600 @ 3.2ghz ~ 400fsbx8 @ 1.27-1.32vcore. Or even 400x9 @ 3.6ghz @ 1.375-1.41Vcore.
The quad would be faster in encoding and multi threaded activities, and you probably wouldnt notice any difference in any game you ran @ 3.2ghz vs 4.0ghz.

The E8400 would draw a significant amount less power tho. Until you cranked it to 1.5vcore where im hearing numbers around 150W of heat on that tiny little die.

You'll need an aftermarket sink for both if you expect to get 4.0ghz for the E8400 or 3.2 on the quad.

3.6ghz on the quad will require a great sink. TR120Extreme, or Tuniq Tower.

 

[Imported]

I was gonna wait for the QX9450.. but $200 for the Q6600 was too good to resist so I picked that up about an hour ago. Can't wait to play with it this weekend!

 

[Penley]

Yeah I just reserved one at MC and will pick it up on the way home from work. Was going to wait for an E8400, but at the same pricepoint, the Q6600 seems like a better future proof.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
OP listen to both the previous post.

You get a quad if you need it, or if your upgrade cycle is more then 1 yr.

Otherwise get the E8400. You'll be lacking in the GPU department faster then CPU department when you game.

Realistic OC on a E8400 is around 3.9-4.0ghz dependant on ambients. The highest prime stable i can get without frying the chip PDQ (pretty darn quick) is 4.3ghz on water @ 1.57Vcore.

If you want to think of realistic application, i dont see how you could ever be cpu limited on a Q6600 @ 3.2ghz ~ 400fsbx8 @ 1.27-1.32vcore. Or even 400x9 @ 3.6ghz @ 1.375-1.41Vcore.
The quad would be faster in encoding and multi threaded activities, and you probably wouldnt notice any difference in any game you ran @ 3.2ghz vs 4.0ghz.

The E8400 would draw a significant amount less power tho. Until you cranked it to 1.5vcore where im hearing numbers around 150W of heat on that tiny little die.

You'll need an aftermarket sink for both if you expect to get 4.0ghz for the E8400 or 3.2 on the quad.

3.6ghz on the quad will require a great sink. TR120Extreme, or Tuniq Tower.

This is pretty much my line of thinking.

If I can get a Q9450 running @ 3.2GHz or higher, I'll be set!!
Only thing I'd have to think about is the video card and my gaming resolution.

 

[lopri]

Q9450 @3.2GHz = Q6600 @3.6GHz with less heat..

is my thinking. Is that correct?

How hard would it be to achieve 3.6GHz with current batches of Q6600? It's very tempting although I once abandoned my Q6600 (B3) due to excessive heat. I mean if the current Q6600 can run 3.6GHz under 60~65C, I would try one out. I just hate to see CPU temp going past 70C.

I currently have an E8400 which tops 66~67C with stock cooling, and below 55C with after-market. vCore 1.19V. So that's a lot less strain on the board as well. But if recent G0s can do 3.6GHz with decent vCore.. (say under 1.4V) I might as well pick one up on the way to work.

 

[OLpal]

Not wanting to come off snippy: but: Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with your E8400 chip, you must have gotten the 1 in millon or more to miss QC inspection, somebody must have dropped the ball on that one !!

You see all the time where some builder might slip up & do something to mess up a build.. bad Bios setting, wrong fan setting, poor ventilation, wrong use of thermal paste, badf install of cooling fan or just insuffient. [intel is not shipping a powerfull cooler with E8400 cause of 45nm contruction & coolness], trying to install cooler after it's in the case & flexing it ;;; there are just all kinds of things that can go wrong in Murphys law...

Then they want to give bad feedback on the part & alot of folks see right through that.. Bad parts do come through the channel once in awile & it sounds like you may have been a little unlucky !!
Some will RMA parts cause joe blows runs faster than mine or they damage it trying t see how fast they can go over manf. specs.... Everyone of us ends up paying for those people who abuse the system... I think sometimes the system needs to be tightened a little to weed out repeat RMA'ers.. Again this is not directed @ you penley, just anyone who might read & be suspect in these type of activities !!

That's a great price on the Q6600 & i'm sure you'll be very happy with it.. They are just a little slower & hotter than the E8400, enjoy your puter !!
Ol'Pal Gary

Originally posted by: Penley
Microcenter is selling E8400s for 190+tax and Q6600s for 200+tax (link). I wanted an E8400 due to price/performance, but at basically the same price, which one is a better deal? My main use is gaming.

As mentioned in another thread, I RMAed my original E8400 for the temp issue. I live right near an MC, but E8400s have been OOS all week (seems to be a major shortage going on!). They get a good supply of Q6600s. I was planning on waiting until saturday to see if they get any E8400s in but now I'm not sure if I should just jump on it.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: lopri
Q9450 @3.2GHz = Q6600 @3.6GHz with less heat..

is my thinking. Is that correct?

How hard would it be to achieve 3.6GHz with current batches of Q6600? It's very tempting although I once abandoned my Q6600 (B3) due to excessive heat. I mean if the current Q6600 can run 3.6GHz under 60~65C, I would try one out. I just hate to see CPU temp going past 70C.

I currently have an E8400 which tops 66~67C with stock cooling, and below 55C with after-market. vCore 1.19V. So that's a lot less strain on the board as well. But if recent G0s can do 3.6GHz with decent vCore.. (say under 1.4V) I might as well pick one up on the way to work.

The slowest of my 3 G0's is 3430 and none of them go over 65c full load. All do it at 1.35 vcore.

As to the OP's question, I agree that an E8400 today is better in MOST games, but the Q6600@3.2 or better will make you almost always GPU limited anyway, and better for tomorrow.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: lopri
Q9450 @3.2GHz = Q6600 @3.6GHz with less heat..

is my thinking. Is that correct?

How hard would it be to achieve 3.6GHz with current batches of Q6600? It's very tempting although I once abandoned my Q6600 (B3) due to excessive heat. I mean if the current Q6600 can run 3.6GHz under 60~65C, I would try one out. I just hate to see CPU temp going past 70C.

I currently have an E8400 which tops 66~67C with stock cooling, and below 55C with after-market. vCore 1.19V. So that's a lot less strain on the board as well. But if recent G0s can do 3.6GHz with decent vCore.. (say under 1.4V) I might as well pick one up on the way to work.

well according to some recient benches on XS, they are approximating a 10-15% bump in speed.

So a 3.2ghz Q9450 ~ 3.5-3.6ghz.

But the thing is, i think you can pull 400x10 on a Q6700. 4.0ghz, which would require the Q9450 to run @ 3.6ghz to keep near it.

But 3.6ghz is 450x8 fsb.. 4.0ghz 500x8 is dreaming/asking for too much. I dont think my DFI could do that for very long.

 

[Tempered81]

"q9300 vs. e8500 vs. q6600" overclocked:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0


the same as comparing "q9450 vs. e8400/e3110 vs. q6600" if you do the math with the multiplier differences.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
"q9300 vs. e8500 vs. q6600" overclocked:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0


the same as comparing "q9450 vs. e8400/e3110 vs. q6600" if you do the math with the multiplier differences.

Good link.

Cliffs : Q6600 O/C = Pretty much as fast as anything else, and faster than any stock cpu.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
"q9300 vs. e8500 vs. q6600" overclocked:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0


the same as comparing "q9450 vs. e8400/e3110 vs. q6600" if you do the math with the multiplier differences.

its not. The Q9450 has 2x the cache of a Q9300, so the numbers will be effected in the testing result.

Simular scenario as the E6600 vs E6300.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: jaredpace
"q9300 vs. e8500 vs. q6600" overclocked:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0


the same as comparing "q9450 vs. e8400/e3110 vs. q6600" if you do the math with the multiplier differences.

its not. The Q9450 has 2x the cache of a Q9300, so the numbers will be effected in the testing result.

Simular scenario as the E6600 vs E6300.

good point 9450 = 12mb, q6600 = 8mb, and 9300=6mb, is that right?

also, the 9450 oc will probably be higher than what they're running the 9300 at. either way, in regards to the OP, the Oc'd q6600 is no match for the e8400/8500's

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

good point 9450 = 12mb, q6600 = 8mb, and 9300=6mb, is that right?

also, the 9450 oc will probably be higher than what they're running the 9300 at. either way, in regards to the OP, the Oc'd q6600 is no match for the e8400/8500's

correct. :]

up until the last part again... Depending on the application, the E8400 will be better.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Imported
I was gonna wait for the QX9450.. but $200 for the Q6600 was too good to resist so I picked that up about an hour ago. Can't wait to play with it this weekend!

bastard...now I'm thinking similar thoughts...I really like the heat characteristics of penryn...grrrrr...maybe I'll just get the Q6600, buy a new mobo/cpu when Q9450 drops in price, and just keep both rigs... yeah, that's the fiscally responsible move...:evil:

nevermind...it's not worth the time/gas for the 4hr roundtrip drive...phew, now I remember why I mainly shop online.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Imported
I was gonna wait for the QX9450.. but $200 for the Q6600 was too good to resist so I picked that up about an hour ago. Can't wait to play with it this weekend!

bastard...now I'm thinking similar thoughts...I really like the heat characteristics of penryn...grrrrr...maybe I'll just get the Q6600, buy a new mobo/cpu when Q9450 drops in price, and just keep both rigs... yeah, that's the fiscally responsible move...:evil:

Some of us will be getting an extra tax refund around May too...might just do something similar!

 

[bryanW1995]

you missed my edit:

nevermind...it's not worth the time/gas for the 4hr roundtrip drive...phew, now I remember why I mainly shop online.


btw, how's it working out with gillespie?

 

[lopri]

When is the regular Yorkshire Terrier (not the extreme ones) supposed to come out again? They were delayed for no apparent reason, right?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: jaredpace

good point 9450 = 12mb, q6600 = 8mb, and 9300=6mb, is that right?

also, the 9450 oc will probably be higher than what they're running the 9300 at. either way, in regards to the OP, the Oc'd q6600 is no match for the e8400/8500's

correct. :]

up until the last part again... Depending on the application, the E8400 will be better.

well when the OP direcly asked about gaming, what would the answer be?

 

[krnmastersgt]

Well the answer would more likely be the E8400, but most games at high resolutions (by most I mean the not cpu limited games) won't notice the difference once you overclock them.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
"q9300 vs. e8500 vs. q6600" overclocked:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0


the same as comparing "q9450 vs. e8400/e3110 vs. q6600" if you do the math with the multiplier differences.

The real WTF there is the Phenom 9600 keeps up with the Intel chips on 3dmark, but in real games it's an utter slaughter. 50% or more frame rate difference (wow!).

Looks like amount and clock of L3 CPU cache is far more important for gaming than CPU clock rate & IPC efficiency. And yes, I expect the Q9450 will show some fantastic gaming results once it is out because of the huge L3 cache.

That may just be the CPU for me to replace my E2180 once the prices drop a bit. =)

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: jaredpace

good point 9450 = 12mb, q6600 = 8mb, and 9300=6mb, is that right?

also, the 9450 oc will probably be higher than what they're running the 9300 at. either way, in regards to the OP, the Oc'd q6600 is no match for the e8400/8500's

correct. :]

up until the last part again... Depending on the application, the E8400 will be better.

well when the OP direcly asked about gaming, what would the answer be?

Well, a Q6600 @ ~3.2 will be pretty much video card limited anyway, I'd rather have two extra cores to head into games that are 1-2 years out. Not to mention that the Q9450 is imminent, I'd take the 9450 over either the 6600 or 8400 by far.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Well, a Q6600 @ ~3.2 will be pretty much video card limited anyway, I'd rather have two extra cores to head into games that are 1-2 years out. Not to mention that the Q9450 is imminent, I'd take the 9450 over either the 6600 or 8400 by far.

Do you honestly believe a Q6600 will be enough oomph for games in 2010? I don't. The E8400 is the likely pick if you must build a machine *today*, with the Q9450 the most likely candidate if you can wait.

Neither one is going to be sufficient by 2010. Both will likely be enough for a 12 month upgrade cycle. It's even odds on which one will be better midway through 2009.

So the real question is: what will you do with the hardware once it's retired for an upgrade? If the likely home for hardware is a server/media box, the clear answer is E8400 (less power usage, better multimedia decode capabilities). If the answer is resale, then probably Q6600.