E8400 vs q6600

[exlene]

Trying to decide between the E8400 and its newer wolfdale 45nm architecture and a low end quad core such as the Q6600. Which has more potential down the road as well as being an easier overclocker?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

8400 simply because it has more overclocking headroom, otherwise, i'd run a quad core

 

[exlene]

k. Next question would be how far should i push that proc? I've heard about people getting it up in the 4Ghz range but considering my inexperience is that a reachable goal with say a decent after market cpu cooler?

 

[dakels]

You might do well to read some of the other posts on this subject. For modern gaming, the 8400 at higher mhz is going to beat a Q6600. The 8400 will OC much farther then the Q6600. Can you get the E8400 to 4ghz? That has so many variables, even I'm not dumb enough to blindly answer that one. I think 4ghz is a real threshold for that processor as to how good yours is, how much voltage, how good your cooler is. 3.6-3.8 I'd say is pretty easy. I think 4.0-4.2 starts to get tricky on air cooling and maintain solid stability. Especially for beginners.

I love my quad but getting to run single threaded apps as fast as a wolfdale is next to impossible. Its when my 4 cores get fully utilized (rarity) that it really shines.

 

[Team42]

Originally posted by: exlene
Trying to decide between the E8400 and its newer wolfdale 45nm architecture and a low end quad core such as the Q6600. Which has more potential down the road as well as being an easier overclocker?

What do you want the CPU to do? Play games or heat your room?

Give us a bit more info about your needs/desires (keep them PC related though, please. There could be women and children reading these pages...)

Reading the forums and threads, 4.0GHz seems attainable, as dakels above has indicated. But on air cooling, this appears to be only in exceptional cases. 3.6 GHz (running a 400 MHz bus speed with DDR2 PC2-6400 RAM at 1:1) seems almost "normal" for wont of a better word. It's certainly what I would like to achieve when I upgrade to E8400 soon (they've almost dropped to £100 here now!)

Post your variables (planned upgrades, budget, requirements, etc) and wait for the raft of conflicting opinions to make your choice as clear as mud.

T42


Psst: don't tell anyone I said this, but E8400 is the best bet.... :thumbsup:

 

[RussianSensation]

If you will keep your processor for 1.5 years or more, I would gladly take a 3.4ghz Q6600 over an E8400 @ 3.8ghz. This 15% clock speed improvement will provide negligible benefit in games today. Once load increases and threading takes hold as it did in X2 vs. A64 days (Look here COD4 A64 dual core 2.0ghz vs. A64 single core 2.4ghz), you can say goodbye to the E8400. But if you want a short-term upgrade until Nehalem without incurring electricity costs of Q6600, then I'd go for the E8400.

Overclocking Q6600 will be easy since at 400FSB (attainable by every imaginable P35/45 motherboard) you'll probably max it out at 3.6ghz. 1.38-1.42 V should do that for you. However, giving current pricing, E8500 is not far of a stretch. Those processors might clock beyond 4.2ghz+.

 

[tallman45]

It depends on what you need it form I have a 2.4B system with 512mb Rambus that has run for 4 years and is working like a champ at what it is set up for

Why get a Q6600 and pay extra utility bills when you are never going to use it ? Get what suits your processing needs, it is unlikely that you will even see a difference in an E8400 and any proc that comes out in the next year

 

[SimMike2]

I think most people can get the 8400 to 3.6 GHz, at least if they get something besides the stock heatsink/fan. This is the speetspot with DDR800 memory. I'm not sure about the 6600, but I'm thinking maybe 3GHz if you are lucky. The extra clock speed of the overclocked 8400 will be more important for most average computer users.

 

[taltamir]

i am upgrading my E8400 to a Q6600...
The E8400 will OC more, but since you are OCing two cores instead of four you get relatively less out of it. think about it. 4x3.6ghz vs 2x4.0ghz is a larger boon to the quad compared to 4x2.4ghz vs 2x3.0ghz
The new Q6600 OC very well, the biggest thing about the Q is that takes more power, (and makes more heat, but that just means less of an OC), more power means higher power bill. So don't be deceived into thinking they cost the same. (i will still take the Q over the E, but just doing so with open eyes about the costs).

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: taltamir
i am upgrading my E8400 to a Q6600...
The E8400 will OC more, but since you are OCing two cores instead of four you get relatively less out of it. think about it. 4x3.6ghz vs 2x4.0ghz is a larger boon to the quad compared to 4x2.4ghz vs 2x3.0ghz
The new Q6600 OC very well, the biggest thing about the Q is that takes more power, (and makes more heat, but that just means less of an OC), more power means higher power bill. So don't be deceived into thinking they cost the same. (i will still take the Q over the E, but just doing so with open eyes about the costs).

Except when the app can only use 2 cores, then it is meaningless that you have 2 cores hanging around doing nothing for you except drawing power and generating heat. The heat and power equals $$ in monthly utility bills, it means a lot more than just less of an OC

remember even in apps that can use 4 cores, a 4 core proc needs to transport data between the 2 sets of cores, 2 sets of cache etc, so going 4 x 2.4ghz can and usually is slower than 2 x 3 ghz. It is unlikely any app will saturate the processing power of 2 x 3ghz. Lots of video to process, look at the disk subsystem, that is the greater bottleneck than the processor

next 4mb cache vs 6mb cache, sure the Q6600 has 2 x 4mb cache but the data between the 2 must be compared , that takes up time,heat and power to do, AND only helps in apps that can use all 4 cores, so most of the time an extra 4mb of cache is doing nothing. on the E8400 its 6mb cache is always being used, which means there is less time seeking HDD's for that 2mb of oft used data

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: tallman45

remember even in apps that can use 4 cores, a 4 core proc needs to transport data between the 2 sets of cores, 2 sets of cache etc, so going 4 x 2.4ghz can and usually is slower than 2 x 3 ghz. It is unlikely any app will saturate the processing power of 2 x 3ghz. Lots of video to process, look at the disk subsystem, that is the greater bottleneck than the processor

Ask Taltamir, for days I argued with him that E8400 3.0ghz is sufficient for almost any game out there. But recently I stumbled upon newer benchmarks that are showing minimum framerate comparisons between dual core and quad core processors at various speeds. While E8400 3.0ghz keeps up with a Quad core @ 2.4ghz, without a doubt a Quad core @ 3.0ghz will pull away. So I am becoming more hesitant to continue recommending ANY dual core processors which are priced closely to Q6600 at $185 OEM.

Here is why:

World in Conflict - Minimum Framerates - Dual Core vs. Quad Core

E6750 2.66ghz = 36.7 (AVG: 75.3)
E6850 3.0ghz = 41.3 (AVG: 79.0)
Q6600 2.4ghz = 45.3 (AVG: 75.3)
E8400 3.0ghz = 46.7 (AVG: 83.3)

What you are essentially seeing here is that E8400 still keeps up with Q6600 @ 2.4ghz while Q6600 is showing the lowest average framerates from all of the above processors.

Now imagine comparing a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz to a dual core.

Honestly, Taltamir was one of the few people on these boards that continued to emphasize minimum frames, while I "blindly" emphasized average frames against his claims. It's great to be proven wrong and learn a thing or two It's just not sufficient anymore to compare average framerates in games.

 

[tallman45]

Other things to consider

1) Q6600 @3ghz ? somewhat possible, Q6600 at 3.6ghz, One can only image as you would be the 1st
2) Power consumption diff between an OC E8400 vs Q6600, depends on your local rates but it add up
3) Heat from OC Q6600, A/C cost to cool room down, again depends on local rates

The link you provided clearly shows what OC would result in

For example

E8400 vs E8500 diff in clock speed is .16ghz, frame rates increase by 4.8 and 2
Q6600 vs Q6700 diff in clock speed is .27ghz, frame rates increase by 2.7 and 3.4

So with this data we know that if you OC a Q6600 from stock 2.4ghz to 2.67ghz you will achieve 48 and 78.7

Extrapolate the E8400 vs Q6600 by 4

E8400 OC to 3.64 ghz (.16*4) frame rates of 65.9 and 91.3
Q6600 OC to 3.48 ghz (.27*4) frame rates of 56.1 and 88.9

so what we know is that E8400s Can reach 3.64 ghz quite easily
we also know there is it takes a bit of magic to get a Q6600 to run at 3.48ghz

Even if you could get a 3.48 ghz Q6600 you would still lag behind an E8400 running at a higher clock speed

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: tallman45
Other things to consider

1) Q6600 @3ghz ? somewhat possible, Q6600 at 3.6ghz, One can only image as you would be the 1st

Q6600 G0 steppings have been around for a long time now. I imagine yields have improved and we know Tuniq is not the top air cooler anymore. I can push mine to 3.6ghz but my CoreTemp gets into 65*C territory at full load which isnt comfortable in the summer time.

2) Power consumption diff between an OC E8400 vs Q6600, depends on your local rates but it add up

That's a valid point. Although, I would still go for the quad if you intend to keep the system for longer than 1 year.

3) Heat from OC Q6600, A/C cost to cool room down, again depends on local rates

Extrapolate the E8400 vs Q6600 by 4

E8400 OC to 3.64 ghz (.16*4) frame rates of 65.9 and 91.3
Q6600 OC to 3.48 ghz (.27*4) frame rates of 56.1 and 88.9

Even if you could get a 3.48 ghz Q6600 you would still lag behind an E8400 running at a higher clock speed

I am not sure I agree. Q6600 2.67ghz is already faster than E8400 at 3.0ghz. But you realize C2D has been around since summer of 2007. Sooner or later games will utilize more than 2 cores. Like I said if I was going to upgrade the E8400 in 1 year, then sure it's the one to get, otherwise, no way.

 

[tallman45]

Q6600 at 2.67ghz vs E8400 3.0 Ghz is not an apples to apples comparison, why would you compare one OC to one Stock CPU ?

A fair comparison would be a 10% OC on both
Q6600 2.67Ghz vs E8400 3.30Ghz

Very few apps will use all 4 cores, even when they do, 99% or more of the rest of commonly used apps will still use only 2 cores

Some will argue that its worthwhile to take a stand and build for that 1% solution, cost is always teh determining factor in how you achieve that goal

 

[chizow]

I'd lean towards a slightly slower Quad over a faster Dual right now. The situations where a Dual chokes are far more negative experience than the slight performance boost you get when using a faster clocked Dual in apps that only use 2 cores. I can guarantee you trying to record in full-res with FRAPs on a Dual isn't going to be a pleasant experience when the game alone is almost pegging your cores at 85-90% utilization.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I've got a couple of questions about the whole Quad v Dual thing (I'm a Dual-core user)...

re: utilities cost, what's the difference, a couple $$ per month? Also, if you depend on room A/C to keep your OC'd CPU cool, then aren't you OC'ing too much?

I see statements like this very often: "Very few apps will use all 4 cores, even when they do, 99% or more of the rest of commonly used apps will still use only 2 cores". However, if you are running multiple apps simultaneously, then doesn't quad core make more sense? For example, I often have Photoshop, Picasa, Firefox, WMP, etc. open at the same time.

Thanks for any thoughts...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: tallman45
Q6600 at 2.67ghz vs E8400 3.0 Ghz is not an apples to apples comparison, why would you compare one OC to one Stock CPU ?

A fair comparison would be a 10% OC on both
Q6600 2.67Ghz vs E8400 3.30Ghz

Very few apps will use all 4 cores, even when they do, 99% or more of the rest of commonly used apps will still use only 2 cores

Some will argue that its worthwhile to take a stand and build for that 1% solution, cost is always teh determining factor in how you achieve that goal

I meant Q6700 @ 2.67ghz = Q6600 2.67ghz = same thing.

Trust me a quad core is a heck of a lot faster than 1% in a lot of apps. Do you watch 1080i movies and compress them from 10GB to 4.5GB to .mkv format for example? Do you convert movies to DivX? Do you use WinRAR? Do you run AvastAntiVirus/Ad-Aware/SpyBot in the background while running any recent videogame? The difference between a quad and a dual for these basic scenarios is noticeable (My E6400 @ 3.4ghz for example only got 1250KB/sec in Winrar and my Quad system gets 1900KB/sec).

Also go check any reviews of A64 4000+ 2.4ghz vs. X2 3800+ 2.0ghz in a recent game. To deny it wont happen with E8400 is just being illogical - COD4 CPU scaling

Single 2.4ghz (20% clock advantange) = 45fps
Dual 2.0ghz = 81fps (+80%)

So you are saying you'd pick E8400 3.8ghz (~15-20% gain due to Penryn) over Q6600 3.4ghz when they are priced similarly?

 

[tallman45]

Sorry I was not clear

Only 1% of apps would be able to use all 4 cores, the other 99% have no use for it

I agree that the Quad would be faster, but how much faster and at what cost, it could be easy to say 10%-20% faster, but it consumers 30% more power and generates 20% more heat (guestimate on both) , which in turn means room A/C consumes more power.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I've got a couple of questions about the whole Quad v Dual thing (I'm a Dual-core user)...

re: utilities cost, what's the difference, a couple $$ per month? Also, if you depend on room A/C to keep your OC'd CPU cool, then aren't you OC'ing too much?

I see statements like this very often: "Very few apps will use all 4 cores, even when they do, 99% or more of the rest of commonly used apps will still use only 2 cores". However, if you are running multiple apps simultaneously, then doesn't quad core make more sense? For example, I often have Photoshop, Picasa, Firefox, WMP, etc. open at the same time.

Thanks for any thoughts...

You are counting on your room A/C to keep YOU cool as well, if your PC raises the temp from 72 to 76 degrees in your room you need more A/C correct

Even $8-$10 a month in extra power a month adds up to $100 a year, That means in a years time the Q6600 cost $100 more than the E8400, was the small boost in performance work it ? You need to decide that answer

With Dual cores will likely never reach close to 100% utilizatiopn running 99% of the apps out there, even multiple concurrently

Firefox, Broadband is the bottleneck there not the CPU, Photoshop or Picasa, HDD's are those apps bottleneck. Someone mentioned Antivirus, again HDD's are the bottlerneck as it searches every file

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: tallman45
You are counting on your room A/C to keep YOU cool as well, if your PC raises the temp from 72 to 76 degrees in your room you need more A/C correct

Unless you live in a tropical environment, this all balances out because during the winter you can use your quad core as a heater and save on heating costs

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I've got a couple of questions about the whole Quad v Dual thing (I'm a Dual-core user)...

re: utilities cost, what's the difference, a couple $$ per month? Also, if you depend on room A/C to keep your OC'd CPU cool, then aren't you OC'ing too much?

I see statements like this very often: "Very few apps will use all 4 cores, even when they do, 99% or more of the rest of commonly used apps will still use only 2 cores". However, if you are running multiple apps simultaneously, then doesn't quad core make more sense? For example, I often have Photoshop, Picasa, Firefox, WMP, etc. open at the same time.

Thanks for any thoughts...

You are counting on your room A/C to keep YOU cool as well, if your PC raises the temp from 72 to 76 degrees in your room you need more A/C correct

Even $8-$10 a month in extra power a month adds up to $100 a year, That means in a years time the Q6600 cost $100 more than the E8400, was the small boost in performance work it ? You need to decide that answer

With Dual cores will likely never reach close to 100% utilizatiopn running 99% of the apps out there, even multiple concurrently

Firefox, Broadband is the bottleneck there not the CPU, Photoshop or Picasa, HDD's are those apps bottleneck. Someone mentioned Antivirus, again HDD's are the bottlerneck as it searches every file

Hmm, I find it hard to believe that identical PC's running an E8400 vs Q6600 would result in a temp increase of 4 deg in a room with a volume of, say, 960 cu ft (12x10x8) if there is any kind of air flow.

I agree that HDD's are more of a bottleneck in many programs. However, I would like to hear from a Quad user who could perhaps opine on how a Quad feels during multitasking vs a Dual.

Maybe I should just get a Phenom and swap it with my g/f's X2 5000 and see how it runs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: tallman45
Firefox, Broadband is the bottleneck there not the CPU

You would be surprised. Firefox is amazingly CPU-heavy, for "just" a web browser.

 

[Drsignguy]

Get the Quad, You would always wonder if you made the right decision about it later IF you got the Duo. If your not going to upgrade for about 1.5 - 2 years then the Quad is a better choice. Having 4 cores over 2, multitasking isn't a problem. Besides, Having the Q6600, probably the best cost/performance chip out there, is something to really brag about.

 

[tallman45]

lots of great info here

Now if you decide on 4 cores, then it is the Q9450, buying a Q6600 will cost you more in a year than the Q9450 would

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: tallman45
lots of great info here

Now if you decide on 4 cores, then it is the Q9450, buying a Q6600 will cost you more in a year than the Q9450 would

Probably true, so I have both.........settled