E8400 vs Q6600

[Stumps]

I currently have an Overclocked Q6600 B3 ES in my rig (see sig) and I'm looking at replacing it with a E8400 running at 4ghz or better (should be a snack with my board)

I only have one question would a E8400@4ghz+ out perform my Q6600 at it's current 3.6ghz?

 

[F1shF4t]

In apps which only use 2 cores or less yes it will be faster. In anything which can use 4 cores or while multitasking especially with multithreaded apps the q6600 will spank the E8400 silly.

 

[Stumps]

I mainly use my PC for gaming and general internet stuff so I don't use the extra 2 cores...the Q6600 was a freebie that i got from a computer store that I worked at early last year they couldn't get rid of it cause it was an engineering sample...I wasn't going to say no to a free Q6600...before that I was using a E4300 running at 3.33ghz.

 

[OCGuy]

If you just like to play with new toys and overclock, go for it.


If you are looking for any real noticeable difference......meh.

 

[yh125d]

The 8400 should be= a bit faster in most games, but if you play alot of GT4/other quad optimized games, the quad will pull ahead.

However, the difference probably isn't worth the cost/time to switch when what you have is already pretty dam quick

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: yh125d
The 8400 should be= a bit faster in most games, but if you play alot of GT4/other quad optimized games, the quad will pull ahead.

However, the difference probably isn't worth the cost/time to switch when what you have is already pretty dam quick

the main problem that I have with my rig is heat...the CPU can surpass 60C at 100% load even though it is watercooled....strange thing however despite the high temps the rig is still 100% rock solid...(prime95 can see temps get as high as 70C...but it still doesn't die :S )


By using a E8400 i should be able to get better performance with lower temps...

 

[yh125d]

60c is fine for a load temp on a OC'd quad, but I don't know how you got that high temps on water. Do you have lke CPU/NB/GPU all one one loop or something? You've probably done so, but if you haven't already try reseating your cpu block, 60c just doesn't sound right

 

[n7]

60 or 70C is nothing, that's why it's still perfectly stable.

Anyway, i wouldn't downgrade to the dual core, no thanx.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: yh125d
The 8400 should be= a bit faster in most games, but if you play alot of GT4/other quad optimized games, the quad will pull ahead.

However, the difference probably isn't worth the cost/time to switch when what you have is already pretty dam quick

the main problem that I have with my rig is heat...the CPU can surpass 60C at 100% load even though it is watercooled....strange thing however despite the high temps the rig is still 100% rock solid...(prime95 can see temps get as high as 70C...but it still doesn't die :S )


By using a E8400 i should be able to get better performance with lower temps...

I get 83C linpack stable for my curret config with a TRUE. (About 70 - 75C Prime equivalent)
70C is a very nice load temp for a quad especially a B3 overclocked so much.

The only real advantage is power consumption. I would imagine that quad is using some riddiculous ammount of power at load. (For a cpu that is)

 

[geokilla]

Run Folding@Home for the team and you'll be using that extra core .

On a serious note, I myself would keep the Q6600. However, I found that OCCT is a better stress testing program than PRIME, so your temps will definitely be higher in OCCT. Be sure to use the latest RealTemp and CoreTemp to find out the temps of your CPU.

I haven't been keeping up with the Intel DTS stuff, but if Intel didn't release the max temps for your Q6600, then just use RealTemp and the max I'd let the T. junction distance be is 30C. Anything under 30C and I'd consider dangerous.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
In apps which only use 2 cores or less yes it will be faster. In anything which can use 4 cores or while multitasking especially with multithreaded apps the q6600 will spank the E8400 silly.

im not one for exageration, so no, the q6600 wouldnt spank the 8400 silly. he might notice a couple of fps difference in some games, a few seconds shaved off on some apps, but these 2 are very powerful cpus and saying one would squash the other is hyperbole.

personally, i wouldnt even quabble over the diff between the q6600 & the e8400, cause the diff would NOT be noticeable. dont fall for all the marketing bs out there, if you notice a diff between the 2 i 'll give you my left nut.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: yh125d
The 8400 should be= a bit faster in most games, but if you play alot of GT4/other quad optimized games, the quad will pull ahead.

However, the difference probably isn't worth the cost/time to switch when what you have is already pretty dam quick

the main problem that I have with my rig is heat...the CPU can surpass 60C at 100% load even though it is watercooled....strange thing however despite the high temps the rig is still 100% rock solid...(prime95 can see temps get as high as 70C...but it still doesn't die :S )


By using a E8400 i should be able to get better performance with lower temps...

I get 83C linpack stable for my curret config with a TRUE. (About 70 - 75C Prime equivalent)
70C is a very nice load temp for a quad especially a B3 overclocked so much.

The only real advantage is power consumption. I would imagine that quad is using some riddiculous ammount of power at load. (For a cpu that is)

really? I thought it was in the high zone for Quad cores...I was worried that the thing might die from the high temps.

 

[MTDEW]

Well, you're in luck.
Ive owned a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz and a E8400 @ 4ghz for the better part of a year now, so i can tell you from first hand experience....DONT BOTHER

Ive had the e8400 in my main "gaming rig" and the Q6600 in may backup pc for the most part since the e8400 was a bit faster in clock speeds i used it for gaming and the Q6600 encoded video a bit faster, so i used iit in my backup pc for that.

Until recently that is the way i had them anyway.

Then i bought GTA IV and it plays way better on the quad than the dual core, so i switched the cpu's and the Q6600 is now in my main rig. (and i had to back the q6600 down to 3.4ghz for GTA IV, since it really stressed my cpu more than any game b4 it and kept kicking me to the desktop.)

Anyway, my point is, I know its hard to resist grabbing a cpu that should do 4ghz easily, but in all 100% honesty, you're not gonna see a real difference between the two cpus, if the app only uses two cores or less.

The only real noticable difference in gaming performance ive seen is what i just stated, that if a game takes advantage of the quad core, then the quad pulls ahead. (GTA IV again)

I had my q6600 first, and i had the same curiosity as you, so i bought an e8400 and was so impressed by the 4ghz that i kept in my main gaming rig until recently.
But thats just being a hardware nut and loving my first 4ghz overclock more than anything really, the performance difference isnt really anything noticable.

Think about it....when is the last time you saw a "new" video card review that said you needed a cpu overclocked to 4ghz to take advantage of the new cards?

Most reviews of "new" video cards bench with the latest Quad core at around 3ghz or so and i dont see anyone saying the reviews are invalid cuz they are cpu bound!
You can see this evidence right here on the main page yourself.

If there was any real tangible benefit from 3ghz to 4ghz, wouldnt you think everyone would bench the newer video cards at 4ghz to show the most performance possible from the cards?

The simple fact is, after 3ghz, the performance benefit doesnt scale well as you up the cpu clock speeds.
I mean there is a benefit, but its not as earth shattering as going from like 2.4ghz to 3ghz.

The evidence is right here on the main page, look at the cpu used to bench the latest cards for gaming.....its a Quad at 3.2ghz.
4870 1gb reviewed with a QX9770 @ 3.20GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=2
GTX 260 core 216 review with a QX9770 @ 3.20GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3408&p=2
4870x2 review with a QX9770 @ 3.20GHz
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3354&p=3
GTX 280 preview with a QX9770 @ 3.20GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=10
You'll see sli and crossfire numbers included in these reviews with the SAME cpu.

Now unless all these reviews are completely worthless and cpu bound from the get go then a dual or quad core at 3ghz or more is more than enough to push todays cards , even in sli or crossfire.
(now tri-sli or x-fire, i dont know or care...LOL)

The only REAL difference you're ever gonna see between the two cpu's youre asking about is if an app takes full advantage of the qaud core, and in that case the quad core is gonna win obviously.

So if you think you're too cpu bound with that q6600 @3.6ghz , i'll GLADLY trade you my e8400 for your Q6600 in a heartbeat, just PM me, i have good HEATWARE!

 

[FalseChristian]

I had a Q6600 overclocked to 3.556GHz and now I have an E8400 at 4GHz. The only reason for this is that 2 masked punks broke into my apartment and stole my Q6600 box and my wallet. I'd still be using the Q6600 today as it's the better CPU over the E8400 I replaced it with.

 

[Insomniator]

Why the hell is this even a question, 4 cores to 2 cores for 400mhz?! Thread should have lasted 1 "no" response followed by possibly a few lols.

 

[imported_TimBob]

I have had an e8400@4.0 and q6600@3.1 on the same system and prefer the e8400 by a long shot for everything I do (mostly gaming). Now, if I was able get my q6600 to 3.6 that might be a different story. But, my q6600 kind of blows so is now just driving an HTPC.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Why the hell is this even a question, 4 cores to 2 cores for 400mhz?! Thread should have lasted 1 "no" response followed by possibly a few lols.

Because each of the two cores is faster than each of the 4, not even counting the 400mHz, because the dual will run cooler, because the dual will be faster in most apps, because a lot of reasons. Don't be silly, it's a very valid question

 

[dguy6789]

I have never seen so many misinformed people on a subject in computers in a long time.(Not just this thread, but in just about every dual vs quad thread) Every single person that has recommended the dual over the quad has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. There are ZERO practical reasons for going from a 3.6Ghz quad to a 4Ghz dual. You guys were wrong when you said to get the FX57 over the X2 4800+, and you're wrong now.

You guys do not think of the whole picture when you talk about this bs. All you look at is if game X is faster on this benchmark with this cpu.

It's retarded how dually users regard synthetic benchmarks as absolute law. Benchmarks do not reflect real world performance most of the time. They are run on fresh install machines with nothing at all running in the background, sometimes sound is even disabled. Real people have things like winamp or media player, an antivirus, and a few other apps open at the same time as their game.(Web browsers, messengers, and some programs set to check for and download updates regulary etc..) A quad will perform better here.

A quad machine will boot windows faster and be ready to use much sooner.

If you play a game that uses both the cores of your dually, you will already be at the limit of what your machine can do without reduced performance. Forget running torrents, virus scans, making a dvd or pretty much anything productive or your game will studder. Dual core users pretty much have to stop gaming for who knows how long if they want to get anything done on their pc that is cpu heavy and multithreaded. A quad user could run a virus scan, encode some movies and burn them to dvd, and play a game at the same time with no speed loss assuming he has enough memory.

A quad will run a game that doesn't benefit directly from a quad core + windows and other apps at the same time better than a dual core will.

A 4Ghz E8400 will be obsolete before a STOCK Q6600, let alone an overclocked one. In terms of pure processing power, the Q6600 slaps the E8400 around. It's only a matter of if the software uses all of it or not. Just run a distributed computing program if you want hard numbers on how much more the Q6600 can crank out. Now wait for games to be using all of that and it seems kind of silly to want an E8400 especially when the Q6600 at 3.6 is PLENTY for all of today's games. Q6600 = plenty for today's games and faster than the E8400 for future games. Why would you ever want an E8400 over it?


Bottom line: Don't think you don't benefit from quad core just because your game itself doesn't support four cores. A game is not the only thing going through your processor at any given time. If your pc was running absolutely nothing but the game, no os, no nothing, and future games weren't going to have four threads or more, then a dual core recommendation would be reasonable.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Well, with newer games starting to see benefits from quad cores (i.e. GTA IV), I don't think this would be a good idea.

 

[Stumps]

hmmm many interesting arguments here...

the other reason other than trying to cool my system down was the possibility of going beyond 4ghz...what is the average overclock for the E8400 with water?

 

[classy]

Xbitlabs Review

Here is a review that covers the info you are looking for. Little different OC speeds but should give you a solid idea.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: classy
Xbitlabs Review

Here is a review that covers the info you are looking for. Little different OC speeds but should give you a solid idea.

thanks for that mate...

from that review it looks like I would need to reach 4.5ghz to effectivily surpass my Q6600...is that doable with an E8400 and my board, I never tried to push it past 450mhz FSB...which it did with ease

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Why the hell is this even a question, 4 cores to 2 cores for 400mhz?! Thread should have lasted 1 "no" response followed by possibly a few lols.

Because each of the two cores is faster than each of the 4, not even counting the 400mHz, because the dual will run cooler, because the dual will be faster in most apps, because a lot of reasons. Don't be silly, it's a very valid question

I'll give you the cooler one and thats about it. Even ignoring the points about real world setups dguy discussed, I highly doubt one would consider the speed advantage gained (if they even noticed it) by the 8400 to be worth the massive performance hits taken by some programs now, and likely all in the near future.

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I have never seen so many misinformed people on a subject in computers in a long time.(Not just this thread, but in just about every dual vs quad thread) Every single person that has recommended the dual over the quad has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. There are ZERO practical reasons for going from a 3.6Ghz quad to a 4Ghz dual. You guys were wrong when you said to get the FX57 over the X2 4800+, and you're wrong now.

You guys do not think of the whole picture when you talk about this bs. All you look at is if game X is faster on this benchmark with this cpu.

It's retarded how dually users regard synthetic benchmarks as absolute law. Benchmarks do not reflect real world performance most of the time. They are run on fresh install machines with nothing at all running in the background, sometimes sound is even disabled. Real people have things like winamp or media player, an antivirus, and a few other apps open at the same time as their game.(Web browsers, messengers, and some programs set to check for and download updates regulary etc..) A quad will perform better here.

A quad machine will boot windows faster and be ready to use much sooner.

If you play a game that uses both the cores of your dually, you will already be at the limit of what your machine can do without reduced performance. Forget running torrents, virus scans, making a dvd or pretty much anything productive or your game will studder. Dual core users pretty much have to stop gaming for who knows how long if they want to get anything done on their pc that is cpu heavy and multithreaded. A quad user could run a virus scan, encode some movies and burn them to dvd, and play a game at the same time with no speed loss assuming he has enough memory.

A quad will run a game that doesn't benefit directly from a quad core + windows and other apps at the same time better than a dual core will.

A 4Ghz E8400 will be obsolete before a STOCK Q6600, let alone an overclocked one. In terms of pure processing power, the Q6600 slaps the E8400 around. It's only a matter of if the software uses all of it or not. Just run a distributed computing program if you want hard numbers on how much more the Q6600 can crank out. Now wait for games to be using all of that and it seems kind of silly to want an E8400 especially when the Q6600 at 3.6 is PLENTY for all of today's games. Q6600 = plenty for today's games and faster than the E8400 for future games. Why would you ever want an E8400 over it?


Bottom line: Don't think you don't benefit from quad core just because your game itself doesn't support four cores. A game is not the only thing going through your processor at any given time. If your pc was running absolutely nothing but the game, no os, no nothing, and future games weren't going to have four threads or more, then a dual core recommendation would be reasonable.

Freaking thank you.

 

[imported_TimBob]

Here's a real world setup

q6600 at 3.1 is noticeably slower than my e8400 at 4.0 for everything I do on the exact same system. I've swapped it in and out plenty of times. I don't do any encoding. About all I do is play games and office/internet stuff. It multitasks just fine. I don't bother with benchmarks as it's fairly easy to tell.

I have no desire to torrent (pirate)/encode/virus scan/burn/play a game all at the same time. I wouldn't consider that a real world experience.

When this changes, I'll go ahead and use my quad or get a newer/better one.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I don't think the current dual/quad debate is quite the same as the single/dual debate of old for people who only game.