For gaming: moderately overclocked quad, heavily overclocked Core 2 Duo?

[dajini]

I can either get a Q6600 and overclock it to 3ghz, or, get a core 2 duo and overclock it to mid 3ghz, probably around 3.6 or 3.8.

I have read that some games simply don't detect or use the extra cores in quad cores, so that got me thinking. For a strictly gaming sense, would I be better with the Q6600 at 3ghz or a Core 2 Duo (probably an E6600) at around 3.6 or 3.8ghz?

Thanks.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Depends on the games and when you plan on upgrading again. If you plan to only use it for one year, I'd go with C2D. If you plan on keeping your rig for 2+ years, I'd go Q6600 hands down. I plan on my Q6600 to last me 3+ years...

My A64 3500+ Lasted 3 years before I finally upgraded to this rig, and it didn't boost my framerates at all with an 8800GTS 640... Which tells you one thing: CPU does not matter much for games, even minimum framerates were only raised from 46 to 51 on the F.E.A.R. benchmark. This is further validated by the fact that my old monitor ran a very low resolution (1280X768) which is turn shifts it into a CPU limited scenario. Even then, the Q6600 @ 3.33Ghz only increased minimum framerates a tiny ammount over *most* games. Certain games like STALKER, or LP that can take advantage of multiple cores seen a slightly better increase. Even so, if I ran at the resolution I do now (1680x1050) there would have been an even smaller difference!

 

[wittangamo]

Why stop at 3 ghz? The Quad can do more with a decent cooler.

 

[GundamF91]

It's much more important to have fast GPU for gaming, than having a few hundred more Mhz on the CPU. You'll probably not see much of a difference, but modern games are getting to utilize additional cores. If a game will use dual core, you bet it'll use quad core too, probably not as much, but still 4x core would be better than 2x, especially for long term.

 

[defiantsf]

To my surprise, the games I play are multi-threaded up to quad cores (or may be more?). So I upgraded from 3.4GHz E6600 to 3.2GHz Q6600. My Q6600 could do up to 3.6GHz air-cooled, but I wanted to run with C1E for lower power consumption when I surf. The icing is that I can now stream high-def videos via transcoding from the PC to my PS3/Xbox360 for viewing in my living room. The dual core just couldn't keep up with that.

 

[jeffw2767602]

4 > 2
Plus q6600's will usually get to 3.6ghz if you get a g0 stepping. a 3.6quad>3.8ghzdual

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jeffw2767602
Plus q6600's will usually get to 3.6ghz if you get a g0 stepping.

Most won't, unless you have a watercooled system.

 

[Lonyo]

How long do you plan on keeping this system for?
If <1yr, get the dual core, if >2 years get the quad, if 1~2 years then no idea
Quad core will be more future proof, while higher clocked dual core will give better performance now for the most part.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: jeffw2767602
4 > 2
Plus q6600's will usually get to 3.6ghz if you get a g0 stepping. a 3.6quad>3.8ghzdual

I haven't read about most people getting that high on air.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Yep... There are only a handful of Q6600's (G0) on air (Stable)... Most people with G0's seem to hit around 3.2-3.4Ghz comfortably.

 

[dajini]

How can I tell if the Q6600 I'm buying has G0 stepping?

 

[bryanW1995]

tank guys has guaranteed G0 stepping quad core. I believe that a few other sites do, too. You should only end up 150-300 mhz slower on a G0 quad than an e6600 or e6750. You'll probably need upgraded cooling for any of them to get the best oc, of course.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: dajini
How can I tell if the Q6600 I'm buying has G0 stepping?

ClubIT is one site that guarantees you will get a G0 stepping.

http://www.clubit.com/product_...l.cfm?itemno=CA1938452

 

[coreyb]

Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones, but I believe that with good overclocking hardware you can get 3.6ghz on air with Q6600 G0 quite easily.

 

[wittangamo]

Hey, if it was that easy to hit 3.6 ghz, it wouldn't take guys as smart as me and you to accomplish it.

There's a lot of variation between chips as far as voltage and heat that effect the max OC. The Q6600 is the current overclock king, but I think it's a stretch to say that 3.6 ghz on air can be done "quite easily."

I think it is fair to say that anybody who knows how to change fsb and memory multipliers should hit 3.0 without breaking a sweat, and 3.2 is not a big deal for the vast majority of GOs.

But there are some fairly experienced overclockers out there stuck at 3.4-3.5, also a few brave souls at 3.7 on air and 3.8+ on water. It's still an art, not a science, and there are no guarantees when it comes to OC voodoo.

I think my rig could go a bit higher, but I'm quite happy with the stability and temps of the system at its current settings. I have to work as well as play on this machine and can't afford to have it tweaked until its wobbly just to brag.

 

[MarcVenice]

At 3.6ghz a q6600 isn't going to be the only part that's maxing out. The mosfets, the NB, everything is going to run hot hot hot. Fairly easy would be 3.2-3.4ghz, anything higher and you will need to do some serious tinkering, stability testing, and you'll need some serious cooling.

About the OP, in 2 year it's not going to matter wether you have a 3.0 or a 3.6ghz c2d processor, what's going to matter is the amount of cores you have. Besides, the q6600 CAN be overclocked fairly easy to 3.2-3.4ghz, 3.8ghz or higher isn't even gauranteed on a e6850, and you can't OC it to have 2 more cores. Since they cost the same, I'd say q6600.

 

[j0j081]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Depends on the games and when you plan on upgrading again. If you plan to only use it for one year, I'd go with C2D. If you plan on keeping your rig for 2+ years, I'd go Q6600 hands down. I plan on my Q6600 to last me 3+ years...

My A64 3500+ Lasted 3 years before I finally upgraded to this rig, and it didn't boost my framerates at all with an 8800GTS 640... Which tells you one thing: CPU does not matter much for games, even minimum framerates were only raised from 46 to 51 on the F.E.A.R. benchmark. This is further validated by the fact that my old monitor ran a very low resolution (1280X768) which is turn shifts it into a CPU limited scenario. Even then, the Q6600 @ 3.33Ghz only increased minimum framerates a tiny ammount over *most* games. Certain games like STALKER, or LP that can take advantage of multiple cores seen a slightly better increase. Even so, if I ran at the resolution I do now (1680x1050) there would have been an even smaller difference!

weird I would have thought ur 8800gts would be cpu limited. maybe I should rethink upgrading my rig yet although I play online multiplayer games a lot maybe the cpu makes a bigger dif for those.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
At 3.6ghz a q6600 isn't going to be the only part that's maxing out. The mosfets, the NB, everything is going to run hot hot hot. Fairly easy would be 3.2-3.4ghz, anything higher and you will need to do some serious tinkering, stability testing, and you'll need some serious cooling.

About the OP, in 2 year it's not going to matter wether you have a 3.0 or a 3.6ghz c2d processor, what's going to matter is the amount of cores you have. Besides, the q6600 CAN be overclocked fairly easy to 3.2-3.4ghz, 3.8ghz or higher isn't even gauranteed on a e6850, and you can't OC it to have 2 more cores. Since they cost the same, I'd say q6600.

+1

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: jeffw2767602
Plus q6600's will usually get to 3.6ghz if you get a g0 stepping.

Most won't, unless you have a watercooled system.

Well if its a G0, it would really matter on ambient conditions. If your ambients are like 70ish you could pull a average G0 Q6600 @ 1.42-1.43Vcore REAL, on a tuniq or lapped ultra120 and have it be around 65-66C loaded temps.

I wouldnt recomend anymore then that with air. At 1.49Vcore REAL which is about where 3.8ghz+ start, id like to see a person try that priming 6H+ on air.

Good luck on the B2 on air.

 

[coreyb]

I think a lot of people end up with heat problems because they don't properly cool the room their computer is in! I always have my room between 19 and 23 degrees celsius and this is the ONLY reason I can run my Q6600 at 3.6GHz. When I was at my old place, we didn't have air conditioning and my temps were the same at stock as mine are now at 3.6GHz. Ambient temps are key!

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: coreyb
I think a lot of people end up with heat problems because they don't properly cool the room their computer is in! I always have my room between 19 and 23 degrees celsius and this is the ONLY reason I can run my Q6600 at 3.6GHz. When I was at my old place, we didn't have air conditioning and my temps were the same at stock as mine are now at 3.6GHz. Ambient temps are key!

You would probably end up saving more money by going with phase change cooling if you plan to keep ambients that low in many areas of the country...