i3 530 vs core 2 quad q6600 vs core 2 duo e6600 vs pentium 4 prescott 3.0ghz

[Cheesepie]

I have a choice between an i3 530, c2q Q6600, c2d E6600 and an old socket 775 pentium 4. I'm debating which one is the best suited CPU for my mother's computer. She'll use Microsoft office, internet browsing and such. Are there any real differences in mainstream use, besides power consumption? Light gaming (CS:S, COD, etc) might be done. Btw it's not my mom that plays those games

 

[Homer Simpson]

may as well just get a current gen cpu. the platform will be more upgradable in the future if needed. if you're mom is like mine and my mother-in-law, they love their facebook games. i wouldnt want to try and play farmville on a p4.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

The Intel® Core™ i3 530 most likely would have best performance and should be the lowest energy consuming of the processors you listed. So if everything is equal (meaning you are buying a new system) go with the Intel Core i3 530, then the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, then Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and finally use the Intel Pentium® 4 as a throwing star against your little brother J/K.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[Cheesepie]

The thing is, I already have all of these CPUs and their respective motherboards. I'm just trying to find out which one is the minimum that meets the mainstream and light gaming requirements, so I can sell off the rest.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The Intel® Core™ i3 530 most likely would have best performance and should be the lowest energy consuming of the processors you listed. So if everything is equal (meaning you are buying a new system) go with the Intel Core i3 530, then the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, then Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and finally use the Intel Pentium® 4 as a throwing star against your little brother J/K.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

Why would the Duo be preferable to the Quad?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The thing is, I already have all of these CPUs and their respective motherboards. I'm just trying to find out which one is the minimum that meets the mainstream and light gaming requirements, so I can sell off the rest.

Minimum? Anything but the P4.

 

[sm625]

Go with the E6600. An E6600 up near 3 ghz can handle anything with grace. I been using mine for years and I can tell you it is fine. Sell the 530 since its worth more. This assumes you're not using integrated graphics.... If you are then obviously go with the newest chip.

 

[ElFenix]

e6600 will work for that and should be the second least expensive of the 4.

 

[Maximilian]

I have a choice between an i3 530, c2q Q6600, c2d E6600 and an old socket 775 pentium 4. I'm debating which one is the best suited CPU for my mother's computer. She'll use Microsoft office, internet browsing and such. Are there any real differences in mainstream use, besides power consumption? Light gaming (CS:S, COD, etc) might be done. Btw it's not my mom that plays those games

Id go with the i3 530, its got integrated on chip graphics as well. Its one less thing that can go wrong with with the comp if discrete graphics are not used. Its power efficient and powerful too.

 

[Arkaign]

Why would the Duo be preferable to the Quad?

This. The OP specified :

(1)- This is the C2D E6600, not the newer P6600, so it's got the same clock speed as the Q6600, but two fewer cores and half the cache.

(2)- He already has all of these + boards.

Winning = run the Q6600, grab a cheap tower air cooler, and shoot for a mild OC to around 3ghz flat, at which it will run circles around the i3 530 and E6600 and of course the P4. At best, the i3 will keep up in very unoptimized games. But the 2 extra cores will even make windows just run more smoothly, as the process scheduler will have the extra cores to balance the load of the typical 55-80 processes running at any given time. Multitasking on a real quad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HT / Dual core.

Cliffs :

OP, sell everything but the Q, grab a $30ish 212+ or whatever, run a mild OC (stock volts even). Use extra $ gathered for some/all of this :

Faster HDD
Better GPU
Better PSU
More RAM

 

[coolpurplefan]

The Intel® Core™ i3 530 most likely would have best performance and should be the lowest energy consuming of the processors you listed. So if everything is equal (meaning you are buying a new system) go with the Intel Core i3 530, then the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, then Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and finally use the Intel Pentium® 4 as a throwing star against your little brother J/K.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

Why would you put the E6600 ahead of the Q6600?

 

[Arkaign]

Why would you put the E6600 ahead of the Q6600?

Probably due to getting it confused with this, an easy thing to do :

http://ark.intel.com/products/42807/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E6600-(2M-Cache-3_06-GHz-1066-FSB)

It's still slightly questionable, but a stock 3.06 P-E6600 would lead a stock Q6600 in a few things, particularly older games that only use two cores.

Overclocked even a little though, the Q6600 would eat both the old C2D and the newer P-E 6600's for lunch. 4 true cores + 8MB L2 FTW.

 

[Hubb1e]

E6600. My wife can do anything she wants to on an Athlon X2 4200+ and I suspect she'll be able to keep running it for years still.

Anything over 2 cores is wasteful.

If you are concerned about future proofing the i5 would be my other choice.

 

[Arkaign]

E6600. My wife can do anything she wants to on an Athlon X2 4200+ and I suspect she'll be able to keep running it for years still.

Anything over 2 cores is wasteful.

If you are concerned about future proofing the i5 would be my other choice.

This is the most foolish thing I think I've read in the past month.

Yes, dual-cores can and will run decently.

But, quads of decent quality definitely show benefits over the duals in lots of situations, notably multitasking, encoding, and gaming. And even if you are only running 2-3 apps, your windows installation is still juggling DOZENS upon DOZENS of threads in the background of varying intensity.

Quad > dual. End of story.

I realize this is only your fifth post here, but try not to spread obvious FUD with your 6th and later posts.

Oh, and there was no i5 mentioned at all in the OP. If there were, there are dual i5s and quad i5s of that first core i-series gen anyway.

 

[ElFenix]

Probably due to getting it confused with this, an easy thing to do :

http://ark.intel.com/products/42807/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E6600-(2M-Cache-3_06-GHz-1066-FSB)

It's still slightly questionable, but a stock 3.06 P-E6600 would lead a stock Q6600 in a few things, particularly older games that only use two cores.

Overclocked even a little though, the Q6600 would eat both the old C2D and the newer P-E 6600's for lunch. 4 true cores + 8MB L2 FTW.

it's office tasks. the E6600 won't be appreciably slower. factor in that the Q6600 will also sell for probably double what that E6600 would sell for, and i'd say the answer is simple.

 

[Arkaign]

it's office tasks. the E6600 won't be appreciably slower. factor in that the Q6600 will also sell for probably double what that E6600 would sell for, and i'd say the answer is simple.

"Light gaming (CS:S, COD, etc) might be done. Btw it's not my mom that plays those games"



I think the Q6600 will be useful for a bit longer than the E6600 will be.

Similar to how Athlon X2 3800 is still moderately useful, much more so than Athlon 64 3800.

 

[infoiltrator]

I'm a hardware junky, so I would either keep the Q6600 just because or sell them all for a G620/I3 2105 build on a <$100 motherboard with say an HD6670 or better video card.
Basic power savings over time with affordable upgrades at need. Or simplification, ie I3 to G620.
oR offer to trade to someone who loves overclocking more than locked Sandy Bridge?

 

[ElFenix]

I'm a hardware junky, so I would either keep the Q6600 just because or sell them all for a G620/I3 2105 build on a <$100 motherboard with say an HD6670 or better video card.
Basic power savings over time with affordable upgrades at need. Or simplification, ie I3 to G620.
oR offer to trade to someone who loves overclocking more than locked Sandy Bridge?

the g620 is barely faster than the i3 530 he's already got.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/118?vs=406

add in the fact that the i3 readily overclocks and that is not an upgrade.

"Light gaming (CS:S, COD, etc) might be done. Btw it's not my mom that plays those games"



I think the Q6600 will be useful for a bit longer than the E6600 will be.

Similar to how Athlon X2 3800 is still moderately useful, much more so than Athlon 64 3800.

we still have no idea what video card is going to be in the system. if there isn't one then e or q doesn't matter much. CSS is about 10 years old and, if we're talking the original COD, that's the same. i played COD multi on a banias 1.4ghz with a radeon 9000.

 

[Kevmanw430]

If it were me, I'd keep the Q6600. But, because your mom will only be doing light tasks, and the i3 is moer than adequete for the games you listed, I'd give her that, and sell the other chips to either help with the rest of the tower, or pocket it.

 

[MustangSVT]

Give her e6600 and sell the others for profit.

if you keep q6600 then e6600 and that p4 is worth nothing.

 

[Gikaseixas]

keep the Q6600, give it a small boost via oc (keep voltages stock)

That will ensure that your mom's has a pleasant experience cuz performance can only go up and will keep the gamer happy too.

In the end you'll have a quad core pc, ready to deal with future OS upgrades, more demanding games, etc.

 

[zlejedi]

Winning = run the Q6600, grab a cheap tower air cooler, and shoot for a mild OC to around 3ghz flat, at which it will run circles around the i3 530 and E6600 and of course the P4. At best, the i3 will keep up in very unoptimized games. But the 2 extra cores will even make windows just run more smoothly, as the process scheduler will have the extra cores to balance the load of the typical 55-80 processes running at any given time. Multitasking on a real quad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HT / Dual core.

i3 530 is faster than Q6600 both at stock and overclocked

 

[dave_the_nerd]

i3 530 is faster than Q6600 both at stock and overclocked

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...e,2416.html?prod&#37;5B4487]=on&prod[4424]=on

Not so fast. Q6600 wins or ties more than it loses. i3 beats it in single threaded or stuff the post-core 2 architecture is way better optimized for, Q6600 beat is in anything that's multithreaded and needs raw grunt.

And a quad core will multitask smoother for general office use anyway, since single threaded performance isn't as big a deal.

 

[alyarb]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/118?vs=53

The i3 530 is overall faster than the Q6600. Hyperthreading is practically as useful as additional physical cores for super basic multitasking. The Q6600 will only edge out the i3 in heavily threaded throughput benchmarks that are not representative of the demands of loading multiple instances of office apps, browsers, games, etc that the machine will be doing most. Plus the i3 can do 4.5 GHz if you wanted it to, which beats a 3.2 GHz Q6600 handily.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Been there, done that, learned never to OC a little old lady's computer. less hassle in the long run.

Also learned never to assume an overclock.

Today I learned that some i3s apparently have hyperthreading. I withdraw my objection, but will not be replacing my Q6600 rig any time soon.