Q6600 vs. E8400 for my needs

[brettjrob]

Currently running an antiquated rig I built in 2003, Northwood 2.4GHz/1 GB DDR/GF4. Finally getting around to upgrading this summer and am looking for advice on which of the two popular Intel chips, E8400 and Q6600, is best suited for my needs.

I'm only a light gamer; more than anything, I'm looking for the system that will feel most responsive in simple day-to-day multitasking (browser, Winamp, MS Word, etc.). Probably the most demanding thing I'll be throwing at this rig on a regular basis is Photoshop CS3; I'm curious as to whether quad-core will give an appreciable advantage there.

Given that I'm not big into gaming, it would seem perhaps the quad-core is the way to go, but the greater heat and 65nm process are drawbacks. Also, I haven't read up much on the current outlook for CPU's/chipsets, but if this is a situation where I could easily grab a yet-to-be-released 3.0GHz quad-core as a $130 upgrade within 18-24 months, I'm definitely not opposed to going with the 8400 for now if it's the faster option for today's non-quad-optimized software.

Thoughts?

 

[RamIt]

Comming from a e8400 user-
Get a 7200 and overclock it.
Buy a fast hard drive.
Enjoy.

For your usage i see no need for a quad or the extra money for a 8400.

 

[Gillbot]

Personally, I had an E3110 and went to a Q6600 and I should have kept the E3110. IMHO, unless you do alot of hardcore SMP programs, the Q is overrated.

 

[mooseracing]

On alot of user tasks, non server apps our e8400 desktops are quicker than our q6600 servers. I notice it the most on SQL though, that ~700mhz or so makes a big difference.

 

[svodka]

i was wondering the same thing, i do light gaming as well, and like you, i'm basically just looking for what would be the quickest and most responsive for day to day things. im upgrading from a build i did in early '06, and i want it to just 'feel' faster overall, im leaning towards a e7200, spending the money i save on that and getting a fast hard drive and setting up a raid0

 

[Tempered81]

another vote for a wolfdale, E7000's are nice & cheap too

 

[Mr Perfect]

One thing to keep in mind is the platform change that will be coming up the end of this year, beginning of next. As is usual, Intel's new parts will come with new sockets and chipsets. So while 18 months from now you probably will be able to find Core 2 Quads left over, 24 months from now they'll probably all be gone. I built a S939 in the beginning of '06, just before S939 was replaced by AM2, and now two years later there are no S939 CPUs out there.

If you get the E8400 and find that you want more, keep an eye on the stock of Quads and get one before they disappear.

 

[Drsignguy]

The E7200 chip has proven to me an overall great choice. It runs flawless on my second rig is used all the time as well as run F@H.

 

[Vixx]

I love both chips, but or my primary workstation the e8400 gets the nod.

For what you use your system for, the e8400 should work just fine.

 

[brettjrob]

Thanks for the advice given so far.

I had not even looked at the E7200, glad a few of you brought it to my attention. Seems like a bargain; however, I'm not sure the mere 30% price differential is worth it considering the halving of the L2 Cache and lack of Virtualization Technology, both things that overclocking cannot make up for. Are these important features for real-world applications, or will they likely become so in the next year or two?

I should emphasize that my goal is simply to have the most responsive system possible for everyday use; what little gaming I do will not be CPU-bound, as I do not plan on splurging on anything beyond an 8800GT, if that. One specific question for those who have used both C2D and C2Q: if you're heavily multitasking (say, browser, IM, CD burning, iTunes playing, MS Office and Photoshop open, and audio encoding all at once), does the Q allow the system to remain noticeably more responsive, all else equal?

 

[tallman45]

The slowest part of any system is their disk subsystem, not the CPU

That being said, get the most memory your OS will support which in most cases will be 4gb (yes Vista and XP only see 3.2gb) but (2 x 2gb) its a lot better than using up all your slots to get to just 3gb or on 2 single 1gb sticks (2gb max system ram)

Next get "at least" one fast disk drive (WD640gb for example) , 2 makes things happen faster ( remember disks are the slowest part of any system), if you load balance your apps and data over multiple drives, you get the benefit of data being accessed over a separate path (channel) and use of a driver cache to access frequently used data

In review

E7200 is approx $70 less than a e8400 and will perform basically the same in what you plan to use it for, BUT get an E7200 and use that $70 on a second WD640 and set it up correctly and you will have a system that performs better (snappier), a lot better actually (plus you have the ability with 2 HD to create backup redundant partitions so you data is safe)

FYI, The biggest difference in performance of the E7200 vs E8400 is the FSB, 1066 vs 1333, the data is passed between cores a lot faster on the E8400, that is what results in the performance difference over cache or clock speed.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: tallman45
FYI, The biggest difference in performance of the E7200 vs E8400 is the FSB, 1066 vs 1333, the data is passed between cores a lot faster on the E8400, that is what results in the performance difference over cache or clock speed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The L2 cache is shared on a dual-core, there's no FSB to traverse to share data between CPU cores on a dual-core.

 

[tr1kstanc3]

Originally posted by: brettjrob
Thanks for the advice given so far.

I had not even looked at the E7200, glad a few of you brought it to my attention. Seems like a bargain; however, I'm not sure the mere 30% price differential is worth it considering the halving of the L2 Cache and lack of Virtualization Technology, both things that overclocking cannot make up for. Are these important features for real-world applications, or will they likely become so in the next year or two?

I should emphasize that my goal is simply to have the most responsive system possible for everyday use; what little gaming I do will not be CPU-bound, as I do not plan on splurging on anything beyond an 8800GT, if that. One specific question for those who have used both C2D and C2Q: if you're heavily multitasking (say, browser, IM, CD burning, iTunes playing, MS Office and Photoshop open, and audio encoding all at once), does the Q allow the system to remain noticeably more responsive, all else equal?

i was in your position too so i hope this helps. i own the e7200, the xeon equivalent of the 8400, and the q6600. here is my opinion.

it sounds like you don't upgrade your pc often. if that is the case i would avoid the e7200 and pay a little bit more for the larger l2 cache found on the original 2 chips in question. when it comes to virtualization technology that really depends on what your interests are. for me personally i use it at work with windows server 2008 hyper-v and vmware esx server. its not even a question i debate when making a purchase for my home pcs. i need to have the larger cache and the virtualization extensions. my career depends on it and that is something i require in my network environment. how does this apply to you? well you might not need the VT enabled processor but you will definitely appreciate the larger cache as you add more applications in your day to day role. most people say the l2 cache performance difference between the e7200 and the e8400 is minimal. most sites use video game benchmarks to determine the delta between the two but it is not an accurate representation of multiple applications running simultaneously. you are obviously going to be doing real work and that requires more cache on the processor. don't compromise on this.

find out what your needs are. if you are worried about heavy multitasking and still having a snappy system i would go with the q6600. the G0 stepping of this processor does not get too hot. it has a large L2 cache and includes the virtualization extensions. it is a processor well suited for a workstation environment and would fit your needs.

the e8400 is also an excellent processor. it does consume less energy though because it has a more efficient design process as well as half the cores. but you must remember as operating systems become more intelligent about dynamically allocating resources that the q6600 may in fact turn out to be the better option. if you are buying with the intent on using this pc for many years to come i would pick the quad. if you plan on upgrading within the next 2-3 years i would go with the e8400.

if you check the hot deals section you will see the e8400 going for $159 and the q6600 for $179 at microcenter.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: tallman45
FYI, The biggest difference in performance of the E7200 vs E8400 is the FSB, 1066 vs 1333, the data is passed between cores a lot faster on the E8400, that is what results in the performance difference over cache or clock speed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The L2 cache is shared on a dual-core, there's no FSB to traverse to share data between CPU cores on a dual-core.

Your right, I goofed, was thinking of a Q6600 thread I was also replying to

 

[brettjrob]

Thanks again for all the helpful replies.

tallman: yeah, I'm definitely planning on getting 4 GB, as I think the biggest limiting factor in my current system for everyday use is the lack of RAM (I might have considered just throwing in more memory to my current system and waiting for Nehalem if not for the price of DDR1). For the HDD, I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've read the WD 640GB model is among the fastest 7200RPM drives on the market, and I was already planning on picking one up for data storage... but the capacity is so large that it seems like a waste of money to get two, when my OS/apps drive will only use maybe 100GB, if that. The Raptor drives are out of my price range, so what I'd really like is a cheap, low-capacity 7200RPM drive that's as fast as the WD640, but I guess that's a topic for another forum.

tr1kstanc3: very informative answer, thanks a ton. Sounds like the E8400 may be my best bet. I agree that many benchmarks and reviews are way too focused on just cranking out the highest framerate in Crysis, rather than measuring real-world multitasking performance, so it's good to hear your opinion on that. My hope is to, between the 6600 and 8400, grab the one that will perform best for today's OS's/apps, and then drop in a Q9xxx 12-18 months down the road when prices hopefully come way down ($100-125 range, if that's realistic to expect by, say, late 2009).

 

[svodka]

Prices probably wont get that low for the Q9xxx, they will phase out before that happens, and nehalems will be the norm.

 

[Hugh H]

Hey, to the OP and everyone else debating about the dual vs. quad issue, this review may help. I know it helped me a lot.

http://www.benchzone.com/page....tel_qx9650_review&pg=1

 

[kmmatney]

If I were you (don't upgrade very often) then I would say that the E8400 is the best bet. It will be very responsive for what you do, and can overclock to 3.6 Ghz without a sweat.

The E7200 is also very good, and will overclock quite well. If you upgraded more often, then that would probably be a better buy. The extra speed and cache of the E8400 is probably worth it for you.