I am planning to build a new system, my budget is around $1000 maybe a bit more. Why would I deploy a Q6600 rather than an E8500?
What CPU for a new high end system?
- Thread starter Sentry11
- Start date
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
Depends on what the system is going to be used for and how long you intend to keep it without upgrading the processor.
Currently an E8500 will be faster for most tasks. A Q6600 will be more effective if you're running multi-threaded applications or if you tend to run multiple CPU-intensive programs at once. Firefox tabs and messaging programs aren't CPU-intensive. The idea that four cores will help with run of the mill multitasking is incorrect.
Both are already well past the "fast enough" point for basic desktop use like internet surfing.
Currently an E8500 will be faster for most tasks. A Q6600 will be more effective if you're running multi-threaded applications or if you tend to run multiple CPU-intensive programs at once. Firefox tabs and messaging programs aren't CPU-intensive. The idea that four cores will help with run of the mill multitasking is incorrect.
Both are already well past the "fast enough" point for basic desktop use like internet surfing.
buy a q6600 if you plan to do a fair amount of video encoding or 3d apps like maya/3dsmax - otherwise a dual is plenty fast.
your timing could be good or bad.
- the good - if you only need a highly clocked two core for games and what ever, get the E8500-E8600 with E0. stepping - buy now 4.0-4.2 7/24
-the bad -, [9xxx] quads if required , could be a waste\gamble $ with the i7 4 cores around the corner , will need a new mb , ddr3 , heat sink,[ debugging skills.?]
-9xxx could be a lot cheaper , when i7 is unleashed either way
- like people buying P4 or $1000 + ee just before Core 2 was released , ended up with a non upgradeable system - slow system for the investment. or not this time ?
- I'd wait to see what the release of the i7 brings in.
-my noob $.02
- the good - if you only need a highly clocked two core for games and what ever, get the E8500-E8600 with E0. stepping - buy now 4.0-4.2 7/24
-the bad -, [9xxx] quads if required , could be a waste\gamble $ with the i7 4 cores around the corner , will need a new mb , ddr3 , heat sink,[ debugging skills.?]
-9xxx could be a lot cheaper , when i7 is unleashed either way
- like people buying P4 or $1000 + ee just before Core 2 was released , ended up with a non upgradeable system - slow system for the investment. or not this time ?
- I'd wait to see what the release of the i7 brings in.
-my noob $.02
rgallant, I need it for gaming. My current righ is Pentium D which is starting to get behind on the fast track. Between E8500 and E8600, why would I choose E8600? What does that Stepping 0 means?
Like said above, it's bad and good timing. But overall, Intel plans to release CPU iterations every 2 years, so that really means there's NOT a single good time to purchasing the CPU. basically I'd say get it when you need it.
First of all, go quad core if you more bang for the buck. I think computing is definitely moving toward multi core multi threading processing, so quad will definitely be better than dual unless you don't plan to keep the computer for long. As for if you get Q9450/9550 right now, you will miss out the Core i7 "Nehalem" upgrade path. What you do gain, however, is a solid Quad core 45nm that'll effectively buy you 2 years, and then you will be in a position to get a system that follows Core i7. of course, you can wait and get the i7 in a few months, then you're basically doing the same thing, just start the cycle a little bit later, so you'll stay put for 2 years, and leap frog the i7's successor, and then get the new system after that.
First of all, go quad core if you more bang for the buck. I think computing is definitely moving toward multi core multi threading processing, so quad will definitely be better than dual unless you don't plan to keep the computer for long. As for if you get Q9450/9550 right now, you will miss out the Core i7 "Nehalem" upgrade path. What you do gain, however, is a solid Quad core 45nm that'll effectively buy you 2 years, and then you will be in a position to get a system that follows Core i7. of course, you can wait and get the i7 in a few months, then you're basically doing the same thing, just start the cycle a little bit later, so you'll stay put for 2 years, and leap frog the i7's successor, and then get the new system after that.
boomhower
Diamond Member
- Sep 13, 2007
- 7,228
- 19
- 81
i7 is not an option for the OP. You will be lucky to get a CPU/motherboard/memory for $1,000 when it hits. A whole system is out of the question.
OP: E0 is the new stepping that should OC better. The E8600 is the only guaranteed way to get one in a dual core. It will make its way down to the other chips but right now it is a crap shoot of what you will get. If gaming is your thing go with a dual core. I seriously doubt in two years we will be at the point that a quad will actually give a significant increase over a dual in games. Its going to be a moot point anyways as Nehalem is pretty much going to move everything to quad anyways(at least at the level most people on here at going to want to be at) It seem physics is getting a revival on the GPU side which is where they would have had there best chance.
OP: E0 is the new stepping that should OC better. The E8600 is the only guaranteed way to get one in a dual core. It will make its way down to the other chips but right now it is a crap shoot of what you will get. If gaming is your thing go with a dual core. I seriously doubt in two years we will be at the point that a quad will actually give a significant increase over a dual in games. Its going to be a moot point anyways as Nehalem is pretty much going to move everything to quad anyways(at least at the level most people on here at going to want to be at) It seem physics is getting a revival on the GPU side which is where they would have had there best chance.
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
The E8600 is not worth the disproportionate price premium over the E8500. Just stick to an E8500 if you want a dual core. For a gaming system to last two years, that's probably the ideal processor. If you're willing to overclock I'd even argue for the E7200. Less expensive, overclocks like a champ, and won't have a problem gaming for the next two years.
I am not a keen overclocker. If the CPU overclocks, let it be. I won't put together a systems spending precious time to research what RAM modules, what timmings, which motheroard, what chipset all those hectic activities to just squeeze a hundred or two MHz out of a GHz CPU. I just want to identify a nearly top-end CPU for gaming and a suitable motherboard with some DDR3 (I heard that is the best fastest) and a top-notch card 4870X2 then assemble it up and load my favourite games like Strike Fighter, Wings Over Europe and Battlefield, GRID and other graphics demanding games. I hate buying the wrong product.
Yesterday I bought a LG L227WT-PF flat LCD and I regret the purchase. I have to shoot up the resolution to 1680 X 1050 in order to read sharp looking text, but the fonts is too small! I should have bought one with the same resolution but with bigger looking text.
IfI bought a Quad CPU but no games are using its main feature then what's the point. In 2 years time I am going to replace with a new one anyway. So Stepping 0 is all about overclocking isn't it? Then I may not need it cause I am not a hard core overclocker.
Yesterday I bought a LG L227WT-PF flat LCD and I regret the purchase. I have to shoot up the resolution to 1680 X 1050 in order to read sharp looking text, but the fonts is too small! I should have bought one with the same resolution but with bigger looking text.
IfI bought a Quad CPU but no games are using its main feature then what's the point. In 2 years time I am going to replace with a new one anyway. So Stepping 0 is all about overclocking isn't it? Then I may not need it cause I am not a hard core overclocker.
Get a E8400 and put more money into your video card (if you're a gamer).
And you can change your font sizes.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8809/53276187zn6.jpg
And you can change your font sizes.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8809/53276187zn6.jpg
sonnygdude
Member
- Jun 14, 2008
- 182
- 0
- 76
Don't beat yourself up over that purchase. All LCD monitors look best and sharpest at their native resolution, and 22" monitors with that resolution will have about the same pixel size. Like ultra laser says, the text size has to do with software, not your monitor and it's easily correctable!
Isn't it true that an E8500 is way faster than an E8400, without overclocking I mean.
Having the CPU chosen, what is the best motherboard for E8500? What chipsets are the best for the CPU? I am going to deploy an ATi Raedon video card.
apoppin
Lifer
i had to make that decision yesterday
i went for e8500 - hoping Newegg has the E0 by now. The Q9550 is what i was looking at but it is unlikely to get to 4.0Ghz. Since i am reviewing mostly gaming HW and i have very fast video cards [GTX280/HD4870x3], i need to have the fastest CPU i can afford. Since all but a handful of games use more than 2 cores, bang-for-buck seems to be the e8500 - with a great shot at 4Ghz - plus. The faster speed of the Dual core will more than make up for "lacking" 2 cores. i also got the Asus P5e deluxe which can be flashed into their better OCer, Rampage. And i got OCZ 2x2GB PC8500 since i need up to 1200 mhz and my current RAM barely manages 900Mhz.
i have P35 which means i am limited to PCIe 1.0 and only 4xPCIe for the 2nd slot for CrossfireX. If i did not need 16x + 16x PCIe, i might have picked up a P45 instead of an x48 to save a few bucks on a MB
so in short, if you are a *gamer* .. with a very fast GPU - dual core seems to be the best choice
i went for e8500 - hoping Newegg has the E0 by now. The Q9550 is what i was looking at but it is unlikely to get to 4.0Ghz. Since i am reviewing mostly gaming HW and i have very fast video cards [GTX280/HD4870x3], i need to have the fastest CPU i can afford. Since all but a handful of games use more than 2 cores, bang-for-buck seems to be the e8500 - with a great shot at 4Ghz - plus. The faster speed of the Dual core will more than make up for "lacking" 2 cores. i also got the Asus P5e deluxe which can be flashed into their better OCer, Rampage. And i got OCZ 2x2GB PC8500 since i need up to 1200 mhz and my current RAM barely manages 900Mhz.
i have P35 which means i am limited to PCIe 1.0 and only 4xPCIe for the 2nd slot for CrossfireX. If i did not need 16x + 16x PCIe, i might have picked up a P45 instead of an x48 to save a few bucks on a MB
so in short, if you are a *gamer* .. with a very fast GPU - dual core seems to be the best choice
the unknown
Senior member
- Dec 22, 2007
- 374
- 4
- 81
Ugh, I also had a Pentium D, and I can tell you I know how much a POS it is...
If you're gonna go the 4870x2 route, and your budget is $1000 I'd definitely go with an e8400 or maybe even a e8500 and buy a decent cooler, and overclock the cpu. 4.0Ghz+ is much better for gaming than a Q6600 at 3.2. Games just don't utilize the extra cores. "Future proofing" for gaming with a quad really isn't a good idea with mainstream Neha coming around in the next year.
As you know I'm sure, GPU is the most important for games, so save your budget for that. OCing the CPU will make sure you GPU runs with no "bottlenecking." More cores won't do that.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
C2D vs. C2Q cpu scaling
For the most part, unless you are gaming at 1024x768, the choice of any modern Core 2 cpu has little impact on gaming performance as you become GPU bound in a lot of situations. There will be specific games like Mass Effect where minimum framerates will be bounded by CPU speed or Microsoft Flightsim X where a quad core provides a significant boost or situations where dual-graphics card setup performs best with the fastest CPU.
But if you don't want to mess with overclocking, get E8500 and put the rest into a faster graphics card like GTX 260 or HD 4870. If you intend to keep this system for a while just like you kept your Pentium D, then I'd get the quad instead. In 2 years a 4.2g dual core will have no chance against a 3.4-3.6ghz quad core if we go by history of X2 vs. single A64.
For the most part, unless you are gaming at 1024x768, the choice of any modern Core 2 cpu has little impact on gaming performance as you become GPU bound in a lot of situations. There will be specific games like Mass Effect where minimum framerates will be bounded by CPU speed or Microsoft Flightsim X where a quad core provides a significant boost or situations where dual-graphics card setup performs best with the fastest CPU.
But if you don't want to mess with overclocking, get E8500 and put the rest into a faster graphics card like GTX 260 or HD 4870. If you intend to keep this system for a while just like you kept your Pentium D, then I'd get the quad instead. In 2 years a 4.2g dual core will have no chance against a 3.4-3.6ghz quad core if we go by history of X2 vs. single A64.
apoppin
Lifer
i don't know .. would you pair HD4870x3 with an e4300 [1.8Ghz] at stock speeds?
my games run pretty slowly at 19x12 - albeit with max details
- heck, my 3DMark06 score reflect real world observations .. that my e4300@ 3.33Ghz with HD4870x2 is too slow - it rose about 10% over a single 4870
i think in 2 years a QuadCore - any one of them - will be slow compared to the latest and greatest - then
and in 2 years, a Q9750 will be a [really] cheap upgrade to toss into your MB if quad gaming really takes off
from that article:
"The Verdict
So then, the hardcore truth today is a very simple fact: you'll gain a better bang for buck in your games from a faster clocked dual-core processor opposed to having a somewhat slower clocked quad-core processor. "
Also, they aren't showing what happens when you goto 4300mhz:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0
I thought so too. Since I am not overclocking, then even 166MHz difference is a difference. So E8500 is definitely a go.
Now, why do I get a P45 or why I do get an X48? What are their differences?
why not a E8600 if you got the cash. But if you can dabble a little in OC, you can squeeze 4 outta all these e8500/e8600s pretty easily. come back here to ask for a setup, and people will give you a list of components you need to complete this OC. I don't see that been a problem since we have so many helpful folks here.
DonInKansas
Senior member
- Feb 25, 2008
- 607
- 0
- 76
Why don't any of these reviews ever cover 1680x1050? Are 22" widescreeens that uncommon?
/end rant
The big question is what will your comp mostly be doing. Then you can get more help.
/end rant
The big question is what will your comp mostly be doing. Then you can get more help.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Really, the only substantial difference (to the end user, besides the $100 price difference) is that the X48 runs Crossfire with 16x + 16x PCI-E 2.0, vs. the P45 running Crossfire in 8x + 8x PCI-E 2.0. Note that the P45's Crossfire is still the equivalent (bandwidth-wise) of 16x + 16x PCI-E 1.1, since PCI-E 2.0 has twice the bandwidth of PCI-E 1.1. Oh, and if you're sure you aren't going to be running Crossfire (two ATI video cards), then definitely get the cheaper, more mature P45-- it's 16x PCI-E slot runs @ 16x, as long as you're only using one card.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Mostly because just about any video card these days has no problems running even the newest games @ 1680x1050 or below, even @ the highest settings. It would make the $100 9600GT look like the card to buy, for most games, except for the couple that even the fastest cards struggle with, like Crysis and World in Combat (which seems to be a CPU-bound game to begin with). When they raise the resolution, it separates the men from the boys, so to speak
edit: Oh yeah, I forgot something. The lower the resolution, the more CPU-bound you are with any game. So, with a video card review, you aren't comparing CPU's, you're comparing video cards, it really only makes sense to use higher res. Sucks for those of us who game @ lower res., though, doesn't it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter