• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What processor!!!?!?!

X

xyberfighter

Junior Member
I'm going to build a new rig within a week or so and I was wondering... which processor?!

However, I am looking for the best price : performance ratio processor under 300 dollars.

I was deciding between.... FX-74, Q6600, or the X2 6400+ (with the nice newegg bundle with the G.skill 2x1gb)

I don't plan on OCing either, unless it's in my best interest.

The rig is mainly for gaming.
 
Q6600. c2d > any athlon64 out there right now. you might want to see what amd's barcelona offers this coming week before ordering, but if you want the best cpu out of those 3, the Q6600 is definitely the way to go.
 
If I understand the naming convention correctly Barcelona is the AMD server chip so he's probably not going to be interested in it. I think its the Agena chip thats the desktop version and its not due out for a while from what I hear. I'd say either go for the Q6600 or the E6850. For gaming and Net surfing purposes only the E6850. For Gaming, photo editing, CAD, Net surfing, and heavy multitasking in general, the Q6600. But thats just my opinion.
 
Originally posted by: Skott
If I understand the naming convention correctly Barcelona is the AMD server chip so he's probably not going to be interested in it. I think its the Agena chip thats the desktop version and its not due out for a while from what I hear. I'd say either go for the Q6600 or the E6850. For gaming and Net surfing purposes only the E6850. For Gaming, photo editing, CAD, Net surfing, and heavy multitasking in general, the Q6600. But thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Without overclocking, that's entirely correct. 6850@3ghz stock vs. Q6600@2.4Ghz stock, the 6850 wins in a lot of things. Overclocking both, the Q6600 runs away though, and the fact that so many future games will support QC seals it as the winner in that regard.

I'd have a difficult time recommending a $200+ processor at this point that only had two cores.
 
I agree. I think that Q6600 is an awesome value right now. If you go dual core get the e6750, it's less than $200 now and a much better value than e6850 for $300.
 
So Barcelona is pretty much out of the question if I want a system within a week? Since the prices for the performance are high due to it's new release.
 
barcelona is a server chip. phenom is the desktop version and should be out in a few months. you could get a barcelona now but it will be slow and the mobo for it will be very expensive.
 
Well, the reason I said e6850 is because a quick look yesterday on pricegrabber put it at about $280ish but thats without shipping. At 3GHz thats a nice stock clock. It overclocks very nicely too from what I have heard. For gaming I dont think the current quads are all that hot but thats just my own opinion. The next gen quads are going to be the really good gaming quads I'm thinking. Right now I'm of the opinion of dualcore now and quad later when next gen comes out. Unless of course you are using alot of programs and uses that utilize quads which doesnt involve much gaming really to be honest.
 
oh, there's no doubt that the e6850 is a better chip than e6750, it's just that it's 10% faster and 50% more expensive. I got the e6750 b/c I figured that the resale value btwn e6750 and e6850 will be more like the 10 % perf diff. I still think that the OP would be best served with the Q6600, anyway. It will overclock at least as much as the e6850 and it will last longer and have better resale.
 
I was debating between the E6750, E6850 and the Q6600. I chose the Q6600 because more and more games/apps will be optimized for quad core in the future (Crysis being a perfect example). And from reviews once overclocked will perform better than a 6750 or 6850. Plus why would I pay the same money for a 6850 when I can get a quad which will let me be a little more future proof.
 
I don't overvolt my CPU's anymore. One, it leads to early death sometimes, and MHz degradation on quite a few CPUS. Two, it leads to 24/7 stability problems at 100% CPU load for 24/7 operation.

I've played with my C2Q and got it to boot win xp at 3.6 GHz. Which is fine for gaming. But I don't want to come home from work to find it crashed, and I lost 12 Hrs of work on four cores (48 Hrs lost).
 
that's a good idea, but keep in mind that if you simply overvolted a small amount, say enough to get you to 3.3, you'd get an extra day's worth of work every couple weeks. As long as you have adequate airflow you're unlikely to cause major problems at that speed. Of course, your room might get a little bit hotter...
 
Originally posted by: Skott
Well, the reason I said e6850 is because a quick look yesterday on pricegrabber put it at about $280ish but thats without shipping. At 3GHz thats a nice stock clock. It overclocks very nicely too from what I have heard. For gaming I dont think the current quads are all that hot but thats just my own opinion. The next gen quads are going to be the really good gaming quads I'm thinking. Right now I'm of the opinion of dualcore now and quad later when next gen comes out. Unless of course you are using alot of programs and uses that utilize quads which doesnt involve much gaming really to be honest.
Click to expand...



Well, doesn't the Q6600 run faster or the same as the best dual-core AMD CPUs right now?

If that's true, then future applications/games will support the quad-core technology... thus making the Q6600 the most viable option in my view.
 
Originally posted by: xyberfighter
Originally posted by: Skott
Well, the reason I said e6850 is because a quick look yesterday on pricegrabber put it at about $280ish but thats without shipping. At 3GHz thats a nice stock clock. It overclocks very nicely too from what I have heard. For gaming I dont think the current quads are all that hot but thats just my own opinion. The next gen quads are going to be the really good gaming quads I'm thinking. Right now I'm of the opinion of dualcore now and quad later when next gen comes out. Unless of course you are using alot of programs and uses that utilize quads which doesnt involve much gaming really to be honest.
Click to expand...



Well, doesn't the Q6600 run faster or the same as the best dual-core AMD CPUs right now?

If that's true, then future applications/games will support the quad-core technology... thus making the Q6600 the most viable option in my view.
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, when it comes to games and gaming the Q6600 is better than the 6000+ (which is AMD's best if I remember correctly). The 6000+ doesnt have much more headroom for OCing unlike the Q6600 which can achieve some really nice overclocks with the right setup. So, yeah in this situation the Q6600 is better overall. It also has a better upgrade path IMO. At least the mobos do anyway. Right now Intel is the performance leader so I unfortunately discount AMD's chips. Even in pricing AMD is having trouble competing.

As far as the E6850 vs Q6600 debate goes the e6850 is a better performing chip for gaming and it overclocks really well too. I just think as far as gaming goes the E6850 is better choice than the Q6600 at this moment. Supposedely the new games will take advantage of the quad but thats not yet proven and wont be till each of them comes out. Although I'd say they most likely will. The thing is though that when the next gen quads come out everyone is going to switch to them and you most likely will want to as well.

This is where I'm thinking Intel dualcore now and Intel quad next year when the next gen quads hit the streets. Right now looking at pricegrabber the Q6600 is $277.50 and the E6850 is $284.90. Shipping not included. Basically a $7.50 difference in price. I'd rather pay the extra $7-$8 and get a better performing chip in stock form now. Of course if Intel changes the price structure or supply/demand changes then my argument may become moot.

I'm not bashing the Q6600 or anything I'm just saying think how you may upgrade down the road in the next year. It may be better to go dualcore now instead of quadcore. But it also depends on what you are doing with your PC.

Just some thoughts of mine anyway. Other good points have been put forward by others here.
 
Originally posted by: Skott
This is where I'm thinking Intel dualcore now and Intel quad next year when the next gen quads hit the streets. Right now looking at pricegrabber the Q6600 is $277.50 and the E6850 is $284.90. Shipping not included. Basically a $7.50 difference in price. I'd rather pay the extra $7-$8 and get a better performing chip in stock form now. Of course if Intel changes the price structure or supply/demand changes then my argument may become moot.

I'm not bashing the Q6600 or anything I'm just saying think how you may upgrade down the road in the next year. It may be better to go dualcore now instead of quadcore. But it also depends on what you are doing with your PC.

Just some thoughts of mine anyway. Other good points have been put forward by others here.
Click to expand...

After reviewing numerous [gaming] benchmarks, I'm in the same boat. I'd be better off with an E6750 which is $100.00 less than the Q6600.

I don't think buying into the Q6600 yields that much of a "future proof" system considering dual-core cpu's are pushing 3ghz right now. In 6-12 months, I wouldn't be surprised to see 3Ghz+ Quad-core cpu's at or near the same price as the Q6600 is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top