Which CPU is the best?

[sammyunltd]

Hi!

I'm looking forward to buy a computer really soon, and I'm really confused as to which processor choose!?

First, there is the E6750, cheap at $210 CAD (or $210 USD, since $1 CAD = $1 USD), but a bit slower than the E6850 and Q6600.
There is the E6850, $80 more expensive, but faster.
At the same price or so, you can get the Q6600, slower with no overclocking but with has the potential to be faster with O/C.

I know I have a limited budget, but there's enough room to allow me to choose between these 3, so money is not a problem.

Is the E6750 just a deal that can't be ignored? I'm not overclocking, or very timidly, so is the Q6600 out of the equation? Does the performance increase from the E6750 to E6850 justifies the increase in the price?

Does the Q6600, even without O/C be radically faster than the 2 dual-core CPUs in the long run?
I need these questions to be answered in order for me to choose a CPU. That's where you come in!

I thank you all in advance!

 

[gtsing]

Well...it really depends. Because if your not going to overclock, then the E6750 or E6850 will be faster in applications and games that are not optimized for quad core CPU's. However, if you overclock the quad core it'll be exactly the same or faster. I've heard that in games and applications that are supported and take advantage of quad cores, you'll see a performance increase between the E6850 and the Q6600, the quad being the faster CPU. I'd choose the quad because in the long run games and applications will be quad core optimized, and, if you overclock, it'll be as fast or faster than a E6850 in only dual core optimized programs. I think if you're going to be going a while until your next build or upgrade, definitely go with the Q6600.

 

[sammyunltd]

Thank you!

Well, I'm not really going to be that demanding on the computer. I'll have Microsoft Office running, P2P programs, iTunes, Google Talk/Earth.... you know, small applications. I'm not really demanding a lot from the CPU.

I may play some games, but I guess this has more to do with the GPU..?!

I was more demanding before. Since the beginning of college this semester, I'm not doing a lot with my present computer, other than syncing my iPod, which takes a while... (Pentium 4 1.7 GHz, thank you!), and using the applications I mentioned before.

So, it may be clearer now

 

[bryanW1995]

it looks like you don't upgrade too much. get the quad, it'll last you a LONG time. If it starts feeling slow, buy a high-end air cooler and oc it to 3.3-3.4.

 

[sammyunltd]

Between E6850 and Q6600, without overclocking (or with very little), which one provides the best performances? Is the "future-proofness" of the Q6600 really that important, so much that it is a must-buy even now, even with my type of use??

Thank you!

PS: What about the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11? Are they out?

 

[Amaroque]

90% of ppl don't do anything CPU intensive, and much less do anything GPU intensive...

I have friends that are using: P4 1.6, AXP 2000+, P3 866, and the like... and they are happy. To those ppl I usually recommend more RAM, and a faster HDD. Not a full rebuild, or new OEM system.

Personally, I'd recommend the Q6600. But that?s just me.

 

[MyLeftNut]

I'd recommend the Q6600 as well. Even though it's clocked slightly lower than the E6850, the extra cache on the Q6600 makes up for the few hundred mhz less in clock speed.

 

[Skott]

Basic rule of thumb for cpu buying and 'no' OCing involved is buy the highest clock chip you can afford. In that rule the e6850 is the better choice. The Q6600 offers some other advantages though. If you do photo editing and the like or do a lot of heavy multitasking the Q6600 would probably server better in this capacity. If a game (and there are very few so far) takes advantage and utilizes 4 cores then the Q6600 has an advantage there as well supposedly. For gaming enthusiasts I believe the dualcores still do better but that'll change next year as more and more games come out to take advantage of them. If it were me I'd get a e6850 now over the Q6600 but thats just me. The next gen quads are the ones that are really going to shine IMHO.

 

[nyker96]

Q6600 I say if you building now, it's more future proof.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Skott
Basic rule of thumb for cpu buying and 'no' OCing involved is buy the highest clock chip you can afford. In that rule the e6850 is the better choice. The Q6600 offers some other advantages though. If you do photo editing and the like or do a lot of heavy multitasking the Q6600 would probably server better in this capacity. If a game (and there are very few so far) takes advantage and utilizes 4 cores then the Q6600 has an advantage there as well supposedly. For gaming enthusiasts I believe the dualcores still do better but that'll change next year as more and more games come out to take advantage of them. If it were me I'd get a e6850 now over the Q6600 but thats just me. The next gen quads are the ones that are really going to shine IMHO.

Absolutely agreed.

There is no substitute for pure clock speed at the present time. The next generation of Quad Core CPU's will be the one to show a real improvement over the Dual Core.

Especially when there is more software developed to take advantage of the extra cores.

 

[LightningRider]

Another vote for the Q6600. Also the 7200.11's are available now. See the thread in the General Hardware forum.

 

[bryanW1995]

one thing that many of us haven't thought of is that the extra cache really helps the Q6600 even without overclocking. That extra cache doens't make up for the 600 mhz it gives up to the e6850, but it probably does make up for a couple hundred in most apps at least. Also, I've seen this a lot and it is very true: if you had bought a single core fx 55 vs an x2 4000 2 yrs ago, most people would have called that a smart move. however, an x2 3600 is still fairly current today while the fx55 is, well, not. If you're planning to keep it for a while you'll be much happier with the quad.

 

[Amaroque]

Agreed. I sold all my single core systems (except my wifes).

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: Skott
Basic rule of thumb for cpu buying and 'no' OCing involved is buy the highest clock chip you can afford. In that rule the e6850 is the better choice

That was true for years, before dual, and quad cores became available to the general public. But now thing have changed dramatically...

 

[dflynchimp]

yeah, the Gigahertz war ended years ago, we're more geared towards simutaneous multitasking now (SMT if you will). Besides, 2.4GHz of a conroe/kentsfield is already pretty fast, so if you can double up on the cores why not?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
That was true for years, before dual, and quad cores became available to the general public. But now thing have changed dramatically...

WARNING! Rant Ahead. Advice is given at the bottom
Umm, actually that is misleading, that was true to the point of the ghz race (who could get to 1 ghz first). Provided it was always complicated, after the 1 ghz time period it became much more difficult. AMD was producing 1.8 GHZ chips that preformed just as good or better then the intel 2.4 ghz chips. All the Multi-core period is proving is the clock speed is not always the most important thing. One core of intels Conroe preforms MUCH better then that 3.8 GHZ pentium 4 while keeping the core cooler and at a lower clock speed.

Sorry for the nit-pick, but it Irks me to no end to here someone say that it was ever true that the highest clocked CPU would be the fastest. That is simply not true. (and I spent way too much time in the GHZ wars days trying to convince the ignorant that clock speed is not everything)

One other thing, just to hammer the point home. A few years back a company created a transistor that operated at 100 GHZ (if I remember correctly) How do you think that transistor compares to a Pentium 90? It sucks, it can't do anything but its specific function and over all was a bit of a useless advance. Sure it can flop like lightning, but what else can it do?

One other example is comparing a video card to a processor. The Processor on a video card operates at anywhere from 500 - 1000 mhz (I believe, not to fluent in Video card clock speeds) Yet you just try and use your 3.2 GHZ conroe to process the video out, call me when you get 100 frames of oblivion fully rendered. In the meantime you will have learned that design is very important in computer speed.

[/rant]

the Q6600 will be your best future proof bet. They should overclock well, and if you wanted to, you could get a good aftermarket cooler later after you have more funds available. Even without overclocking, the Q6600 is pretty good at what it does. (though I would suggest you seriously consider at least pushing it 3.0 ghz, not a small OC but definitely possible)

 

[aigomorla]

LOL... if people gave anandtech .10 cents for each time this type of post is brought up. They'd be bigger then google.com