Will I see performance drop going from e8400 to Q6600?

[kronnyq]

I noticed that Q6600 runs at 1066 fsb but e8400 runs at 1333. I currently have my e8400 @ 3.6ghz, and hoping to get the Q6600 around the same speed because I got a G0 Slacr model.

Still don't understand why the q6600 runs at 1066 fsb and not 1333?

 

[goldcrow]

The e8400 @ 3.6ghz should outperform that quad in most games which aren't optimized for quads. But if you play games with multi-core support like GTA IV, the Q6600 would do much better. as for the 1066fsb thing, the q6600 is a sandwich of 2 e6600 cores (correct me if I'm wrong) which ran on 1066fsb only. If ever you do get to overclock the q6600 to 3.6ghz speeds, that would last quite a long time before needing an upgrade but usually Q6600s can only overclock as much.

 

[sgrinavi]

Getting your G0 to run at 3.6 and leaving there 24/7 are two different things. 3.2 on stock-ish voltage is the sweet spot for that chip IMO. Both of mine would go 3.6, easily on my x38 and x48 boards, but the heat from the added voltage made it less than desireable when you considered the small gains in performance.

If your apps use four cores then the quad at 3.2 is going to blow away the C2D at 3.6.

 

[Denithor]

To address your exact question about fsb: remember that Intel talks about fsb for their processors as "quad pumped" so take your system fsb & multiply by four. So "1066 fsb" actually corresponds to a system fsb of 266 and "1333 fsb" is equal to a system fsb of 333.

Now, when you overclock your CPU you do so by increasing the system fsb. Your e8400, for example, is running at 9x400fsb = 3.6GHz. In this overclocked state you are actually using what Intel would refer to as "1600 fsb" in their marketing language.

Same will hold true when you overclock a Q6600. If you set the system fsb to 333 you will be running the CPU at "1333 fsb" with a clockspeed of 3GHz (9x333). With excellent cooling, a solid overclocking motherboard, increased voltage and some luck you could potentially set the Q6600 to "1600 fsb" and run it at the same 3.6GHz as your e8400. But for 24/7 operation that is asking a lot of your setup as the Q6600 generates a lot of heat and will take quite a bump in voltage to run stable at 3.6GHz (if it will at all, which is certainly not guaranteed).

You are likely to see a slight decrease in performance in most games if you get a Q6600 and run at 3-3.2GHz versus your current e8400 @ 3.6GHz. In a few games (those that take advantage of >2 cores, such as SupCom and GTA 4) you will see a nice improvement. If you manage to run your Q6600 at 3.6GHz without burning it up you will see similar performance in most games and somewhat better performance in those that are more heavily multithreaded. But remember also that you are taking a step back in CPU architecture and clock-for-clock Penryn outperforms Conroe.

 

[Sunrise089]

Unless you have a reason to upgrade (you want to run a program that really benefits from 4 cores) I see no reason to do so. Peryn is a bit faster clock-for-clock, easier to overclock to 3.6ghz (in this case you know 100% that your current chip will hit the speed), and will probably run cooler at that speed.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
Unless you have a reason to upgrade (you want to run a program that really benefits from 4 cores) I see no reason to do so. Peryn is a bit faster clock-for-clock, easier to overclock to 3.6ghz (in this case you know 100% that your current chip will hit the speed), and will probably run cooler at that speed.

I agree. He could take the chip further too.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: kronnyq
I noticed that Q6600 runs at 1066 fsb but e8400 runs at 1333. I currently have my e8400 @ 3.6ghz, and hoping to get the Q6600 around the same speed because I got a G0 Slacr model.

Still don't understand why the q6600 runs at 1066 fsb and not 1333?

The e8400 is already a nice CPU. Why bother going to a Q6600? You are more future proof with a Q6600, but since you already have the E8400 i would just wait until the next gen I7's come out.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
If your apps use four cores then the quad at 3.2 is going to blow away the C2D at 3.6.

i have'nt seen any benchmark showing a quad core blowing away a dual core. dont exaggerate so much.

as for the OPs question, the C2D's are'nt fsb starved, they simply dont saturate the fsb and 1066 is plenty.