X6800 or QX6700 or other for gaming comp?

[TriStarGod]

Hi guys,
I'm a major newb when it comes to choosing CPUs but I wandering if anyone can help me decide whether to get X6800 or QX6700 or something else for my future gaming system?

 

[swtethan]

well you can do this..... you can buy a e6600 or e6400 and overclock to 3.2ghz+ (which will beat a x6800 stock) and buy a q6600 quad core when they reach $266 in june or so (spend about $486 for both processors [e6400+q6600]). or buy a qx6700 now for what? $1000? (i have not checked the prices lately)

BUT if you have the money to do it and not upgrade later... QX6700 would be the best choice.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: swtethan
BUT if you have the money to do it and not upgrade later... QX6700 would be the best choice.

I don't agree. We've had dual-cores for more than 2 years now, and how many games support them? About 7, IIRC. It will be a minimum of two more years before an X6800 will have any problem at all running any game, I'm willing to bet. I'd guess that it will be much closer to 3 years, though.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: swtethan
BUT if you have the money to do it and not upgrade later... QX6700 would be the best choice.

I don't agree. We've had dual-cores for more than 2 years now, and how many games support them? About 7, IIRC. It will be a minimum of two more years before an X6800 will have any problem at all running any game, I'm willing to bet. I'd guess that it will be much closer to 3 years, though.

I disagree completely. If you are going to spend $1000 on a CPU, the QX6700 is way more future-proof than a X6800. Obviously neither is truly future proof, but there are already games available that can use more than two cores (Supreme Commander) and more coming soon (UT2007, Alan Wake, etc...) Ask yourself if you'd rather have a small percentage boost in clockspeed or double the number of cores. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[A554SS1N]

I'd just wait a while for those price cuts on the quad core.....

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: swtethan
BUT if you have the money to do it and not upgrade later... QX6700 would be the best choice.

I don't agree. We've had dual-cores for more than 2 years now, and how many games support them? About 7, IIRC. It will be a minimum of two more years before an X6800 will have any problem at all running any game, I'm willing to bet. I'd guess that it will be much closer to 3 years, though.

I disagree completely. If you are going to spend $1000 on a CPU, the QX6700 is way more future-proof than a X6800. Obviously neither is truly future proof, but there are already games available that can use more than two cores (Supreme Commander) and more coming soon (UT2007, Alan Wake, etc...) Ask yourself if you'd rather have a small percentage boost in clockspeed or double the number of cores. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I don't think it is that simple at all. I question quad core at this point. Even now, in gaming, single core CPU's hold their own with the more expensive dual cores clock for clock. Having another core can be useful, but how many cores does one need before it becomes wasted and inneficient? Right now dual core can be used in many applications and is certainly far better than single core. However, the same cannot be said for quad core versus dual core. The performance difference can only be seen in a very small few specialized programs. Now, if those are the programs you use, then go quad core all the way, but for the time being quad core really isn't like doubling the processing speed of a dual core, clock for clock.

That said, I would personally wait and get Qcore when the Q6400 comes out for around $266. That does make the most sense... Also, it does make more sense to get the QX6700 over the X6800.

 

[hardwareking]

i'd say go for quad-core
Seeing hardocp's review of supreme commander with quad core and dual core,it seems the future definitely favours more number of cores
Theres drastic differences b/w dual and quad core in image quality and frame rate
If u wait till april 22nd u can find the Q6600 for $530 which is about $300 less than now
If money is no object for u,by all means get a QX6700

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: swtethan
BUT if you have the money to do it and not upgrade later... QX6700 would be the best choice.

I don't agree. We've had dual-cores for more than 2 years now, and how many games support them? About 7, IIRC. It will be a minimum of two more years before an X6800 will have any problem at all running any game, I'm willing to bet. I'd guess that it will be much closer to 3 years, though.

I disagree completely. If you are going to spend $1000 on a CPU, the QX6700 is way more future-proof than a X6800. Obviously neither is truly future proof, but there are already games available that can use more than two cores (Supreme Commander) and more coming soon (UT2007, Alan Wake, etc...) Ask yourself if you'd rather have a small percentage boost in clockspeed or double the number of cores. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I don't think it is that simple at all. I question quad core at this point. Even now, in gaming, single core CPU's hold their own with the more expensive dual cores clock for clock. Having another core can be useful, but how many cores does one need before it becomes wasted and inneficient? Right now dual core can be used in many applications and is certainly far better than single core. However, the same cannot be said for quad core versus dual core. The performance difference can only be seen in a very small few specialized programs. Now, if those are the programs you use, then go quad core all the way, but for the time being quad core really isn't like doubling the processing speed of a dual core, clock for clock.

That said, I would personally wait and get Qcore when the Q6400 comes out for around $266. That does make the most sense... Also, it does make more sense to get the QX6700 over the X6800.

I never said the QX6700 would be like doubling the processing speed of a dual core in every scenario (although in some it would be close). The entire point of my post is that if you've going to pay $1000 for a CPU and you can get 2.93GHz dual core or 2.66GHz quad core, the quad core is most definitely the better long term investment. Do you really think in the near future when more multithreaded apps are available a <10% clock speed advantage will be more useful than two extra cores? Apparently not since you reach the same conclusion I do, so I'm not sure why you were arguing my points?

 

[brencat]

well you can do this..... you can buy a e6600 or e6400 and overclock to 3.2ghz+ (which will beat a x6800 stock) and buy a q6600 quad core when they reach $266 in june

:shocked:

Is this right? Will the price on these get this low for us retail schleps, or is that only an OEM price (like what Dell would pay per 1000)?

 

[TriStarGod]

Thks guys for all your opinions. I been waiting and waiting and now just too impatient to wait even longer. I'm gonna get a QX6700

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: TriStarGod
Thks guys for all your opinions. I been waiting and waiting and now just too impatient to wait even longer. I'm gonna get a QX6700

I'm jealous, you'll be very happy. What are you upgrading from?

 

[aigomorla]

Ive had both.

Let me be honest with you. I dont know how it is now, but when i had the QX, NONE of the 680i boards werent bugged. It got so rediculously annoying that i sold my entire system. I couldnt handle it anymore of running a Extreme processor on STOCK.

Since your gaming 680 > BX2 SLI 8800GTX will pwn any xfire card right now. So no arguements please.

I have read tho the new EVGA A1 revision addresses all the instability i had with my old QX. So a QX might be a worthwhile investment now. HOWEVER

id definitely pick a E6600 B2 revision batch... like what i have... to hold you off until penryn comes out. Then you can have fun with the 45nm quadcores when they come out the end of this year


Also, i dont think you get any benifit from 4 cores -> 2 cores in games yet. Software designers havent gotten unlazy to intigrate it yet.

 

[gobucks]

at the risk of beating a dead horse, there is simply no point in spending $1K on a CPU, especially since just about every Core 2 can hit 3GHz.

Personally i'd by an e6420 (the replacement for the e6400 with 4MB of L2 cache). I think it's gonna be like $165 or something and should easily hit 3GHz+ (my original revision e6400 hits 3.3GHz, so i'm sure the e6420 should do even better.)

Considering that there is basically no use for quad-cores as of yet, and Kentsfield isn't all that great (its just 2 conroes cobbled together) I'd just grab a nice cheap overclocking C2D for now and save your money for the nice native quad core processors down the road.

That being said, the Q6600 might not be a bad choice AFTER that huge price cut in june.

 

[TriStarGod]

Upgrading from an old Pentium 4 2.6 Ghz comp. (now I have 4 ) with an NVidia 6800. I don't plan on upgrading this system for another 2 or more years so I believe the QX6700 is my best choice. My system, which includes QX6700, 8800 GTX, 2 gigs of 4-4-4-12 RAM, and P5N32 mobo all in an Antec 900 case, should hopefully last me a longtime. Thks again for you comments.