Techist - Tech Forum

Techist - Tech Forum (http://www.techist.com/forums/)
-   New Systems | Building and Buying (http://www.techist.com/forums/f76/)
-   -   Q6600 vs E8400 (http://www.techist.com/forums/f76/q6600-vs-e8400-193922/)

xxfirexx 12-15-2008 10:18 PM

Q6600 vs E8400
 
I will be using this computer for mainly gaming. I plan to overclock its moderately on air, so nothing crazy. Maybe 3.6ghz on the E8400 or 3ghz on the Q6600.

Which cpu will be better for me? The price is almost the same. I understand the E8400 is better for gaming now but I like to buy a cpu that will last for 3-4 yrs. I guess by than games will be using quad cores, so would Q6600 be more futureproof?

Jtumble2 12-15-2008 10:26 PM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
I have an e8400. Has been a great proc. With a gtx 260 i was getting around 200fps constant in cod4 on the highest settings. E8400 is 45nm and q6600 is 65nm.

Crysis was in the 50's range fps with my e8400 which is very good.

No need for a q6600, but if you want to spend the extra dough then go for it.

xxfirexx 12-15-2008 10:35 PM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
I can get them for the same price so thats not really a issue. Anyone well want to share their thoughts? Im mostly concerned for the future cause I wont upgrade for 3-4 yrs so I want the best bang for the buck now and for 3 yrs. If games start supporting quads, wont they start to be better than dual core?

Also would a hd 4850 be enough to max out L4D, COD4, CSS on 1680*1200 (max res of most 22"). I don't need srs eye candy. Just good details

dario03 12-15-2008 10:46 PM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
Well if you want it to last 3-4 years I think I would go with the q6600. There are some games coming out that will use 4 cores. GTA 4 uses the 4 cores. However you could possibly get 4ghz out of the e8400 so it would be faster for (guessing) the next year in most new games.

And a 4850 will play all of those games easy. Review I read earlier said COD4 maxed options with 4x AA would do mid 50fps.

BongWizard 12-15-2008 11:09 PM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
are you building an entire system?? if you want it to last for a few years you'll need newer tech than a q6600 (if you're building an entire rig, i7 would be the way to go)... if you're not building an entire system, at least get a yorkie (the q9550 will usually OC just as well as the e8400 -> Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops)... the quad cores will start outperforming the dualies in 1-2years as more games adapt to nehalem, so it will prove a good investment

xxfirexx 12-15-2008 11:53 PM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
Q9550 is twice as much as the Q6600 so I don't think its worth it. I would be better off spending it on a video card since I'll be using this for gaming. I think a Q6600 oc to 3ghz should suit my needs for gaming and still be able to play the latest games for the next 2 yrs (if I upgrade my videocard).


My current computer is 9 yrs old lol and does everything I need it to do except in gaming. Its a P4 1.6ghz with 256mb ram so it sucks. The only thing that I will do thats cpu intensive is maybe recording demos while playing games or converting avi's to .mp4

keygen 12-16-2008 06:31 AM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
E8400 = Good for gaming
Q6600 = Good for multimedia applications and gaming

Your choice.

Hussein19891 12-16-2008 06:56 AM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
If your going Intel. Go with the wolfdale instead of the older 65nm quad which is often times outperformed by the Phenom 9950 and 9850.

Trust me you won't regret it. E8400 is BLAZING fast once you overclock to about 4.00ghz~ on air.

BongWizard 12-16-2008 07:02 AM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hussein19891 (Post 1534758)
If your going Intel. Go with the wolfdale instead of the older 65nm quad which is often times outperformed by the Phenom 9950 and 9850.

Trust me you won't regret it. E8400 is BLAZING fast once you overclock to about 4.00ghz~ on air.

+1... the intel 45nm chips will OC much better than the 65nm ones, and have the added bonus of SSE4.1 instructions... the kentsfields are getting towards obsolete now, if you want to invest for the future, a wolfie or yorkie is the least you can do

baron5 12-16-2008 07:17 AM

Re: Q6600 vs E8400
 
yeah your gonna wanna stick to a wolfdale at least, the q6600 has been a very good proc but the 45nm have another 10% on the kentsfields so for future preference in mind stick with the q9550. The other thing to consider is that the new q6600's have bad VID's and usually dont achieve the wanted 3.6ghz, instead about 3.2-3.4, while a q9550 wil get you about 3.8ghz.

The other idea is for you to build an entire system with an i7 which is by far your best bet, and will cost you around 1200-1300, that is if you are building a system.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.