E8400 vs Q6600

W

wildcard442

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
179
I can get a good deal on either of these processors, which would you recommend for gaming?

I currently have a single GTX 260 (192) but will probably be upgrading to second soon.
 
Dude, please just use the search feature available here on the forum. This very question has been covered hundreds of times already.
 
Well, the search turned up many threads that that said they were about equal. So it looks like I'll get roughly equal performance from either.

I guess what I really want to know, just out of curiosity, is what is the difference between the two? I know the clock speeds and the Q is a quad core 65nm Kentsfield and the E is a dual core 45nm Wolfdale. Other than that, is it the same ol' Core 2 architecture? Other than the die shrink, has much changed from the older Kentsfield to the newer Wolfdale? On a per core, clock for clock basis, do they perform roughly the same?
 
wildcard442 said:
Well, the search turned up many threads that that said they were about equal. So it looks like I'll get roughly equal performance from either.

I guess what I really want to know, just out of curiosity, is what is the difference between the two? I know the clock speeds and the Q is a quad core 65nm Kentsfield and the E is a dual core 45nm Wolfdale. Other than that, is it the same ol' Core 2 architecture? Other than the die shrink, has much changed from the older Kentsfield to the newer Wolfdale? On a per core, clock for clock basis, do they perform roughly the same?
Click to expand...

seriously, you can find all of these in existing discussions.
 
Sounds like you are a gamer. There is still no clear cut answer. The E8400 will clock to 4.0 while the Q6600 should get to 3.4 - 3.6 depending on cooling and VID. I chose more cores over higher clock speed.
 
lodingi said:
Sounds like you are a gamer. There is still no clear cut answer. The E8400 will clock to 4.0 while the Q6600 should get to 3.4 - 3.6 depending on cooling and VID. I chose more cores over higher clock speed.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing....don't believe the hype....
I swapped my quad for a high clocked dual.. had the dual for a little while, went right back to my quad, and never looked back
 
Last edited:
The main consideration for me choosing a dual was heat; I'd much rather have a quieter and cooler build for SFF systems, and I don't run anything especially strong on quadcores.
 
quad if you don't plan on upgrading to an I7 (or AMD) system anytime soon
 
My e0 e8400 was at 4.4ghz @ 1.39v on air (EVGA 750i SLI FTW). Great processor that OC's to the sky. upgrading to a i7 turned in to a DOWNGRADE in oblivion until i pushed this i7 to the 4ghz zone. So yah, for how much it cost, it's performance in games is a steal. Now granted, once more games start using more than 2 cores, things might change, but they've been saying that for a long time now...
 
Last edited:
Toss a coin and be happy? I prefer my current [email protected] over my previous [email protected]. The quad wouldn't go too much over 3.0ghz without some volts and the heat was not worth it. The dual at 4.1ghz is at stock volts and runs very cool - it will do an easy 4.5ghz if I raise the voltage a bit, but it's not worth the heat imho.
 
E8400/E8500 E0 at 4GHz + is what I'd get. When games will truly shine with quad cores, it will be time to upgrade anyways. The Q6600 will be consider ollllld tech
 
Go quad and OC it. Some games run much better with a quad, namely GTA IV , Oblivion and so on.
 
Koslov said:
E8400/E8500 E0 at 4GHz + is what I'd get. When games will truly shine with quad cores, it will be time to upgrade anyways. The Q6600 will be consider ollllld tech
Click to expand...


some already do shine with quads :eek: and there will only be more of them from here on out

I honestly don't see the (older) quads becoming obsolete anytime soon... atleast not until we start seeing 6+ core CPU's hit the market. The i7's are decent, but if you already have a decent quad rig, the cost vs the performance you'd gain leaves a lot to be desired
 
spicey said:
Go quad and OC it. Some games run much better with a quad, namely GTA IV , Oblivion and so on.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Oblivion is optimized for a quad, hence my statement earlier than my wolfdale was faster until i pushed my i7 hard.
 
Simple.If you game, get a e8400.Multi threading,rendering,compression and photo editing,get a quad.
 
We're almost already at the point where only having two cores is like having a celeron; the choice is obvious.
 
MR_PERFECT said:
Simple.If you game, get a e8400.Multi threading,rendering,compression and photo editing,get a quad.
Click to expand...

better yet, if you game and also do multi threading,rendering,compression and photo editing,like many of us....get a quad.....its the only logical choice....

GotNoRice said:
We're almost already at the point where only having two cores is like having a celeron; the choice is obvious.
Click to expand...


Exactly....
 
O had a e8400 and it run ran gta iv at 35ish FPS with evga 8800gt at high and a q6600 did 45ish with the same gpu. both at stock speeds
 
the higher overclock on the E8400 will more than make up for the extra cores in GTA IV or any other games currentley out.
 
Phenom II if you need to buy a new board anyway. Otherwise...I think an E8400 will be better in most games.
 
When I got my wolfdale over a year ago, it was a no brainer. Today I would go quad. But not a q6600. If you cant do an i7 rig, then a 9550 or 9650 would be a better choice.
 
mysterfix said:
the higher overclock on the E8400 will more than make up for the extra cores in GTA IV or any other games currentley out.
Click to expand...
For games that are optimized to run on quad-core CPUs, an overclocked dual-core will not make up for the two extra cores that a quad will have.

Given the trend toward more multithreading in games, and the fact that clock speed increases past 3.2GHz or so do not show particularly significant increases in gaming performance, I suggest that a quad-core would be the better choice in the long run for gaming.
 
Zero82z said:
For games that are optimized to run on quad-core CPUs, an overclocked dual-core will not make up for the two extra cores that a quad will have.

Given the trend toward more multithreading in games, and the fact that clock speed increases past 3.2GHz or so do not show particularly significant increases in gaming performance, I suggest that a quad-core would be the better choice in the long run for gaming.
Click to expand...

I see your point but most games are not optimized for quads and by the time they are most of us will be on to a different cpu anyways. But if he is planning on keeping the system for a few years then yes, a quad would be the better choice. I'd recommend a Phenom II or Q9550 or better.
 
Zero82z said:
... and the fact that clock speed increases past 3.2GHz or so do not show particularly significant increases in gaming performance, I suggest that a quad-core would be the better choice in the long run for gaming.
Click to expand...

wut?


Uh no, it made a HUGE difference overclocking my e8400 to 4.4ghz in the games I played. Likewise it made a huge difference to push my i7 to 4ghz range as well. There's no diminishing return here, the higher the stable OC you can achive, the better you are off. Video card limitation is a whole different issue and should not justify willingly limiting yourself the available OC headroom.
 
KVW said:
Uh no, it made a HUGE difference overclocking my e8400 to 4.4ghz in the games I played. Likewise it made a huge difference to push my i7 to 4ghz range as well. There's no diminishing return here, the higher the stable OC you can achive, the better you are off. Video card limitation is a whole different issue and should not justify willingly limiting yourself the available OC headroom.
Click to expand...
In my experiences, a higher overclock on a dual-core C2D yielded less of a performance increase than running a slightly lower-clocked quad-core CPU. In addition, CPU speeds higher than 3.4GHz or so did not have a major impact on gaming performance. Performance was certainly improved, but not enough to actually make a big difference to playability.
 
KVW said:
wut?


Uh no, it made a HUGE difference overclocking my e8400 to 4.4ghz in the games I played. Likewise it made a huge difference to push my i7 to 4ghz range as well. There's no diminishing return here, the higher the stable OC you can achive, the better you are off. Video card limitation is a whole different issue and should not justify willingly limiting yourself the available OC headroom.
Click to expand...

what games are you playing and what resolution are you gaming in?
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
As someone who went from an E8400 @ 4ghz to a Q6600 @ 3ghz, go for the quad. I used to max out both cores of the dual on really big multiplayer games, while the quad lets me play the big games while playing back 720p HD video on my other monitor.

I usually don't run SLI mode and I have each 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 on its own 8800GT.
 
KVW said:
Everything but mainly, Oblivion 1920x1080.
Click to expand...

Unless you have (or are going to have soon) a rocking video card set-up... like gtx 260 SLI/4870 xfire or better your going to be GPU bound anyway. This is a non-issue, just get the quad for a longer future and overclock if needed for some of your games. If you do decide on the 8400 its not the end of the world either. Either CPU will crank up your FPS just fine, but the quad will be better for some other apps.

Either way sounds like it's going to be overkill for what your playing at the moment. If you dont NEED the CPU right now just hold off. The q9550 should just keep going down in price with the 's' versions out and thats the best of both worlds. By the time you need a new CPU you might be able to grab a quad core q9550 for the price you are thinking about spending now.
 
I have the Q6600 now. I suppose the q9550 should be the next step up then? I need get some good info on overclocking my cpu with my current motherboard and see what is stable.
 
calikool said:
I have the Q6600 now. I suppose the q9550 should be the next step up then? I need get some good info on overclocking my cpu with my current motherboard and see what is stable.
Click to expand...

The Q6600 is already a very very good Socket 775 quad, unless you are going to go to i7 or something, you should just try to overclock your Q6600 rather than go with something like a Q9550.
 
calikool said:
I have the Q6600 now. I suppose the q9550 should be the next step up then? I need get some good info on overclocking my cpu with my current motherboard and see what is stable.
Click to expand...

I don't see Q6600->q9550 as that much of a worthwhile upgrade...
 
It really depends on what you are going to be playing. Most games do not handle all 4 cores very well. I have built an e8500 and a q6600 system, and feel i get a smoother run out of the e8500. When im running video intensive programs, i feel my q6600 outperforms. What you need to do is do some research on the games you are going to be playing, and find out what that game plays better on.
 
Disbe said:
It really depends on what you are going to be playing. Most games do not handle all 4 cores very well. I have built an e8500 and a q6600 system, and feel i get a smoother run out of the e8500. When im running video intensive programs, i feel my q6600 outperforms. What you need to do is do some research on the games you are going to be playing, and find out what that game plays better on.
Click to expand...

You haven't provided much info to go along with your account. Were your processors overclocked at all? The Q6600 has always had a low stock speed (and low FSB too), and if that's all you're running it at I could easily see how going from a 2.4Ghz quad to a 3Ghz dual could seem like an improvement. That doesn't mean that will still be the case if you're talking about a Q6600 @ 3.4-3.6 compared to an E8400 at 3.8-4.0.

There is no game out right now that won't perform wonderfully on an overclocked Q6600, even if the game only uses one or two cores. There WILL be however, games in the future which run better with more cores (quite a few already exist). So it really comes down to whether you want a processor that can run today's AND tomorrow's games very well, or you want to take your chances with a processor that can run today's games well but will feel a lot like a budget CPU in the years to come... because with quads becoming more and more mainstream, that is essentially what a dual is now.
 
GotNoRice said:
or you want to take your chances with a processor that can run today's games well but will feel a lot like a budget CPU in the years to come... because with quads becoming more and more mainstream, that is essentially what a dual is now.
Click to expand...
Dual-core CPUs already are budget chips. There will be no dual-core i7 CPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top