1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Q6600 or E6600?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Brutalfate, Sep 29, 2007.

  1. Brutalfate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    374 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    AUS, NSW, Sydney
    I've decided its time to ditch the good 'ol P4 and go with something with a bit more power behind it, however I can't seem to decide between the E6600 or the Q6600 when its only $60 more. I do plan on o/cing a little.. although o/cing is quite limited with my board, due to there being no overvolt option in bios.



    what do you guys think?
     
  2. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I say Q6600. I like having more cores. Multitasking is greatly improved, and it saves a bunch of time when I do encoding. Not only that, but more and more apps are becoming multi-threaded.
     
    Brutalfate says thanks.
  3. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Brutalfate says thanks.
  4. Brutalfate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    374 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    AUS, NSW, Sydney
    Yeah. Alright, sweeet. thanks for that guys
     
  5. Matsu New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I'd go for the Q6600.
     
  6. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
  7. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Well the G0 q6600 is alot faster than the e6850. Lets face it is 2 G0 cores against 4 G0 cores with double the onboard memory 4mb verse 8mb. The e6850 is a great chip but slower big time than a Q6600 G0. You might not notice it now but you will soon.
     
  8. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,044 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,106
    I just ditched my E6600 for a Q6600, and even though I can't get the Q6600 to the 3.6GHz that I could with the E6600, I don't regret the move. All games out run perfectly on max settings on a 3GHz Core 2, event he ones that don't use all 4 cores.

    As newer games come out a 3GHz Core 2 Duo might not be enough so some make the argument that getting the higher clock speed would be better, however any game that needs speeds beyond 3GHz IS going to use all 4 cores so the quad will still be faster.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  9. hat

    hat Maximum Overclocker

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16,937 (5.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,067
    Location:
    Ohio
    Get the Quadrilateral
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  10. Richieb0y

    Richieb0y New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    471 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Location:
    The Netherlands Almere
    Q6600 is the killer i play 3dmark06 on stock speed and i get 1000+ points more than my e6420
     
  11. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    Q6600, just because it would future-proof your rig.
     
  12. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    how do you know that all the games you play are using all 4 cores tho'.some games need patching to use 2 cores.i would say wait and get a quad penryn next year.which will oc higher and run cooler than a q6600.unless your gonna buy the q6600 now and buy a quad penryn in 4mths too.

    future proof will run out in 4mths on the q6600,the penryn will stomp it.look at the no. of WR's they have beaten with penryn.
     
  13. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Future proofing does not mean staying at the top of the charts. It means still being useful. Look how long the AMD Dual cores have been around. Back when they first came out, everyone was saying to stick with the higher speed single cores. Where are those single cores now?

    If he's buying a cpu now, the Q6600 is still the better buy.
     
  14. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    if hes buying now,i guess your right.

    i got the 6750 coz it was cheap tho',i'm gonna use this for 4mths ish and get a penryn tho'.i wonder how many people who have q6600's now are gonna ditch it when penryn come along tho'?
     
  15. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    If I had a larger flow of money, I'd be one of those people. lol. I have an upgrade addiction. lol
     
  16. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    i considered the q6600,but im prepared to wait a little while,i can probs get this 6750 to 3.8ghz stable.which will be good enuff for now till the penryns come along.

    i also dont think there is that many games now that will use 4 cores anyway.im not denying the q6600 is a good chip,but been so close to penryns release i dont want to spend that much only to ditch it next year for a penryn.plus how well will the q6600 keep its resale value when penryn comes out.

    ive just got my p5k-premium,which oc's pretty well.it will do at least 500fsb it seems,so im ready for a quad next year now.
     
  17. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    But another way to look at is, what if he doesn't plan to upgrade for a while? More and more apps are become quad capable, so the chip will actually become faster with a little time, and even tho Penryn will out perform it, the Q6600 will still be a very, VERY capable performer.
     
  18. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    and cheaper when penryn comes out too :)
     
  19. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,748 (5.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Lol terminology......It cannot be faster than a 6850 unless it's a genuine multithreaded app (as opposed to a single or dual core optimised app) unless of course the average quad overclocks better than the average 6850 which I very much doubt, 4 cores can only be faster than 2 cores in a single application if it's using more than 2 cores......hence terminology! :D
     
  20. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Ah yes master of the obvious. :laugh: pooping plat and gold again
     
  21. grunt_408

    grunt_408

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,027 (0.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    488
    Location:
    Australia
    I just ordered me a E6750 That will do me untill the penryn is a cheaper upgrade. It dosnt matter what you get today coz tommorow it will be yesterdays news.
     
  22. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,161 (1.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Something I meant to add to this weeks ago, was that benchmarks wise the E and Q are relatively the same, it's almost a moot point.

    The more important factors are the compatibility, overclocking flexibility, heat etc.

    I find the the E to be much more efficient and manageable, stressable and has a lower diminishing return than the Qs.
    Your only option around this is to use the g0 stepping revision for the Qs, if you can obtain one.


    The only thing really going for the Qs is the 'future proof' arguement, however it's flawed.

    First thing to consider is that no application(most likely) is going to REQUIRE more than two cores for quite a long time. We're still waiting for a market influx of applications that even make use of more than two cores. C2D have plenty of life left in it.

    Second, and something that most people do not consider is that the current Qs are two pairs of cores. Instead of 4, it's more like 2 + 2; they communicate through the system RAM and FSB, because they're located on two physically separate dies. This is a whole lot more convoluted than passing information around, within the CPU, like "true" quad core should.

    I imagine by the time 'true' quad core based chips arrive, there will be a better number of applications that can make use of them at that time, and any previous Q versions will be dirt cheap.


    So with that said, I would vote for the E technology because it can be tinkered with more, and by the time it's at it's 'rope's end,' so to speak, the better Qs will be on the market.

    EDIT: Addition. I imagine a good plan would be to wait for those 'true' quad cores, and even if you did buy them when they were partially 'new,' you would at least be truly future proofing. To compliment that idea, prices of the newer GPUs, like 8900s and such would have come down, and you'd be able to properly upgrade. Rather than Q now, 8900 later, another Quad chip later and get stuck in a leap frog process.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2007
  23. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    As far as apps REQUIRING more than 2 cores, of course not. That's not the question at hand, the question is, do multi-thread apps BENEFIT from more than 2 cores? The answer is yes.

    And there has been a steady influx of multi-threaded apps in recent times. If you do any kind of a/v encoding, the quad will pay huge dividends in time saved. Not to mention the fact that most of the major game developers are speaking of their plans to move to multi-threading.

    The fact that they're 2 dual cores in one package means little if there is still a performance improvement. The means of getting there does not matter, only the results matter.

    And the quads and duals most certainly aren't equal performance wise. In applications that the quad isn't fully used, yes the dual puts up a fight. But in true multi threaded apps, the quad decimates even the E6850. But, considering the OP was talking E6600 vs Q6600, the worst case scenario is that they perform the same in non-threaded apps. That doesn't even take into account the hugely superior multi-tasking abilities the quad has.

    All said and done, the Q6600 is the better purchase than the E6600, hands down. Now, Q6600 vs E6850? That's a little more debatable, but even then, the quad still gets my vote.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2007
  24. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,161 (1.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Is the OP talking about irrelevant synthetic benchmarks, for computing he won't be doing?

    An influx of multi threaded applications, built around a first generation Q, where neither the program or the chip is being fully utilized.

    Hardly supportive of your notion that two cores smushed together isn't a viable concern. Especially when your arguement is about an unknown performance. If such was the case, then why would they be bothering to build true quads? For the heck of it?

    At stock settings, Es and Qs are nearly identical for real world or gaming applications.

    The times we see the Q outshining is in burst data comparisons, hardly a deciding factor.

    As for the C2D putting up a fight, the point of 'true' multi-threaded apps is irrelevant, as none exist. They would need a 'true' 4x core to be utilized. And since none exist yet, and will not for a while...



    There's too much hype over the Qs, that put it in the department as if they dominate Es like Es dominate an old PIII 700mhz.

    And no, it wasn't so much about the 6600 vs 6600, it was more about C2D vs Q.

    Anyways, this information was thrown in to give people something to consider; as I doubt most overclocker's are big on data burst speed in their photoshop adventures, if they even have any.
     
  25. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,748 (5.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    yeah sorry, I can be a bit of a prude when it comes to detail....it's one of my great failings :eek:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page