can we say the best quad core is q6600

[philbrown23]

Q6700 is by far the best quadcore out on the market right now! it is not insanely priced and performs on par with the Q9450 but can clock higher.

 

[newconroer]

newconroer, for the most part though the E8400 is still technically slower than the Q6600 although the E8400 might win a couple of tests. I've seen a few benchmarks and comparing the two and the Q6600 wins about 65% of the time. The E8xxx series are good overclockers but still loose to an overclocked Q6600. I would recommend an E8000 series to replace an E6000 series but I wouldn't go from Q6600 down to the E8000 series

For situations where a Q MIGHT be more beneficial, it's marginal. Since the E6600 an the E6850 arrived, there's been no reason for gamers to upgrade until the Nehalems come; unless you want to swap your CPU in some extreme particular circumstance to gain 5fps in Crysis.

However, with the differences being so marginal and possibly unrelevant in real world situations, a Q might be better for the overall user, as it can outperform to some noticeable extent when doing general or multiple tasks on a PC.

The potential of the 8400/8500 goes far beyond that of a Q6600 and given the price points, heat and the afore-mentioned potential, there's no reason a strictly gaming machine should be using a current Q over a late model E.

 

[Darren]

Eh...no sorry, even a 6850 will beat a Q in gaming at times

Maybe so but it's still evident that the E6000 series are predominately slower than the Q6600 series despite the Q6600 losing a the odd benchmark. If one has an E6600 and wants to upgrade to an E8500 or Q6600 I'm not saying the upgrade would be visibly noticeable or worth the money, but I'm definitely saying the Q6600 is faster either way, whether that translates into a 1 FPS increase or 0.5 FPS increase. Its still faster.


Edit 1: Me personally, I'm all for hanging around with the old hardware I have an 3800+ X2 and I'm not tempted by the quads one bit.
Edit 2 : Not too sure about he E6850 as I haven't seen much reviews on it.

 

[ChromeDome]

just out of curiosity, in the real world (for those who use DVD Shrink) how quickly does the q6600 processor encode (compress) DVD files to fit on a single layer DVD with ShrinK?

 

[Deleted member 3]

just out of curiosity, in the real world (for those who use DVD Shrink) how quickly does the q6600 processor encode (compress) DVD files to fit on a single layer DVD with ShrinK?

DVDshrink isn't multithreaded as far as I know. So there is no gain.

 

[Darren]

just out of curiosity, in the real world (for those who use DVD Shrink) how quickly does the q6600 processor encode (compress) DVD files to fit on a single layer DVD with ShrinK?

I couldn't find the information to that exact question.The best I could find is some benchmarks of encoding.

 

[ChromeDome]

alrighty thanks a lot dudes

 

[yogurt_21]

Q6700 ftw, it same tdp as the q6600 but at higher clocks. (which in turn should make it more efficient in heat per clock) and the 10 mult is awemsome for those who have crappy boards like me. (max's out at 410fsb)

and plz some one buy my poor spare q6700 nib.

 

[Hayder_Master]

Good one my friend

9850 BE > Q6600

Q6600 > 9850 BE

They are equivalent


Very true. 100% agree. I've seen some benchmarks where the Q6600 looses the odd test against a 6400+ X2 and E6600s


If we are talking about bang for your buck I'd say the Q6600 is the best quadcore, although it's not the fastest quadcore around it's cheap and performance is still top notch. The Q9300 is dropping in price rapidly here in the UK, so I think the Q9300 would be the best bang for your buck in a few months.

as i say i like amd i use amd but i need amd cpu like q6600 i see most benchmarks go for q6600

 

[Wits]

i will tell you why Nr 2 is Q6700 and not Q9450: first and foremost was the price bargain ( pay less and achive better clocks),then (according to what i read on some forums)they say the q6700 clocks higher than the q9450, due to the fact that it can handle alot more voltage than the q9450.

Also the q9450 has an 8x multi, the q6700 has a 10x multi. Thus giving more room to play overclocker .
Maybe thats why intel is phasing out the Q6700 since it may reduce the sales of the higher procs. At my current setting i am actually running it higher than a Q9550 and according to the internet, there room for more.

So if you want a Q6700 , better get it soon as intel has realised that it is spoiling the market for the Q9450 and soon it will be phased out.

Intel is also phasing out the Q9450 in the third quarter this year, so if you want one of them, you better act fast as well!

 

[niko084]

You guys have it ALL wrong....

The best Quad that is "not" an extreme edition is the X7350
No really but I would say the X3230 over a q6700 any day.

 

[thebeephaha]

I have had good luck with the Q6600, mine will do 4GHz with good cooling but on air I have to keep it at 3.6GHz. So for price to performance and provided you have good cooling and mobo, it really is hard to beat even with the Q6700 being at a lower price now.

 

[Hayder_Master]

You guys have it ALL wrong....

The best Quad that is "not" an extreme edition is the X7350
No really but I would say the X3230 over a q6700 any day.

can you tell me more about x7350 and x3230

 

[farlex85]

The x3230 is the xeon(server) version of the q6700. No real difference, supposed to be better binned. I have no idea what niko was referring to w/ the x7350, a google search yields printers. Currently the fastest non-extreme quad on the market is the q9550/x3360, soon to be replaced by the q9650. When that happens the q9550/x3360 will become the best bang for your buck imo. The q6700 is currently that, although it's debatable how much advantage it has over the q9450 besides price. They each do some things better than others, so it just depends on what your going for.

If you are asking for yourself, a 9850BE would be your best choice, as you already have amd.

 

[niko084]

The x7350 is the fastest of the Quad Xeon's, its also their top tier Xeon's supports multiple processor setups etc. Now finding a board to overclock it on is another story, but I'm certain it is a sickly fast chip, especially if you can manage to clock it.

 

[farlex85]

The x7350 is the fastest of the Quad Xeon's, its also their top tier Xeon's supports multiple processor setups etc. Now finding a board to overclock it on is another story, but I'm certain it is a sickly fast chip, especially if you can manage to clock it.

Ah I found it. I dunno, 65nm, 771 socket, $2000+, there's no reason to own that chip for home use, but I know you probably weren't seriously suggesting it. An 11 multi on that baby though, I wonder how far it can go..........

 

[niko084]

Ya I don't know it would be pretty insane...

I just finished building a server for a company with dual x5365's which are 3ghz Quads, 5 146gb 15k sas drives in raid 1+0 with a hot spare. Let me tell you a little about how fast you can guess that thing runs.

 

[largon]

Q6700 ftw, it same tdp as the q6600 but at higher clocks. (which in turn should make it more efficient in heat per clock)

That's not the case. TDP ≠ power consumption.

Q6700 consumes more power than Q6600.

 

[btarunr]

Hmm... For me it's a G0 stepping Q6700. After (if) the Kentsfield is phased out, Q9400 makes a decent buy, Q9550 makes a great buy but the trouble is, we're at a wrong point in time if we're upgrading and aren't into buying and selling every high-tide, with a new socket, CPU architecture less than an year away.

 

[echo75]

Q6700 consumes more power than Q6600.

Nope!!

Both use same power- 95W. Thats why the Q6700 is prefered.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACQ

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR

 

[largon]

Incorrect.
The quoted number is spec power, not real power consumption.

 

[J-Man]

I think the Q6600 is better yes because it's like the cheapest in the quad section so that's why people by the Q6600 or even the Q6700 and overclock the hell out of it.

 

[btarunr]

Nope!!

Both use same power- 95W. Thats why the Q6700 is prefered.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACQ

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR

Does a P4 2 GHz consume the same power as a P4 2.80 GHz (same core)? The product pages say yes, but the truth is NO, they don't. Why does an overclocked CPU draw more power?

Used Everest? Motherboard > CPU > Maximum Power says that for a AMD Brisbane, the maximum power is 65W to 75W while all Brisbane parts sell with the green "65W" sticker. Such ranges are provided for every CPU, Kentsfield included. Intel/AMD will rate their processors at a said wattage, be it 95W or 125W but with increase in speeds wattage always shoot up.

Phenom X4 9550 is rated at 95W, 9850 is rated at 125W, the 9950 (that's just 100 MHz, 0.5x multi. faster than 9850) is rated at a whopping 140W! What causes the jump? A mere 100 MHz increment? No. All Agena modes fall between 95W and 140W range depending on clock speed (which is what Everest bothers to mention). Again, we're talking peak consumptions. Apply that to Kentsfield too.

 

[Hayder_Master]

The x3230 is the xeon(server) version of the q6700. No real difference, supposed to be better binned. I have no idea what niko was referring to w/ the x7350, a google search yields printers. Currently the fastest non-extreme quad on the market is the q9550/x3360, soon to be replaced by the q9650. When that happens the q9550/x3360 will become the best bang for your buck imo. The q6700 is currently that, although it's debatable how much advantage it has over the q9450 besides price. They each do some things better than others, so it just depends on what your going for.

If you are asking for yourself, a 9850BE would be your best choice, as you already have amd.

right am also think about 9850BE but in any way i must change my mobo so it seems intel quad is better, and about x3230,x7350 just i think it is xeon , so if i take xeon i must chose server mobo , i don't need server mobo cuz i play games ,