Core 2 Quad Q6600 - Is it Gamer Choice

[Shtal]

----Price cuts from Intel----
For Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU - Is it Gamer Choice.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=15


Question?
What would you choose Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0GHz) -OR- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz). They both cost same $266.00 US. dollars....

 

[Albuquerque]

Edit I got it wrong.

The 6850 is still a 65nm part, but a later "G0" stepping. Most of the folks who got one early said it overclocked better than the previous versions, with people getting the 6750 version (2.66ghz) up to around 3.6 -> 3.8ghz mark without trying too hard.

I think if I had only the choice between the E6850 and the Q6600, I'd do the quad core. But more realistically, I'd save some money and buy a lower speed processor -- like the E6750.

 

[pjbliverpool]

If I were buying today I would have to say yes, the Q6600 seems to be an amazing buy. Unfortunatly I purchased an E6600 for more about 6 months ago and I can't justify another upgrade at this point.

Happy days for anyone buying now though :smile:

 

[AlexV]

Must resist urge to buy...Penryn relatively near...must fight against the craving

 

[Albuquerque]

See, at the moment I'm really torn -- a (cheaper) dual core will overclock better, and there are only two or three apps on my rig that would use more than two cores. So faster speed + dual core seems more suited for now.

But...

I know quad core support is definitely coming, both in games and in future apps. By the time Penryn is out, I think it will be a good time to draw the line in the sand and say "From here out, it's quad core". Just IMO of course...

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I'm thinking hard about getting a core2quad at the end of summer. I first wanted a core2duo and just overclock it (3ghz doesnt seem to be a problem) but I suppose 4x2.4Ghz gives alot better performance in 3dsm than 2x3ghz and maybe better in games too.

 

[Albuquerque]

Well, consider that even the Quads are still overclocking quite nicely. If you're using aftermarket cooling and aren't scared of a tiny bump in voltage, there's likely no reason why a QX6600 couldn't do 3ghz with 100% stability. Hell, it might be likely that you could do it even without the voltage...

I'm thinking that when Penryn comes out, the new 45nm process is going to be a clock monster. Combined with the additional performance features in Penryn, I bet we see some really REALLY good stuff come out for the enthusiast market by the end of this year.

Right now is an exciting time for people buying CPUs

 

[pjbliverpool]

Right now is an exciting time for people buying CPUs

Hehe, its hard to remember the days of the old 3Ghz P4 that we seemed to have forever and the CPU market was about as exciting watching paint dry. I still remember the talk of the clock speed wall and how the days of rapid CPU performance increases were gone....

These days the CPU market is as exciting than the GPU one! If not more so!

 

[Malo]

It's a nice price but I'll be going with the 6750 and overclocking that one instead. Can't be beat for $180ish, and down the track I can always upgrade to a quad core Penryn when there is a lot more support for multiple cores.

 

[ballsweat]

why is the cpu used so heavily in a game sponsored by a company who wants to push gpgpu's?

up until i saw this benchmark, i thought my core 2 duo e6300 was enough, but i guess not.

i thought with dual 8800 gtx's, my cpu wouldn't have to be ultra high-end, but apparently i was wrong.

on the other hand it doesn't really bother me, b/c my now-weak cpu still can't prevent me from playing at the highest settings (except not 2560x1600).

this is a stupid post, by a stupid person, but i had never really looked closely at cpu benchmarks before, other than heat, so it's fairly new to me.

also, it's not good how intel is making such huge differences in heat with the same processor. fortunately, my e6300 was made before the hot ones were made. I was hoping that was the only time intel would pull a stunt like that (the january 2007 manufactured ones), but unfortunately, it's probably going to be pretty prominent (now that it's being done with these newer skus.)

on the other hand, i'm sure that everyone else is fine with intel making hotter, less oc-able revisions, since i don't like that.

 

[Albuquerque]

this is a stupid post, by a stupid person

Hey, watch it. That was uncalled for; it's a valid question no matter who asks it.

also, it's not good how intel is making such huge differences in heat with the same processor. fortunately, my e6300 was made before the hot ones were made.

I'm not following you; what is it you're trying to say here? Newer models put off a bit more heat than your E6300, mostly because they have considerably more cache, more internal clock speed and higher front side busses. Quad cores obviously put out more heat because there's 2x more cores to suck up power.

on the other hand, i'm sure that everyone else is fine with intel making hotter, less oc-able revisions, since i don't like that.

Obviously you're not keeping up very well... The E6550, 6750 and 6850 chips (which are the brand new ones) are overclocking better than their predecessors. Anand did 3.7Ghz on stock voltage and on stock cooling... Xbit did better, and at least one person on XtremeSystems has one at 4ghz with a 5% voltage bump.

So what you meant to say was, everyone is glad that Intel is making cooler, more oc-able revisions except for you?

 

[Davros]

Hehe, its hard to remember the days of the old 3Ghz P4 that we seemed to have forever

No its not
I just look at my current pc

 

[Sobek]

But more realistically, I'd save some money and buy a lower speed processor -- like the E6750.

The e6750 is a lower speed processor than the q6600? Or are you counting the additional 2 cores as making it 'faster'?

It's funny, over here we have the e6600 (2.4ghz, 1066mhz bus) for $290. Then we have the e6750 (2.66ghz, 1333mhz bus) for $264. Where's the logic in that? We can buy a better CPU cheaper... I guess it must be because everyone buys the e6600, therefore raising it's average price? (is this Counter Strike or something?!)

 

[Albuquerque]

The e6750 is a lower speed processor than the q6600? Or are you counting the additional 2 cores as making it 'faster'?

It's funny, over here we have the e6600 (2.4ghz, 1066mhz bus) for $290. Then we have the e6750 (2.66ghz, 1333mhz bus) for $264. Where's the logic in that? We can buy a better CPU cheaper... I guess it must be because everyone buys the e6600, therefore raising it's average price? (is this Counter Strike or something?!)

Sorry, I was referring to the original question in the first post: E6850 or QX6600. If my choice was ONLY the two, then QX wins.

However, I feel the E6750 is a better price/performance than the E6850. It is slower than the E6850, but would likely overclock nearly to the same level. So spend less money, get equal speed in the end. Did I make more sense that time?

 

[Sobek]

Quite! :smile:

I was considering building another system soon too, thinking of getting 6750 (not sure if we're getting any price drops on q6600's here in Aus anyway), some good ram, and a decent motherboard (crossfire for sure).

 

[Blazkowicz]

the quads feel power hungry, if I were to build a system I'd rather get an E4400 and pray for the motherboard to support the 45nm CPU. (alternatively, a 65nm X2 3600+ then later a K10)

 

[Skrying]

I would buy the Q6600, stop looking to the future so much, and enjoy my system.

 

[Dresden]

Every household is going to require a Yorkfield for the utmost in gaming optimization! Did I read that those were going to be eight cores? Anyway here's to prices drops in the quads section, I need my new processor.

Edit- When are the next waves of Quads being released?

 

[Shtal]

Every household is going to require a Yorkfield for the utmost in gaming optimization! Did I read that those were going to be eight cores? Anyway here's to prices drops in the quads section, I need my new processor.

Edit- When are the next waves of Quads being released?

Intel Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) CPU is expected to be released in Q3-2007 and it's based on a 45nm process.
Yorkfield is the successor to Intel Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield). Yorkfield will feature two 6MB L2 caches - total of 12MB L2 (which is 2x6MB). Yorkfield is expected to feature 50 additional Penryn new Instructions (SSE4) and feature a clock speed of 3.46 to 3.73Ghz. With new SSE4 instructions it introducing to the core streaming operations and enhancing the performance of media and high performance computing applications. Intel Penryn has faster division operations (twice the speed), also improved cache management, enhanced power management - including a C6 'Deep Power Down' state, plus support for up to a 1600Mhz FSB, Also Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology, Intel's Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology allows heavily utilized cores to increase their clock speed whilst staying within a specified thermal and power envelope.

Lets get back to the topic

 

[doob]

I would buy the Q6600, stop looking to the future so much, and enjoy my system.

Yees yees... i still have daily day/nightmares of the rushed decision to buy a P4@3.2. Think of the future to avoid regreting the past, dont you think?