You still have to have an idea of the future, but going "But so and so is coming" is just going to have you in circles for a long time depending on how far you look. The Quad Core is very cheap right now (considering) and I am very doubtful Penryn is going to be tremendously faster than current Conroe/Kentsfield processors are now. I mean honestly, if you've made it this long on your current processor why the hell buy a new one right now that is cheaper than the quad core (but not a lot cheaper) and then upgrade in the relatively near future? That to me is far worse to do than buying a Q6600 and riding it out for a good while. The E6750 now and then Penryn later just comes off as a waste of money in the E6750 part.
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - Is it Gamer Choice
- Thread starter Shtal
- Start date
You still have to have an idea of the future, but going "But so and so is coming" is just going to have you in circles for a long time depending on how far you look. The Quad Core is very cheap right now (considering) and I am very doubtful Penryn is going to be tremendously faster than current Conroe/Kentsfield processors are now. I mean honestly, if you've made it this long on your current processor why the hell buy a new one right now that is cheaper than the quad core (but not a lot cheaper) and then upgrade in the relatively near future? That to me is far worse to do than buying a Q6600 and riding it out for a good while. The E6750 now and then Penryn later just comes off as a waste of money in the E6750 part.
I never said going for an E6750 its not a waste, you made it sound as if i wanted to purchase now to upgrade again in a "relative near future" on the contrary, and the "so and so is coming" applies in this particular case, why? Imo if you want to make a more future proof purchase by looking at the direction both Intel and AMD are taking frenetically to multicore designs and applications, going quad core makes all the sense to me. But since AMD hasn't launched its 4 core Phenom wich im very curious to see how much it was worth waiting (even if doesn't prove to be), its a wiser choice.
Their shared L3 cache might give a good boost in performance compared to intel with applications that really make use of the 4 cores, but might be neglectible with applications that only push 2 at most. And even considering Intel constant push on the manufacturing process to offset those shortcommings to their favour, will only mean cheapper prices on the competition side, wich even makes a better "bang for the buck".
So resuming, yes i think going 4 core is the best decision, but its even better to just stick to whatever we have now (even if its P4) than rush into a intel quad ignoring the near product from the competition.
I'm not really sure that the Quad Cores are "power hungry", except for the obvious fact that there are four processors to feed instead of just one. Still, compared to the power consumption, thermal design and computational power of the Prescotts, the Quad core stomps all over even some of the single core Prescott offerings.
I'd rather have some use for my 600W power supply
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
So now what would be the best quad to buy for under 300?
I've only seen one quad thus far, Intel, and it's price averages in the high $400's, depending on where you buy it.
Someone said a price drop will be happening on the 22nd.
From reports, the only quad that will be below $300 is the Q6600 after July 22.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Ah oke, its already 260 here so. But does it matter alot that it has a slower bus? I havnt really keeped up with hw specs for the last couple of years.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
No, depending on the Mobo.. you can overclock the Q6600 to 3.2Ghz. I have mine at 3Ghz because I use aircooling to keep my CPU cool(Zalman 9700). At 3.2Ghz it starts getting a bit hot but is still completely stable.
I'd definitely get the Q6600, especially if you looking for a CPU that's future proof and the Quad is more future proof than the Dual.
And at 3Ghz it performs better than the QX6700
so it's very quick.US
I wasn't talking to you specifically. Just the idea of a number of people in this thread of going with say a E6750 and then later Penryn, I find it the worst of all options. Anyway, I think waiting for AMD's option though is even worse now, it won't be faster... you heard it here first I guess.
Whatever chances AMD has at being faster will be easily squashed by Intel IMO.
Let's think: by the time Barcelona really makes it into the market, Intel will be rolling their 45nm parts. Penryn or not, there's going to be less voltage, less heat and more clock headroom in that die-shrink.
So even if AMD can somehow get equal performance to Core2Duo by stretching for all they're worth, Intel needs only to add a tiny bit more voltage (already built into the VID-steppings that any current C2D-supporting motherboard bios has programmed) and a lot more clockspeed.
Seriously, think about it: Intel is sandbagging bigtime when you see people on a quad core do 25% overclocks on stock voltage and stock cooling. Can you say headroom?
Let's think: by the time Barcelona really makes it into the market, Intel will be rolling their 45nm parts. Penryn or not, there's going to be less voltage, less heat and more clock headroom in that die-shrink.
So even if AMD can somehow get equal performance to Core2Duo by stretching for all they're worth, Intel needs only to add a tiny bit more voltage (already built into the VID-steppings that any current C2D-supporting motherboard bios has programmed) and a lot more clockspeed.
Seriously, think about it: Intel is sandbagging bigtime when you see people on a quad core do 25% overclocks on stock voltage and stock cooling. Can you say headroom?
Unfortunatly I have to agree. I don't see Barcelona matching Conroe, nevermind Penryn and even Penryn is due to be superceded by Nehalem within a couple of quarters. And I expect Nehalem to obliterate Penryn with its onboard MC, multithreading and native quad core.
I pray AMD has something amazing up their sleeves but I don't hold out much hope.
No its not
I just look at my current pc
You're not alone there. Trusty old P4 :warm: It'll be 3 years this November and still going strong. Modest RAM and GPU upgrades have helped make that possible though.
Nehalem (the server product) will feature an IMC, but the desktop and mobile products most likely won't. Just because the family will feature CSI doesn't mean all products will utilize an IMC. Intel reps (Gelsinger) have said an IMC doesn't make much sense when their memory hierarchy is already so efficient, at least at the 1S/2S levels. Pile on the socket count and an IMC starts to make a lot more sense.
- Pat Gelsinger C/O ZDNet
I think desktop version of Intel Nehalem is going to be Bloomfield CPU at 45nm process; Bloomfield is based on the Nehalem architecture and it is successor to Yorkfield. Bloomfield is expected to feature 4 cores, each will feature an advanced version of Hyperthreading - allowing 8 threads to be executed simultaneously per CPU. Bloomfield is also expected to feature an integrated memory controller and will introduce the new Socket B (Socket 1366) platform.
Some parts will feature an IMC, but I'd honestly be shocked to see Intel include an IMC on entry-level and mainstream parts. I dunno, I refer back to Gelsinger's linked comments. Maybe I'm reading too much into them. We'll know within a year.
Also consider the context of his comments. If you were an Intel rep and were asked about something AMD has and you don't ATM, and won't for a while, would you say:well, yea, it rocks your socks off?
Or would your answer be:we have this uber thing(other than the competitor's part) and we win benchmarks(which is true)?But you're right, it's a bit too early to call, but I see little reason for Intel not to opt for an IMC.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
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....
I would choose Q6600
Also consider the context of his comments. If you were an Intel rep and were asked about something AMD has and you don't ATM, and won't for a while, would you say:well, yea, it rocks your socks off?
I like AMD processors, I was even thinking to upgrade my system to AMD Athlon 64 X2 series until Intel introduced Core 2, (Especially Core2 Quad CPU) Q6600 affordable price.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I always liked amd too, my first pc I bought myself had a amd too, but with the core2 series there just isnt a good reason to buy amd. Intel is dirt cheap and offer a ton of performance. I dont think anyone thought you'd get a cpu like the quad6600 for as low as 260euro.
Ermmm...ok. That is connected to the post I made regarding Intel implementing an IMC through....?
My apologies....
(Edit: Sorry
I honestly did not understood the meaning of your reply
Last edited by a moderator: