# e8400 vs q6600



## das müffin mann (Jan 31, 2008)

hello all i am deciding between these two processors, for my next upgrade and i am torn
i will be doing a lot of gaming, and i am going to school for game design which will require a lot of rendering, would the quad be better for that or would a higher end dual core be able to handle a higher work load


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2008)

quad @ 3 ghz


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> quad @ 3 ghz



or dual @ 4ghz. 
I've seen the e8400 run @ 5.7 ghz man. I won't think the quad can do that. Plus you get more L2 cache. Imo the dualcore at 4.4, which is reasonable oc can obliterate the quad at 3.6 which is like the max you will get under normal circumstances.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2008)

the 8400 go that high now ... gimmia link


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> or dual @ 4ghz.
> I've seen the e8400 run @ 5.7 ghz man. I won't think the quad can do that. Plus you get more L2 cache. Imo the dualcore at 4.4, which is reasonable oc can obliterate the quad at 3.6 which is like the max you will get under normal circumstances.



dude what are you on for real :shadedshu

5.7GHz come on thats has to be on ln2 or some high end cooling and 4.4GHz maybe on high end air or mid to high water for 24/7 but the 45nm Cpus arent meet to take high volts 24/7 and whats wrong with the lower Q's that are going to come out they should OC the same or close to the dual core's 

I would wait das müffin mann for the Q's more futureproof

and BullGod when are you going to fill out your System Specs


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Well here it is at 4.6 on air: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=305906

You get the picture...


----------



## Demos_sav (Jan 31, 2008)

I saw a review somewhere where because of the 8400's overclockability the q6600 was beaten


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

didn't trt have a quad xeon 3210 at 4GHz@1.2v on air?


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

wow a  CPU-Z Validator wheres does it show its on air and if is even a 24/7 clock or just for benching


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> dude what are you on for real :shadedshu
> 
> 5.7GHz come on thats has to be on ln2 or some high end cooling and 4.4GHz maybe on high end air or mid to high water for 24/7 but the 45nm Cpus arent meet to take high volts 24/7 and whats wrong with the lower Q's that are going to come out they should OC the same or close to the dual core's
> 
> ...



I was talking about watercooling man. You probably won't get an e8400 at 4.4 stable on air alone. Although check the link I just posted. If it goes up to 4.6 on air it should work just fine at 4ghz. And he wasn't talking about upcoming processors, did you read the title of this topic? He wanted to know which was the better processor between these two. I just stated my opinion. I'm gonna fill my system specs when I will finally find a good job and buy a new system. As it is now it is of no interest to anybody... :shadedshu


----------



## v7100 (Jan 31, 2008)

Quad core take my vote anytime. I do a lot of photoediting and quad core will perform better.


----------



## v7100 (Jan 31, 2008)

It might just stable enough for a SS. 



DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> wow a  CPU-Z Validator wheres does it show its on air and if is even a 24/7 clock or just for benching


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

here's the link to the quad xeon 4GHz @1.4v
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=596767&postcount=44


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> wow a  CPU-Z Validator wheres does it show its on air and if is even a 24/7 clock or just for benching



Well I don't think I ever implied it was stable. You want more proof and more solid tests. I didn't want to post a link to another forum. But here you have it. If you don't believe me fine, go in that forum with your shitty attitude and tell that dude he is full of bullshit.


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

v7100 said:


> It might just stable enough for a SS.



naw i think good water setup can get 4.6GHz but like I said high volts are not good for 24/7 oh the new chips I would try to stay below 1.4v


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2008)

a cpu-z screenie doesnt tell me if its air water or gas .. or how stable it is ...


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> a cpu-z screenie doesnt tell me if its air water or gas .. or how stable it is ...



I hate to repeat myself BUT try to read a post and follow any link in it before you get your panties all in a bunch.

 But here you have it. If you don't believe me fine, go in that forum with your shitty attitude and tell that dude he is full of bullshit.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> I hate to repeat myself BUT try to read a post and follow any link in it before you get your panties all in a bunch.
> 
> But here you have it. If you don't believe me fine, go in that forum with your shitty attitude and tell that dude he is full of bullshit.



arite bossman ...

edit: the link you posted isnt valid for the forum.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=174761

Well here is the world record at 5.460 Ghz. The dude I've seen got it up to 5.7 but he couldn't validate it or run any tests as it was highly unstable. Happy now folks? Or you want to tell me that a chip which goes up to 5.4 Ghz won't work stable at 4.4?


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Well I don't think I ever implied it was stable. You want more proof and more solid tests. I didn't want to post a link to another forum. But here you have it. If you don't believe me fine, go in that forum with your shitty attitude and tell that dude he is full of bullshit.


well now i get why you dont know what your talking about cuz you base your info off benching not 24/7 settings 

whats the point of that wow I can get 4.5+GHz but the point is are you going to be running it the same every day 


"shitty attitude" Me naw just im here to help, cuz not cpus oc the same


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> arite bossman ...
> 
> edit: the link you posted isnt valid for the forum.



Well here it is again Specially for you IRA.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=175426

Now will you people leave me alone and go talk to that italian guy overthere?


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

the e8400 will run cooler at 4 gig air cooled than the quad will at stock.. mine is now running 24/7 at a nice cool 1.3 vcore.. 

but fast cool dual or slower hotter quad.. depends exactly what u do..

i chose the dual.. but i know i dont run software optimized for quad.. so its easy for me..

trog


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> well now i get why you dont know what your talking about cuz you base your info off benching not 24/7 settings
> 
> whats the point of that wow I can get 4.5+GHz but the point is are you going to be running it the same every day
> 
> ...



Do you even read posts in this thread or you just come up with your random thing? The point is that if you wanna make people go wow you bench at over 5Ghz like the world record.(Like in the link I've posted)  If you want to run it "safely" every day, like any good ocer like you would, you can do it at 4 Ghz. Happy now? I think that's still faster than a q6600...


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Here. Now all you people can go bash Paulieg because he is claiming he got his e8400 stable at 4.3.


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

i'd still go for a xeon quad


----------



## erocker (Jan 31, 2008)

For a gamer go 8400.  I'm waiting on the 45nm quads.


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Here. Now all you people can go bash Paulieg because he is claiming he got his e8400 stable at 4.3.


Paulieg lol thats trt but you didnt say 4.3GHz


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

don't forget he's going to be doing some rendering and such

go for the quad xeon
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=596767#post596767


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> Paulieg lol thats trt but you didnt say 4.3GHz



No I've said 4.4  WOW! Now that's a really big difference!  I bet it can't be ever done! Too bad it has. Just let it go Dom...


----------



## DOM (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> No I've said 4.4  WOW! Now that's a really big difference!  I bet it can't be ever done! Too bad it has. Just let it go Dom...


well a Q9450 would be better wouldnt you say ? cuz for 24/7 they dont like high volts cuz even Intel has them at 1.3625V and the 65nm at 1.5 so there good for lil over 4GHz at stock but you also have to get a good mobo for high fsb anyways a Q's faster clock for clock so a Q at 4GHz 24/7 would be nice


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

xeon quads today are good. (xeon3210 8x multi) (xeon3220 9x multi)
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=596767#post596767


----------



## das müffin mann (Jan 31, 2008)

the programs i would be using are photoshop, maya, 3ds max, image ready, dream weaver and flash, i will also be doing a lot of work with c++ and crap like that
as for games i play mostly team fortress, css, crysis, call of duty 4
if that helps


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> well a Q9450 would be better wouldnt you say ? cuz for 24/7 they dont like high volts cuz even Intel has them at 1.3625V and the 65nm at 1.5 so there good for lil over 4GHz at stock but you also have to get a good mobo for high fsb anyways a Q's faster clock for clock so a Q at 4GHz 24/7 would be nice



Oh actually a Q9650 would be even better as it actually exists in real life not on paper. So yeah, dude as I've said just let it go. This topic as far as I know is e8400 vs q6600 not any other processors you come up with or Xeons or Athlons for that matter...


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 31, 2008)

@ das_muffin_mann: get a quad core since you are going to be rendering and stuff.

they make xeon quads for socket 775, and the xeons use less volts.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...842 1050706986 1302825342&bop=And&Order=PRICE


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> or dual @ 4ghz.
> I've seen the e8400 run @ 5.7 ghz man. I won't think the quad can do that. Plus you get more L2 cache. Imo the dualcore at 4.4, which is reasonable oc can obliterate the quad at 3.6 which is like the max you will get under normal circumstances.



Lol....... more than 8mb on an E8400?, now I thought they only had 6mb L2 cache   So do you think the OP will/could run his rig with an E8400 at 5.7Gig, probably on LN2 with a heavily phase cooled and voltmodded motherboard?

In pure calculation terms, if you actually un an app that can use all 4 cores, a Q6600 at 4gig would effectively rev at 4 x 4 = 16Gigs and you wouldnt need LN2 for that but if you happened to have a LN2 kit lying around, that will probably have cost more than your whole rig then your E8400 would crunch at 2 x 5.7gig = 11.4gig by my reckoning.

yes I know I am being pedantic  but my point is that IMO it's pointless refering to what a couple of people in the world can acheive on kit that costs as much as a 2nd hand car to a "normal" user.....no offence intended Bull.


----------



## erocker (Jan 31, 2008)

Scrizz said:


> @ das_muffin_mann: get a quad core since you are going to be rendering and stuff.



Didn't see that... agreed.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lol....... more than 8mb on an E8400?, now I thought they only had 6mb L2 cache   So do you think the OP will/could run his rig with an E8400 at 5.7Gig, probably on LN2 with a heavily phase cooled and voltmodded motherboard?
> 
> In pure calculation terms, if you actually un an app that can use all 4 cores, a Q6600 at 4gig would effectively rev at 4 x 4 = 16Gigs and you wouldnt need LN2 for that but if you happened to have a LN2 kit lying around, that will probably have cost more than your whole rig then your E8400 would crunch at 2 x 5.7gig = 11.4gig by my reckoning.
> 
> yes I know I am being pedantic  but my point is that IMO it's pointless refering to what a couple of people in the world can acheive on kit that costs as much as a 2nd hand car to a "normal" user.....no offence intended Bull.



Well sorry, don't know why but momentarily I thought the q6600 had 4 MB. But anyways, do you people actually read what I'm saying???????????????????????????????????????????? DID I EVER implied he could reach that speed? I think if you read my first post again like I did about 10 times now you will find that it's pretty clear when I say: or a dualcore @ 4Ghz I mean that he can run that darn processor at that speed. Now what is not clear about that?????????????????? What more do I have to explain??????????


----------



## Cold Storm (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Well sorry, don't know why but momentarily I thought the q6600 had 4 MB. But anyways, do you people actually read what I'm saying???????????????????????????????????????????? DID I EVER implied he could reach that speed? I think if you read my first post again like I did about 10 times now you will find that it's pretty clear when I say: or a dualcore @ 4Ghz I mean that he can run that darn processor at that speed. Now what is not clear about that?????????????????? What more do I have to explain??????????



You've just been tattied... sure the processor is capable of it, but in Das system??? For all we know, can't even get the LN2 set-up for the thing... 
I know your stating that you've SEEN it happen, but by not saying something like "I don't think you can get 5.7 on your rig but you can get 4.x easily" You've started a "lets gang up on Bull" flamewar...  
I'd go with the quad. If your doing heavy rendering, I feel its better  to have a quad then a duel... Plus it's future proof

This is a question I'm even asking myself, but after more and more thought, and seeing what I'm going to be doing in the future, IMO a  quad is going to be there a lot longer then a duel... 
IMO


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Here for all you doubters and haters out there. I think these tests speak better than I do. I know what you   will be saying, but you can overclock the q6600 to 3Ghz, well yeah but then you can get the 8400 at 3.6 and so on until the quad tops out and the e8400 will keep on going. I HOPE THIS WILL SHUT YOU UP FOR GOOD!

































































"I've never had a Dual-Core overclock so high and still remain stable, so I was skeptical. I put the CPU through all it's paces... and nothing could stop it. As you can see in the screenshot below, it ran a collection of benchmarks without issue. The important thing to note here is that this is a true overclock that increases performance. All results scale well, so heat didn't become an issue at all, despite the chip running at an average of 68°C on each core."






"If you take a look at the Sandra results, you will notice something interesting. Our E8400 at 4.2GHz effectively passed by the Q6600 in terms of raw performance. Despite having half the cores of the Q6600, the huge overclock made up for the loss... and then some.

Another thing that strikes me is the Super Pi result. While not that relevant today, when Conroe was first launched, it was deemed extraordinary when enthusiast overclockers broke through the 10s mark with the new processors. Now, even us casual overclockers have the possibility to break through that milestone... on air. That is beyond impressive.

One downside here is that I believe this CPU still had more room to push. I became limited by the motherboards FSB, which may or may not have had anything to do with the CPU. Running 470FSB was fine, but moving up to even 475FSB would spawn errors in SP2004 within five minutes. While 4.2GHz is undeniably impressive, I can't help but feel it could be pushed a bit higher."


..........................................................................................................................

"Case in point: In summer 2006, the E6600 sold for $316 in quantities of 1,000, which would end up being $350 once sold by the e-tailer. Fast forward to now, and we are seeing a far superior product in terms of overall efficiency and speed, and it costs 40% less. Of course, such is the natural progression of things, but it's certainly a better time than ever to PaPP (ponder a processor purchase!)."




Now you can all go techgage.com, here is the link: http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e8400_30ghz_-_wolfdale_arrives/1 and bash the guy who wrote that article and tell him, while swearing on your quadcores, that the e8400 is a far worse chip than the q6600. As for me I hope this will end this debate that has become pointless, because of trolls that talk out their arses and don't back up any argument and generally just flame people that are trying to help someone...

EDIT: Ok fixed it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Well sorry, don't know why but momentarily I thought the q6600 had 4 MB. But anyways, do you people actually read what I'm saying???????????????????????????????????????????? DID I EVER implied he could reach that speed? I think if you read my first post again like I did about 10 times now you will find that it's pretty clear when I say: or a dualcore @ 4Ghz I mean that he can run that darn processor at that speed. Now what is not clear about that?????????????????? What more do I have to explain??????????



You dont have to explain anything, my point was simple.....your facts IMO are good, it was just pointless referring to the 5.7Gig, it actually dilutes your point I think as it detracts from the sensible facts regarding high stable overclocks on air.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

The strange thing I find is the comments at the bottom of the performance tables you posted Bull......it seems to me they are saying that the raw speed of the E8400 makes up for the Q6600's 4 cores??? how can it say that when that app is not multithredded?  I thought it was dual core optimised only.....although I may be wrong.  The point there is, from what I can see, most apps that are using more than 2 cores are won by the Q6600 (for obvious reasons)........was that not the point of this thread?

Has anyone said the E8400 is a WORSE chip?, I actually think the opposite and it certainly is a FASTER chip BUT, if a person runs an app that can use more than 2 cores, IMO generally the Quad is better........ it's "horses for courses"  I have a quad because I multitask a lot, I only own 2 proggies that actually natively are multithredded, apart for a couple of games also.  I might copy a DVD, whilst watching a DVD, whilst decoding some old ANalogue to digital Video and have CSS in the background ready to play, normally I would run my quad at 3.6gig 24/7, show me any dual core that could do those 4 multitasks I mentioned simultaneosly and I'll show you my wallet!


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> You dont have to explain anything, my point was simple.....your facts IMO are good, it was just pointless referring to the 5.7Gig, it actually dilutes your point I think as it detracts from the sensible facts regarding high stable overclocks on air.



You still don't believe me now do you? Ok wait for the x48 boards to come out and then check out the e8400 world record. I would bet you anything that it will be higher than 5.7.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> The strange thing I find is the comments at the bottom of the performance tables you posted Bull......it seems to me they are saying that the raw speed of the E8400 makes up for the Q6600's 4 cores??? how can it say that when that app is not multithredded?  I thought it was dual core optimised only.....although I may be wrong.  The point there is, from what I can see, most apps that are using more than 2 cores are won by the Q6600 (for obvious reasons)........was that not the point of this thread?



Are you blind? Now really, out of 12 results I've just posted the e8400 wins in more than 10. NOW WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU SHUT UP???????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> You still don't believe me now do you? Ok wait for the x48 boards to come out and then check out the e8400 world record. I would bet you anything that it will be higher than 5.7.



Can you not read.?...yes I do beleive you!


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Now really if we would be talking about a video card here and let's say that in 20 games the first one comes on top in 16 of them. WOULD YOU REALLY BUY THE SECOND CARD JUST BECAUSE IT HAS MORE CORES? So that you could watch a movie while playing COD4 of course...


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Are you blind? Now really, out of 12 results I've just posted the e8400 wins in more than 10. NOW WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU SHUT UP???????????????????????????????????????



I think you are missing the point here.......many of those benches ARE NOT multithredded so of course the E8400 at 3gig is going to beat it, I dont dispute that at all, my point is.....in most multithredded benches the Q6600 would win, shit you read, I have agreed with you twice now and you are still saying I dont beleive you....I do, listen, I'll say it on quotes for you.......

"In applications that use one or two threads an E8400 at 3gig is always going to be faster than a Q6600 at 2.4gig......in most applications that are MULTITHREDDED and are capable of using 4 or more threads the Q6600 will be quicker"

Make sense?


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Can you not read.?...yes I do beleive you!



Well then what's this about then? The title of the thread says e8400 vs q6600. I just proved that the e8400 is better in more than 90% of applications out there. What have you done except bugging me of course?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

Go q6600.  The extra cores really help when Im rendering and want to watch a movie, or ripping some avis and browsing the web, not to say the e8400 couldnt do it too, but it wont do it as fast.  Does anyone have Everest 4.2 they can run a CPU queen on an e8400?? I just did a run and got 26,800.  And thats a everyday stable clock on my q.  And thats pretty damn high.  Id like to see if a e8400 could get anywhere near than, especially at 24/7 stable. 

What I call 24/7 stable is running SETI @ 100% all day and all night, even when Im using my computer.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I think you are missing the point here.......many of those benches ARE NOT multithredded so of course the E8400 at 3gig is going to beat it, I dont dispute that at all, my point is.....in most multithredded benches the Q6600 would win, shit you read, I have agreed with you twice now and you are still saying I dont beleive you....I do, listen, I'll say it on quotes for you.......
> 
> "In applications that use one or two threads an E8400 at 3gig is always going to be faster than a Q6600 at 2.4gig......in most applications that are MULTITHREDDED and are capable of using 4 or more threads the Q6600 will be quicker"
> 
> Make sense?



NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want proof, like I presented. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Now really if we would be talking about a video card here and let's say that in 20 games the first one comes on top in 16 of them. WOULD YOU REALLY BUY THE SECOND CARD JUST BECAUSE IT HAS MORE CORES? So that you could watch a movie while playing COD4 of course...



Lol, now you are trying to decide what a PC users wants to do with their PC, the person who posted origionally clearly stated what he would use the CPU for so let him decide, most people TBH dont really need more than 2 cores, a few do, let them decide who they are......I am not about to.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I want proof, like I presented. Is that too much to ask?



Proof of what? 2 cores cannot do 4 things at a time?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

I just sent TRT a message asking if he could PLEASE do a CPU queen score from everest, hope he has it!


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..

okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..

imagine a cpu bench picked not to show the benifits of a quad.. it could easily be done.. shame it never is..

now if they showed average apps as opposed to those picked to show how wonderfull multcore is things would look well different..

speeds works for everything.. multicore cpu or gpu only works for whats written to use it.. and at the moment that stuff is in a minority.. fact

as for the future well that aint here now so we dont know..

trog

ps.. just to add.. everyone knows a faster single gpu is better than a slower multi gpu..how come they dont know this about a cpu.. the same principles apply..

as for heat.. well the expensive 3 gig quad that can now be bought is simply two e8400 chips sat side by side..  in theory twice the heat and twice the power draw.. in reality three of the chips sit there doing bugger all most of the time..


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)




----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Proof of what? 2 cores cannot do 4 things at a time?



Yeah exactly that. A P4 which has just one core can run 4 programs just fine if they are not that heavy on the CPU usage. Actually in Windows the system is normally running around 20 processes at any time...


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

trog100 said:


> five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..
> 
> okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..
> 
> ...



ok, like ripping with most programs, only uses 2 cores max, ok, run the program twice at the same time, I do it all the time and it is better for the quad.  So he sees maybe a 10% increase with the faster FSB, but he gets more power with the extra cores.

Its like a souped up 4 banger against an v8.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

asb2106 said:


>



Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?



i wasnt comparing it to the qx, I was giving it incase anyone could post with a 8400, what the hell is your problem, dude chill


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?



and the qx costs 1100 bucks and mine cost 260, that seems worth it to me.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yeah exactly that. A P4 which has just one core can run 4 programs just fine if they are not that heavy on the CPU usage. Actually in Windows the system is normally running around 20 processes at any time...



Here ya go, have a read of this, a quadcore at 2.4 versus a dual core at 2.4, at least in this one it is showing some multithredded apps, the majority of benches in yours were single or dual core optimised which was my ONLY point, of course a dual core at 3gig will be faster than any corred cpu at 2.4gig in an app using only 1 or 2 cores,.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q6600/4

Ohhhh and by the way.....this is from techgauge also


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lol, now you are trying to decide what a PC users wants to do with their PC, the person who posted origionally clearly stated what he would use the CPU for so let him decide, most people TBH dont really need more than 2 cores, a few do, let them decide who they are......I am not about to.



No actually you are trying to do that. Not everybody plays games or renders while watching a movie like you obviously do. Also you said those tests are not suited for multithreaded processors. My friend then WHY IS A QUADCORE THE FASTEST IN THOSE GRAPHS? Why all of a sudden I hate quadcores or so it seems? READ THE FRICKING TITLE OF THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not quads versus dualcores. IT'S e8400 vs q6600. IN THIS CASE THE NEW e8400 IS FASTER THAN THE OLD q6600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

trog100 said:


> five apps out of one hundred apps will benefit from the slower quad.. 95 out of 100 apps will benefit from the faster dual..
> 
> okay games are games.. but apps aint apps.. all and every cpu bench uses apps that work for the quad.. total biased rubbish to be honest.. or bullsh-t..
> 
> ...



Noones denying that?  Although you are only covering multithredding there....not multitasking.  My point is....who are we to decide what uses someone has for their PC, if a guy asks me whats the best CPU to run his 10 multithredded apps I will likely answer with a quadcore, if he is talking about gaming (apart from the odd multithredded game) i would say a dual core, that is actually all my point is, I have maintained all along that the E8400 is faster, I just beleive that for some people it is not the only answer dependant on what they do.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> No actually you are trying to do that. Not everybody plays games or renders while watching a movie like you obviously do. Also you said those tests are not suited for multithreaded processors. My friend then WHY IS A QUADCORE THE FASTEST IN THOSE GRAPHS? Why all of a sudden I hate quadcores or so it seems? READ THE FRICKING TITLE OF THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not quads versus dualcores. IT'S e8400 vs q6600. IN THIS CASE THE NEW e8400 IS FASTER THAN THE OLD q6600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Look above.....I said exactly that, but as my link suggests, when running a multithredded app, the dual core is not usually as quick  think quick as in time to get the job done as opposed to raw singlwe thredded speed.  If I ran any of those test that i posted from techguage against an e8400 I think I would beat the e8400 because they are multithredded, you obviously think I am wrong.......fine, the concept of multithredding/multi tasking is at least real to Intel as they are bringing Yorkfields out, and the people who want them have the choice to buy them.

Do you deny the facts from techguage that I posted and just beleive the facts from techguage that you posted?

You only need look as far as 3D Mark 2006, forget about the whole bench just look at the CPU score,2006 is multithredded so it uses as many cores as you have, an E8400 @ 3gig WILL not score as much as a Q6600 at 2.4gig, my setup on an E6850 at 4.1gig scored 15,600, with the same grafix settings etc but with a Q6600 at 3.8gig I scored 17,211.....simple really.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 31, 2008)

Hey this is fun!  shame I gotta go to bed now, let's meet up tomorrow night for some more discussions Bull.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

night tatty, still only 5pm here but im going to play volleyball here soon, 

still say go quad, who knows, maybe future games will be using more multithreading, maybe they can work the physics into that

Im sure more and more apps will be utilizing 4 cores, probably sooner than later too


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Hey this is fun!  shame I gotta go to bed now, let's meet up tomorrow night for some more discussions Bull.



At the rate this is going. We probably wont, I already told you this is not about dualcores vs quadcores. I DON'T CARE HOW OTHER PROCESSORS PERFORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Nor do I care to participate in endless arguments. I think that regarding this topic I have proven my point. And that's that. Anyways I'm always open for discussions as long as people stay on the subject.  Actually I might have some beer laying around. I gotta check that out...


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

Yep, a bottle of Timisoreana! Here's for you dudes!


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yeah so what? that qx9650 if overclocked by the same amount would pwn your chip. What does this really prove?



oh and this proves that overall power of the chip will be greater, meaning do more things at once.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yep, a bottle of Timisoreana! Here's for you dudes!



Timisoreana, sorry but unfamiliar, whats this?  A beer?


----------



## BullGod (Jan 31, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> Timisoreana, sorry but unfamiliar, whats this?  A beer?



Yep. It's a beer from my country. It says on it Anno 1718 so I guess it's one of the oldest brands here. Skol is better tho. You have Skol in America?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 31, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Yep. It's a beer from my country. It says on it Anno 1718 so I guess it's one of the oldest brands here. Skol is better tho. You have Skol in America?



Ive heard of it, never had it


----------



## Cold Storm (Jan 31, 2008)

here's what we need to do.. tomorrow when tatty gets on.. every one get on meebo, and have a beer for a hard day at work.. I see where you are coming from bull. I was just stating on how it would of gone better if worded differently... thats all. We really don't know unless testing for our selves what ether processor can do for us..


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 31, 2008)

OP ... get a QUAD


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 1, 2008)

Theres only one answer to this at the moment the e8500 kicks ass in games and overclocks very well my local pc shop has one set to 4.4GHz on air cooling and are great for most games on the market ""at the moment""

But if you went for the quad it speeks for its self you have four cores that can potentially run at 3.6ghz but very few games support quad cores at the moment this makes a big difference in crysis and 3d mark Future games will support quad cores and maybe more just as there is support for multi gpu crossfire and sli and soon to be quad configs Games and games details will always continue to advance and so will hardware to me the E8400 is going back a step not forward.

E8400 for the present
Q6600 for the future 

your choice


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 1, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Here. Now all you people can go bash Paulieg because he is claiming he got his e8400 stable at 4.3.



This screenie is trt740's. However, I've had 4.3 stable on air on lower volts, if you check the wolfsdale thread, you'll get a good idea of initial clocks. I've got mine at 4.5ghz on 1.54v. for benching. It's superpi stable but not prime.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 1, 2008)

bulldog the e8400 was doing 3ghz and the q6600 was doing 2.4 and still did a dam good job keeping up why didnt they match the speeds make it fair?? it smells fishy to me 

E8400 @ 4.4ghz X2 = 8.8ghz in total 
q6600 @ 3.6ghz X4 = 14.4ghz in total 

look at it that way and tell me how that benchmark makes sence if all for cores on the q6600   were in use?? the q6600 would absoluty hammer it.

P.S graphs are not proof anyone can make a graph and put down false info there was a website showing this in action measureing different brands of thermal cpu paste and on the bs chart they put toothpaste down as the leader lol charts dont prove a thing. If i went into my food cuboard and mixed mushy peas with baked beans called my product heinz superchill and made a graph showing its the top stuff for thermal resistance and beats aything else would you really buy it? what you need is a active program with undisputable results.


----------



## BullGod (Feb 1, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> bulldog the e8400 was doing 3ghz and the q6600 was doing 2.4 and still did a dam good job keeping up why didnt they match the speeds make it fair?? it smells fishy to me
> 
> E8400 @ 4.4ghz X2 = 8.8ghz in total
> q6600 @ 3.6ghz X4 = 14.4ghz in total
> ...



Well if you can't read my name right, I doubt you could read a graph right. Anyways I don't fucking care. OK? You own a q6600 yay, good for you. I'm done with this topic...


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 1, 2008)

Me owning a q6600 is irrelivent i think the E8400 is a great cpu for most games and its overclocking ability is even better hell i might even buy one myself at the right price. But for games and applications that support quad core it doesnt and couldnt  match up.


----------



## Threeflow (Feb 1, 2008)

To the original poster, I would advise to go with the quad-core processor.

If you were going to use it mainly for games at LOW RESOLUTION, the faster dual-core would give higher performance (once you get into higher resolutions ie. above 1600x1200, then the performance is more or less dictated by the video card).

Since you're going to be doing some rendering also, the quad-core will be a very significant performance upgrade in that area.
Also, there are a handful of games out on the market that can utilize a quad-core processor, and of course as time passes, more and more games being released will also fully utilize more than 2 cores.

2 of my rigs have Intel quad cores from the Q6xxx series in them, and I am very happy with the performance! I use the machines for gaming and for video encoding/editing.


----------



## DOM (Feb 1, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Oh actually a Q9650 would be even better as it actually exists in real life not on paper. So yeah, dude as I've said just let it go. This topic as far as I know is e8400 vs q6600 not any other processors you come up with or Xeons or Athlons for that matter...


:shadedshu your still at it, it does exist there not out cuz they have no competition from AMD cuz there PRE-ORDER: ETA: February 18 and a Q9650 man your not... I wont say but hmm $1149.00 + S/H vs $369.00 + S/H 

So I still say Q  so stop complaining it's not for you


----------



## strick94u (Feb 1, 2008)

For what you are going to do both would do just fine if money is not an issue q6600 is great if it is you save a solid 70 bucks with the 8400 microcenter.com has it for 189.00.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 1, 2008)

Q6600


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

> You only need look as far as 3D Mark 2006, forget about the whole bench just look at the CPU score,2006 is multithredded so it uses as many cores as you have, an E8400 @ 3gig WILL not score as much as a Q6600 at 2.4gig, my setup on an E6850 at 4.1gig scored 15,600, with the same grafix settings etc but with a Q6600 at 3.8gig I scored 17,211.....simple really.



just to quote tatty in the above.. 

2006 isnt multi threaded.. only the cpu bench part is multi thread.. 

a single core chip will run the gaming (reality) parts of 2006 just as fast.. another illusion that multicore does better than it really does..

i have deliberately turned one of my cores off.. i cant tell the difference in normal day to day activety.. supreme commander.. world in conflict.. games we all think need multicore all play nicely with one fast single core working..  

what tends to happen is instead of two cores running at half speed the one core runs at full speed and achieves the same result.. four cores would probaly run at quarter speed 

i run winrar.. unraring a large 5 gig game iso i see the cpu running at 15% while i sit there and wait for my bloody hardrive.. winrar benches show big gains for multicore.. cant say as i seem em thow..

all i can say is to those who believe in the more cores the merrier arguement .. try turning them off and see what happens.. dont get me wrong here.. praps multicore makes a bigger difference at low speeds but at 4 gig other parts of the system hold the whole lot back..

the bottom line here is.. for what i do.. one core at 4 gig would be (is) more than enough.. if i dont really think i need two cores i certainly aint gonna think i need four of the buggers..

trog

ps... mind u one core would score less in 2006.. four would score more.. but it dosnt reflect real life needs.. just benching scores.. 2005 at a higher resolution with its single threaded cpu score relflects real life performance far better than 2006 does..


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 1, 2008)

thanks for all the input, i'm thinking about going quad just because i am a pretty big multi-tasker, that and the quad seems to be a more future friendly processor seeing as after this im not going to be able to upgrade for quite some time, although 189 for the 8400 is tempting


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> just to quote tatty in the above..
> 
> 2006 isnt multi threaded.. only the cpu bench part is multi thread..
> 
> ...




Your first sentance.........."2006 isnt multi threaded.. only the cpu bench part is multi thread." .....is exactly why I said........ignore the test itself and concentrate on just the CPU test....so you are agreeing with me.

Secondly, Supreme Commander is multithredded but by patch, not natively and reviews show there is only a max 10% improvement in game performance between a quad and dual core where as some of the other multi thredded games show upto a 40% performance increase.  With my DQ6, I can disable all but one core in the BIOS, I had a E6850 running at almost 4.5Gig on just one core (screenies in SuperPI thread if evidence needed).  Running the game on that one core at a stable 4.3gig actually gave me 6FPS less than a quadcore at just 3.6gig, I suppose personal expereince differs.

I have deliberatly tried not to focus on games.....why? because games are threaded and coded in many very different ways, multithredded apps appear to be more generic in their  coding from what I have read  but again, "multitasking" is often forgotten. , on top of that I have also said earlier that if all I were to do was game then I would definatly choose a fast dual core (the reason why I had an E6850), but with 2 cores, the kind of stuff I was doing, coupled with the amount I was doing it was just not performing too well, there is absolutely no way that 2 cores can run 4 apps each wanting 100% of available oommmppphhh, 4 cores can, I agree that Quadcore is a bandwagon that many have jumped on unecessarily, but my point throughout this thread has been to say, for some people they feel it's necessary and if they do and they really use the capability then it's is the best option for them, at no time have I said that a quadcore is "faster" or "better", those are words others may have used although "better at some tasks may be more appropriate".

I more than most have been a "bench monster" in the past and appreciate raw speed, but as I said earlier, sometimes we confuse speed in Mhz terms with the time it takes to complete a task or tasks, where the quads strengths lie is the speed it will complete multiple tasks at the same time, of course thats just my opinion, but both Intel and AMD must feel the same way otherwise why would they be manufacturing quads for the desktop home consumer market?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

@Trog and Bullgog - You're missing something here, the OP does a lot of RENDERING. A quad is much faster at rendering apps. Gaming performance isn't the main consideration. In rendering progs like Maya, I will put my quad @ 3.6 against any dual @ 4.3-4.4.

And the argument of not multitasking while gaming, I do. I'll encode a video in the background while I fire up a game to pass the time waiting on it. Some people do have uses for a quad.

I respect that you 2 do not, as you're primarily concerned with gaming performance, but that doesn't apply to the OP.


----------



## would (Feb 1, 2008)

definitely, q6600 is your best choice!


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

> but both Intel and AMD must feel the same way otherwise why would they be manufacturing quads for the desktop home consumer market?



simply because they need to keep selling us new products.. the average computor buyer dosnt take any convincing that two is better than one and four therefore must be better than two.. 

basically its easier to keep selling us more of the same old stuff in multiples than keep creating newer faster stuff.. ati are now doing the same with grafix cards..

multiples are not better.. simply cheaper and easier to sell us..

we have not got multiples cos multiples are better just cos intel hit the limits with its old P4.. 

basically tatty we do agree on most things and apps that are written to run how ever many cores are aimed at them obviously benefit from more cores at a given speed..

but just like with gpus.. i would still sooner see new imroved "cpus" than multiples of the same old junk that as yet are not efficiently used.. one core if needed runs 100% two or four cores rarely do.. basically mulitcore is simply inefficient at present and is likely to be for quite some time.. most people are fooled into thinking it will benefit them when in reality it wont.. 

basically i am just against the whole multiple thing... i think its a cop out for not doing the job properly..  making newer and better chips..

i know one thing.. with my new wolfdale buzzing along at 4 gig.. i have way more cpu power then i really need.. now if someone re-invented the old clunky hardrive (at a price i could afford) that keeps me waiting for pretty much everything  i do it would be different.. i would be a happy bunny.. he he

the herd is pretty much guaranteed to sell buy quad.. i just attempt to put up the counter argument.. he he he

arguing against consensus opinion is a bad habit of mine.. it gets me into trouble quite often.. he he

trog

ps.. the question "should i buy quad 6600 or dual 8400" when put to the herd is almost 100% guaranteed to end with only one  consensus opinion answer.. "buy quad".. mostly this answer is wrong..


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> ps.. the question "should i buy quad 6600 or dual 8400" when put to the herd is almost 100% guaranteed to end with only one  consensus opinion answer.. "buy quad".. mostly this answer is wrong..


I wouldn't say wrong, but maybe overkill.

But besides that, this wasn't one of those instances. As soon as he mentioned Maya, the dual was out of the picture for me.


----------



## asb2106 (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> ps.. the question "should i buy quad 6600 or dual 8400" when put to the herd is almost 100% guaranteed to end with only one  consensus opinion answer.. "buy quad".. mostly this answer is wrong..



wow, how can you even say this?

I have a quad now and wouldnt trade it for any thing dual core.  I think every computer user would benefit from it, and if you dont now, you might when you get it.  I now can do so much more, thats why we are saying go quad, when all is said and done its a fact that the extra cores will help get more done in less time.  And when you can multitask like this you will never ever go back.  

I dont know if you just like to argue or you just hate quad cores but its the way of the future.

This exact arguement was made for dual cores back when the D's came out, and those sucked, but how many single cores do you see around now?  its only been 3 years and Intel doesnt even make single cores anymore.  Apps will be made multithreaded and will use more cores.  

When it comes to everyday non-multithreaded apps, I dont think many people would see the difference between a quad @ 3.6 and a Duel @ 4.0 or higher.  Highly doubt it, but when it comes time that he needs the extra cores, then they are there.  

Why would you say that its the wrong answer


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 1, 2008)

im 87% sure this is what im going to do

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...3&CatId=2758&SRCCODE=WEBGOOCPU1&CMP=KNC-GOOGL

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186134


----------



## trog100 (Feb 1, 2008)

well asb.. i ran single a core amd sandy chip at 3 gig for 1.5 years.. i never moved down to the then average 2.2 dual chps.. i ignored the call..

last november i upgraded.. i upgraded to a dual core amd chip at exactly the same speed.. in real life usage i could not tell the difference.. my games played the same even super pi scored the same.. my extra core didnt even multitask and take the load of the one running super pi.. 

since then i have upgraded twice cpu wise.. first to an intel dual core e6750 chip then to an intel e8400 chip.. 

i can switch one core off and use the other one.. in real life i would not be able to tell the difference in a double blind realistic tests..

most folks when they upgrade to more core also upgrade in other ways.. i often hit control halt delete and look at what my two cores are doing.. mostly they aint doing much.. he he

i have even posted pics to prove to doubters my PC runs quite nicley with just one core.. u wanna see some.. i dont have maya.. he he.. actually i tell a lie.. i do have maya and similar way over priced video editing stuff that mere mortals will never see.. 7 f-cking grand jeesh.. 

it just aint installed and its 2004 vintage and probably aint multcore optimized..

and anybody that can afford maya should not be asking silly questions like should i buy 6600 quad or 8400 cheapo cpus now should they.. lets be real guys..

trog.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

trog100 said:


> well asb.. i ran single a core amd sandy chip at 3 gig for 1.5 years.. i never moved down to the then average 2.2 dual chps.. i ignored the call..
> 
> last november i upgraded.. i upgraded to a dual core amd chip at exactly the same speed.. in real life usage i could not tell the difference.. my games played the same even super pi scored the same.. my extra core didnt even multitask and take the load of the one running super pi..
> 
> ...


Students often get Maya at a heavily discounted price, bringing it down to a level mere mortals can afford. lol

And your superPi argument is invalid. SuperPi is single threaded, and that's all you were running. Try running superPi 32M while encoding a DVD, surfing the web, and listening to music on your machine running with one core, then do the same with both cores. With both cores, the machine will be much more responsive.

Now, use a quad, and you can do even more at the same time. The problem here is, you haven't tried to use the multi-tasking advantage of multi-core. Granted, some people don't need that advantage, but other people do.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 2, 2008)

> And your superPi argument is invalid. SuperPi is single threaded, and that's all you were running.



course it aint invalid what about the other 39 process i now have running surely two cores should take the operating system load off the other core that is running the single threaded super pi.. surely that is what multitasking is all about.. or have i lost the plot entirely..

gonna be honest here i do find it hard to believe that isnt what happens.. that the extra core didnt at least do something to help the super pi score .. but to my amazement it didnt..

surfing the web and playing music uses about 1% of one core dude.. so we can forget that one.. but i could run super pi and play music and surf the web just to see.. i am quite sure even with one core i would get a pretty (way better than most) good score.. i dont decode dvds i have no need to.. 

what does joe average do that needs 4 cores.. u forget i said i personally dont see any difference..  i have alway used the word "most".. never have i ever said that in certain circumstances quad would not be better than dual..

but i can say i do not see any meaningful differences doing what i do day to day with one core or two.. now how what i do compares to what most do i have no idea..

i surf the web.. play music.. play the odd game.. download the odd usenet stuff in the backgrouns.. edit and look at the odd photo.. pretty average home user stuff i recon

the funny thing is i never have really gone for the multicore thing..  but i did expected to see some kinda snappier or more responsive system.. but it wasnt to be so..

as u know i have done the test again by switching one of my cores off.. without running benchmarks set up for multicore i cant see any day to day difference..

mind u i also cant see any day to day difference between running my cpu at 3 gig or 4 gig.. which does kinda back up my earlier statement that even with one core i have more cpu power then i need.. 

whatever i am lacking it aint cpu power and thats a fact.. so why the argument that quad is wasted on most is so hard to get across i really cant fathom.. most of us have too much cpu power when it bottoms down to it..

i moved from 3 gig amd to 4 gig intel for one simple reason.. my own self satisfaction.. i certainly didnt need the extra cpu power.. he he he

trog

ps.. mind u i do see an awful lot of folks say they see instant benefits from quad.. they said pretty much the same thing about dual two years ago.. not just power users pretty much everybody.. their games play better.. their system is snappier..windows loads quicker..  its a rare bird that says any different.. but it was only the one boy in the crowd who saw the king didnt have any clothes on.. everybody else saw his nice new suit..


----------



## trt740 (Feb 2, 2008)

Demos_sav said:


> I saw a review somewhere where because of the 8400's overclockability the q6600 was beaten



Hes guys that was with the e8400 overclocked to death and the Q6600 at stock. A Q6600 at 3.6ghz in a multi threaded application will kill a e8400 even over clocked to 4.3ghz. Still a E8400 is very fast.


----------



## trt740 (Feb 2, 2008)

Scrizz said:


> here's the link to the quad xeon 4GHz @1.4v
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=596767&postcount=44



 This is two core, half that chip is not functioning. If super Pi was multi threaded the Xeon 3210 would kill the E8400. Super Pi only really uses one core and  in that a E8400 would win, However, 4 cores are always gonna beat 2 in multi tasking and multi threaded application. If you want to see what I mean gorgious ran super Pi on a Q6600 and disabled all the cores but one and killed every chip on the board.

Buy this
the difference in the two is the X3210 uses a 8x multipler and and the x3220 a 9x. They are basically higher binned, better quality Q6600, and cost just about the same as a Q6600. http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=CA1938012 x3210 GO stepping Quad core Xeon
http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=CA1938011 x3220 GO stepping Quad core Xeon


----------



## rampage (Feb 3, 2008)

i solved my issue of the whole q6600 v 8400 buy just buying both..  lol  my main gaming rig is quad core with 4 gig ram and my torrent/mini gaming box is dual with 2 gig ...  if i get beored ill looking the pro's and cons of both when the machines are up and running...


----------

