# Intel q6600 or e8400? =\



## warup89 (Jan 25, 2008)

Im in the market for a new CPU, and i was really looking forward to get the Q6600, then i saw that the new e8400 came out and ppl were even selling their current q6600 to get e8400. I wondered if i should just get the 8400, but i started to think and aksed myself "isnt the q6600 more future proof?", because right now i know only some applications uses the the 4 cores and that in the future the support will get better. Also is the performance of the e8400 noticeable higher than the q6600?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 25, 2008)

Almost a year ago, people said that the Q6600 was future proof.  However, to date there are still few games that use 4 cores.  Also, there are better CPU(s) out at a cheaper price point.  With 2 core CPUs being as fast/faster then a q6600 (such as the E8400/E8500) it really makes no sense to get a lower clocked 4-core cpu vs. higher clocked 2-core cpu/  Heck, the E8400 is cheaper.  Also, I was told that windows preforms more sluggish with a q6600 then with a E6850.  Take a look at the E6850 vs Q6600 and tell me what you see.  If a E6850 can do that, then you can expect a little boost using less power with a E8400 at a lower price point.


----------



## intel igent (Jan 25, 2008)

id go for the 8400 more cache and less cost and more initial speed+ good OCability = WIN!


----------



## EnergyFX (Jan 25, 2008)

intel igent said:


> id go for the 8400 more cache and less cost and more initial speed+ good OCability = WIN!



+1

PS: intel_igent, your avatar crack me up every time.


----------



## rampage (Feb 10, 2008)

ive got a q6600 and its a great cpu untill a mobo bios flash killed it (yes a bios flash) so im going to replace it with a e8400, the only thing you need to consider when choosing between a  e8400 and a q6600 is, are the apps you are using designed to use a quad effeciently, if not get the e8400


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 10, 2008)

e8400 for sure. The Q6600 isnt even native quad afaik


----------



## happita (Feb 10, 2008)

Doesn't even matter if it isn't "native quad". The Q6600 proved to be one of the best quads out there, still faster than the phenom counterpart. However, that aside, I think you should definitely get an E8400.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

unless your going to be doing something like rendering, go for the e8400


----------



## Xazax (Feb 10, 2008)

Agreed, Overclocked @4.2~4.4Ghz those Two cores come awefully close to the Quadcore!

Also Overclocking with the DC's is far easier and alot less hassle


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

if you really wanted to go quad, get the e8400, then once intels new lineup of quads go down in price, sell the e8400, dont get me wrong the q6600 is a great chip, its just most game and apps cant utilize all the cores, and right now the e8400 will be much better for current gen games and apps, not to mention you can oc the hell out of those/with proper cooling of course.


----------



## Conti027 (Feb 10, 2008)

e8400. i only have the Q6600 cause i got one for free (new). if i was going to guy a new cpu i would get a faster duel-core.


----------



## warup89 (Feb 10, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> if you really wanted to go quad, get the e8400, then once intels new lineup of quads go down in price, sell the e8400, dont get me wrong the q6600 is a great chip, its just most game and apps cant utilize all the cores, and right now the e8400 will be much better for current gen games and apps, not to mention you can oc the hell out of those/with proper cooling of course.



True but im not really looking for "current", im opting for 1-3 yrs without upgrading, I saw that a new Intel Lineup of quads is coming out next month which it was gonna be the time i was gonna purchase the CPU since im still saving. So  im gonna only try to spend less than 300$ on the cpu.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

then the e8400 is your choice, because the new quads are going to be "pricey" the e8400 should be fine for a while especially if you oc

"pricey"= your left nut


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 10, 2008)

get the E8400


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 10, 2008)

warup89 said:


> True but im not really looking for "current", im opting for 1-3 yrs without upgrading, I saw that a new Intel Lineup of quads is coming out next month which it was gonna be the time i was gonna purchase the CPU since im still saving. So  im gonna only try to spend less than 300$ on the cpu.



Yea, if your looking to get a cpu to last you for a few years, a little patience goes a long way. There will always be newer and greater things on the horizon, the with the 45nm quads coming right around the corner, I would say waiting to get one of those would surely be the best choice.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 10, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> then the e8400 is your choice, because the new quads are going to be "pricey" the e8400 should be fine for a while especially if you oc
> 
> "pricey"= your left nut



I thought one was going to be about the price of the q6600 now, w/ a slightly higher clock, and of course 45nm


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

the only prob is that he only wants to spend less than $300


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

really one is around the price of the q6600???????? i may have to pick one up for meself if your right


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2008)

my advice would be to base it on the FSB your system can OC to.

Q6600 is 266 stock
8400 is 333 stock

If your board/ram caps out around 400, then a Q6600 is fine - 3.6GHz quad is nothing to sneer at.

If your FSB is high enough to let you pass 3.6GHz (hopefully into the 4GHz range) then go the E8400.

If you want a future proofed stock system - grab the Q6600. Look how useless single cores are for todays gaming.

If you want a quiet/silent rig, the E8400 will run colder, and therefore be fine with quieter fans.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 10, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> really one is around the price of the q6600???????? i may have to pick one up for meself if your right



I certainly may be mistaken, but I could have sworn I saw a link for preorder on this forum that was $270 or so.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

do you have the link, because all the prices i've seen will either cost me my first born child or my left nut


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 10, 2008)

I dunno... those e8400's can go 4.2 ghz... but the G0 quads can go to 3.7 - 3.8... its a very tough choice... i went quad just because the future quads have low multi's and are a bit pricey.  I compared my q6600 @ 3.66GHz 3dmark 06 CPU score (which is multithreaded) to a guy who is running an e8400 at 4.0, and they were almost identical like 5200ish vs 5340... i think you would get a better performance with the wolfdale.... but quad is sexy.

Mussels is right tho... my radiator was about to melt its fans after playing some TF2, those things run extra hot.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> I dunno... those e8400's can go 4.2 ghz... but the G0 quads can go to 3.7 - 3.8... its a very tough choice... i went quad just because the future quads have low multi's and are a bit pricey.  I compared my q6600 @ 3.66GHz 3dmark 06 CPU score (which is multithreaded) to a guy who is running an e8400 at 4.0, and they were almost identical like 5200ish vs 5340... i think you would get a better performance with the wolfdale.... but quad is sexy.
> 
> Mussels is right tho... my radiator was about to melt its fans after playing some TF2, those things run extra hot.



i checked the specs, both have a 9x multi.

As i said, this really depends on the mobo.

400x9 = both at 3.6GHz. while the E8400 may run cooler, its also got half as many cores.

Thats about as high as most Q6600's go on air, and its rare to breach 4GHz - if your system can do 450FSB, that gives you 4050MHz - a tad over 4GHz. 
If you can break 450MHz (this will require 900MHz or better out of your ram, fyi) then the dual core suddenly becomes better, since you get far more MHz to make up for the missing cores.


----------



## Xazax (Feb 10, 2008)

But mussels it would be easier to reach 3.6ghz with the E8400 since its already @ 333mhz simply a 67 mhz increase, while the Q6600 is 1066mhz so that would be 244 increase which is quite a jump...

Depending on the board as said above some Overclock Quads better then Others and most can do a decent DC OC


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2008)

the FSB jump is irrelevant as its based on the motherboard and ram - NOT the cpu. also Q6600 can do 333x9 at stock volts. i've tested 5 personally, they all did it just fine.

Any board that can take a 45nm should OC a quad just fine, as well - P35 or X38 chipsets being the best.


----------



## warup89 (Feb 10, 2008)

there's so much info in here that my head hurts* , anyways i don't rly know about the FSB im going to have, I was Planning to get this Mobo  GIGABYTE GA-X38-DS4 along with 4x sticks of this RAM  WINTEC AMPX . Yeah 8Gb seems kinda overkillish, but i wont upgrade this PC for a good while and i do editing and stuff, so the big picture is that i want to build a good&cheap gaming/work PC.

as of now i have 400$ to spend on both Mobo and Ram, by next month ill save close to 750$ for GFX [3780 x2] and CPU.

Edit: as of tomorow ill be purchasing both mobo and ram, if anyone wants to help me out choosing the right stuff to OC, you are more than welcome because i will be doing some killing OCIng >]


----------



## Darknova (Feb 10, 2008)

If you can wait until the new CPUs come out - Q9450

If not - E8400.

I personally wouldn't bother with the "older" 65nm tech, but that's my personal opinion.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 10, 2008)

the mobo looks good, but as for the ram i would go corsair or mushkin, both companies make great products and you can usually get some good clocks out those


----------



## warup89 (Feb 10, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> the mobo looks good, but as for the ram i would go corsair or mushkin, both companies make great products and you can usually get some good clocks out those



Thats true although from personal experience Wintec has been alright for me, i took a while to compare clocks and speeds with wintec's ram aside major brands [OCz, Crucial..etc] and the differences are minimal. also I looked at this  Intel Xeon X3220 Kentsfield 2.4G that ppl say that its pretty good at OCing.



Darknova said:


> If you can wait until the new CPUs come out - Q9450
> 
> If not - E8400.
> 
> I personally wouldn't bother with the "older" 65nm tech, but that's my personal opinion.



I still have like a month or so to think about it


----------



## Darknova (Feb 10, 2008)

warup89 said:


> I still have like a month or so to think about it



Well the release date is currently the 19th of March


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 1, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> (...)
> If a E6850 can do that, then you can expect a little boost using less power with a E8400 at a lower price point.



Indeed, the E8400 is ahead of the E6850:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_7.html


----------



## Wile E (Apr 1, 2008)

warup89 said:


> there's so much info in here that my head hurts* , anyways i don't rly know about the FSB im going to have, I was Planning to get this Mobo  GIGABYTE GA-X38-DS4 along with 4x sticks of this RAM  WINTEC AMPX . Yeah 8Gb seems kinda overkillish, but i wont upgrade this PC for a good while and i do editing and stuff, so the big picture is that i want to build a good&cheap gaming/work PC.
> 
> as of now i have 400$ to spend on both Mobo and Ram, by next month ill save close to 750$ for GFX [3780 x2] and CPU.
> 
> Edit: as of tomorow ill be purchasing both mobo and ram, if anyone wants to help me out choosing the right stuff to OC, you are more than welcome because i will be doing some killing OCIng >]


The DS4 you mentioned is a fine mobo.

I have a question, what kind of editing do you do. If you do any kind of encoding/rendering, the Q6600 is absolutely the way to go. I, personally, would still recommend the Q6600 over the E8400 if you plan to keep for 3 years anyway. Despite what naysayers might have to say, I firmly believe most cpu intensive programs will benefit from more cores by then.

If you only plan to upgrade after a year, and you are mainly concerned with gaming performance, then I would recommend the E8400, and only then.


----------



## VroomBang (Apr 1, 2008)

warup89 said:


> Im in the market for a new CPU, and i was really looking forward to get the Q6600, then i saw that the new e8400 came out and ppl were even selling their current q6600 to get e8400. I wondered if i should just get the 8400, but i started to think and aksed myself "isnt the q6600 more future proof?", because right now i know only some applications uses the the 4 cores and that in the future the support will get better. Also is the performance of the e8400 noticeable higher than the q6600?



I was in the same boat until yesterday, when I ordered an E8400.

The E6850 and the Q6600 offer a similar performance in daily applications, except when the app uses up to 4 threads, in which case the Quad takes logically the lead (video encoding like DivX for instance).

Most games seem to benefit more from a higher clock than from more than 2 threads, which gives an advantage to the E6850.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_6.html#sect1

And because the E8400 beats the E6850, it's fair to say that the E8400 is slightly ahead of the Q6600.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_7.html

My first thought was also that the Q6600 would be more future proof than a Core 2 Duo, but this chip is already 1 year old and only 1 game took advantage of it (Supreme Commander). I'd rather enjoy my cpu at its fullest now than a bit now and a bit in 1.5-2yrs time. I'll probably upgrade it in 2 years time anyway, at which point there'll be more apps and games using quad threads, which would justify choosing a quad.

If you buy a quad now, you're paying for something you're not going to use at its fullest now, in the hope that you will in the near future. It's a gamble and some might think it's a reasonable one. However, chips quickly become obsolete and it is foolish to buy a cpu according to future speculations in terms of games/apps. If you mostly use multi-threads applications (like video encoding), than go for quad. Otherwise, and especially if you're a gamer, I think the wolfdale is a better proposition.


----------



## mrw1986 (Apr 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The DS4 you mentioned is a fine mobo.
> 
> I have a question, what kind of editing do you do. If you do any kind of encoding/rendering, the Q6600 is absolutely the way to go. I, personally, would still recommend the Q6600 over the E8400 if you plan to keep for 3 years anyway. Despite what naysayers might have to say, I firmly believe most cpu intensive programs will benefit from more cores by then.
> 
> If you only plan to upgrade after a year, and you are mainly concerned with gaming performance, then I would recommend the E8400, and only then.



I agree with this statement 100%, couldn't have said it better myself!


----------

