I think that its finally time to get the Q6600 for me.
I still use a 3.0E Prescott socket 478, so this is a huge upgrade.
I have to do a new system build with a 2900XT Raedeon.

I want a quad core so I can have the 8MB cache. $266. Thats about what I paid for my 3.0E prescott 3 years ago!!!!

My future specs

q6600

Mobo - TBD

4 gigs ddr2

Raedeon HD 2900XT Crossfire

Raid 0 of flash hard drives. (or I might just use my 74GB Raptors for now)

1 Gnome to live in the case and maintain the gigantic liquid cooling system I need for this thing.

Gnome :laugh: I had my very own mouse in my case 1 time when my kind cat brought it into play with and it decided to take refuge in there, Im glad I found it before it got sucked into a 120mm fan and instantly diced into small pieces and firing insides into my lovely rig!

I wonder if anyone in the oc'ing know will buy a E6850 over a E6550?

A Quadcore will be just the right price @ xmas for me to justify the outlay, hopefully more games will use all 4 cores :)

Eric_Cartmanevery time i decide on a processor to get intel does something like this and i change my mind

i was going to get an e4300, but now i think i will wait and either get an e4400 or an e4500, assuming the e2x00 series isn't out and one of those doesn't call my name

it is out now :laugh:

Looks like I'll be using intel next time around : (
Now I'm really worried about competition, this could really suck in a year or two.

GJSNeptuneBecause if AMD tanks, Google will buy them and come out with Google OS, powered by AMD Googleon processors.

Cheers! I could go for that, but unfortunately I don't know that they would keep ATI, didn't google buy some Euro graphics company not too long ago??

Conti027well if you like gaming alot then you want the E6850 cause games dont use quad-core (well some do like crysis will but its overkill) some games still dont even use dual-core so why get quad? and the games that use dual would only be using 2 of the 4 and i would want 2 faster cores and not 4 when only 2 slower ones are being used. by the time we start using quad (if it even gets as big as dual core did) a Q6600 would be nothing my the time you would even come close to needing one

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of multithreaded games, or games with dual core support. If a game has multicore support, it doesnt use only 2 cores. It uses all cores. So for an example Crysis, or even STalker that are multi core games, will use all cores not only 2. So sure i agree that most games arent multithreaded. But when they finally will be, and more of games will eventually be multithreaded(crysis, alan wake, stalker with patch, and others), then youre quadcore cpu will crush youre dualcore any day. But as you said, as long as no one is pressuring game developers to utilize fully todays hardware and code the games with multithreading enabled, we will never see the performance increases. But I personally know several games that will use that extra power, that is why I´ll rather buy the Q6700 cpu with "only" 2.66ghz quadcore, than 3.0ghz dual core E6850. I will have more use of the 2 extra cores than the 330mhz.

All these weird processor designations get confusing
e4300, e6800, q6800, e6850...
Couldnt they organise it a little less retardedly :p

I mean, sure its a numerical succession of numbers...but it sounds lame.

In theory the Q6600 is the best choice since IF it overclocks as well as the normal 6600 then people should be able to reach 3500mhz without a problem...And 4CPUs with 3500mhz each is....WOW!

Now as for the E6850 since its predecessor could reach 4000mhz so should this one too but even so 2CPUS at 4000mhz VS 4CPUS at 3500mhz loose in every case.

HaZe303I think you have misunderstood the meaning of multithreaded games, or games with dual core support. If a game has multicore support, it doesnt use only 2 cores. It uses all cores. So for an example Crysis, or even STalker that are multi core games, will use all cores not only 2. So sure i agree that most games arent multithreaded. But when they finally will be, and more of games will eventually be multithreaded(crysis, alan wake, stalker with patch, and others), then youre quadcore cpu will crush youre dualcore any day. But as you said, as long as no one is pressuring game developers to utilize fully todays hardware and code the games with multithreading enabled, we will never see the performance increases. But I personally know several games that will use that extra power, that is why I´ll rather buy the Q6700 cpu with "only" 2.66ghz quadcore, than 3.0ghz dual core E6850. I will have more use of the 2 extra cores than the 330mhz.

That's not entirely true. Some multi threaded apps, games included, are only optimized up to a certain number of cores. If a game is optimized for dual core, it will only make use of 2 cores. Quake4 is a good example of this. Look into many of the reviews pitting the 2.66 Quad against the 2.93 Dual. In a good bit of multi-threaded apps, the dual pulls ahead, because the programs only made use of 2 of the 4 cores in the quad.

That being said, I would still get the quad, personally. Even if some apps and games don't benefit from it, heavy multi-tasking does.

Once threading is available for 4 cores, its going to be an incredibly interesting point in terms of CPU performance :)

Im looking forward to a quad core...when they meet their potential.

HellasVagabondIn theory the Q6600 is the best choice since IF it overclocks as well as the normal 6600 then people should be able to reach 3500mhz without a problem...And 4CPUs with 3500mhz each is....WOW!

Now as for the E6850 since its predecessor could reach 4000mhz so should this one too but even so 2CPUS at 4000mhz VS 4CPUS at 3500mhz loose in every case.

it's not 4 cpus it's 4 cores in ONE CPU.

just thought i'd clear this up for people who really think that they have 4 cpus.

Amd

K, well in the past I've had nothing but severe stability problems with amd so I pretty much don't like amd......BUT I bet if they brought back HT on their line of cpu's, they could compete with intel, just imagine, their 2 cpu's in one mobo, each having 4 cores, each core in "HT" mode being able to handle 2 threads at a time, that equals 16 threads at one time!! then programs that take advantage of multiple cores would show amd as the performance king.

Oo_Skyline_oOK, well in the past I've had nothing but severe stability problems with amd so I pretty much don't like amd......BUT I bet if they brought back HT on their line of cpu's, they could compete with intel, just imagine, their 2 cpu's in one mobo, each having 4 cores, each core in "HT" mode being able to handle 2 threads at a time, that equals 16 threads at one time!! then programs that take advantage of multiple cores would show amd as the performance king.

thats hyperthreading dude, an intel technology, if youve seen ht on ati that stands for hypertransport, which is simply a fsb/system bus technology

Dont get stuck in words...CPU , CORES isnt that of a mistake

Gringsthats hyperthreading dude, an intel technology, if youve seen ht on ati that stands for hypertransport, which is simply a fsb/system bus technology

HT = HyperTransport
HTT = Hyper Threading Technology

Well then amd needs to adapt that technology intel had......OR they could also do the reverse HT and have windows recognize one big 48ghz cpu. Wonder what that would to to performance figures.

I don't think people realize how close AMD is to going down look at it's stock. It appears Intel does it's like a shark moving in on a pool full of retarded kids. That will be horrible not to see the potential of AM2+, damn ATI puts out the first dud video card in years putting the nail in AMD's coffin. We may get a price drop now but in the future we are screwed.

It aint all over until the fat lady sings, she aint even cleared her throat yet, I hope for all our sakes they dont go under!

Maybe the fat lady is being throat fucked :roll:
but i hope not, because ive never owned an nvidia product in my life and id like to keep it that way :p.

I'ld say intel is probably doing the whole kicking them when they're down thing. AMD was already suffering pretty bad from the current price wars. On the bright side theres great prices for me out there now :D.

ex_revenMaybe the fat lady is being throat fucked :roll:
but i hope not, because ive never owned an nvidia product in my life and id like to keep it that way :p.

Alright keep your sexual fantasies to yourself lol

Who's to say AMD will keep a hold of ATi? I dont think they will if times get to hard and they need the capital, as for not trying nvidia tut tut, shame on you FANBOY lol jk

AMD have bad timing and themselves to blame for their current problems.

They spent years poking Intel with a stick, and Intel finally turned round and slapped them hard with Conroe. At the exact same time, they bought ATi and have been focusing on internal restructuring rather than getting product to market.

I hope they can bounce back though - we need competition.

AMD will bounce back. I dont see them going bankrupt. A company doesnt buy/merge with another one simply to eat crow. It may take a bit, moreso than you antsy impatient punks here can stand, but when things are settled, AMD will be hoopin it up no problem and Intel will be on the heels (just a prediction here, in no way am I saying this SHOULD happen :) )

even tho i have gone to the dark side i sure hope amd dosnt go under, as it was said earlier it will give intel a monopoly and that is never a good thing in the business world for the consumers

Waiting for my Phenom.:D