e8400 vs q6600

[Nitro-Max]

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]

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 what you need is a active program with undisputable results.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Q6600

 

[trog100]

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]

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_Two]

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..

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]

@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]

definitely, q6600 is your best choice!

 

[trog100]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...