EggXpert

I saw a couple posts similar to this, but haven't seen anything that called it straight out.

I'm looking at a new system build after the new chips are released. Formerly looking at the E6600 at $222, now the E6850 is catching my eye with the new pricedrops. Of course, the Q6600 is yelling at me as well at the same price.

I'm seeing three options:
1) Stick with the E6600 and save some money from the price drop -- this is probably not my favorable option

2) Get the E6850
3) Get the Q6600


I'm thinking options 2 and 3 are most preferable. But I can't seem to find any relevant opinions or data to help with the decision. It seems that everything I find has a counter-article somewhere to refute it. The E6850 looks faster, but how does it compare to the quad-core? Ugh.. this is too much!

I'm a pretty diverse pc user--I do like to play the demanding games, but also use the computer for many other things.

What do you think?

Yes its me again. I have seen the price drops that are coming around July 22nd. I though have not seen and mention of the E6600 being one of the chips to have a price drop. The Q6600 is a real tempting choice to get as it will be a lot faster then a dual core. However the E6850 is also real attractive cause of the 3.0ghz point and the price being very close to the Quad core.

The only question since the quad core 2.4ghz and the 6850 is 3.0 which is going to be faster. More then likely the Quad. However there aren't alot of programs out now that take advantage of the Quads.

I probably would go for a quad just to say I got one but really the best thing would be the dual core E6850 

i too am thinking between these 2 procs for my next upgrade.  however, cpu is the only thing i plan on changing, and there's a possibility that my mobo won't support 1333mhz FSB.  if that is the case, my choice is clearly going to be Q6600.

majority of my pc time is spent on World of Warcraft, so the E6850 would make more sense.  if my board can support 1333mhz, it'll be a tough decision.
 

cigar3tte:

i too am thinking between these 2 procs for my next upgrade.  however, cpu is the only thing i plan on changing, and there's a possibility that my mobo won't support 1333mhz FSB.  if that is the case, my choice is clearly going to be Q6600.

majority of my pc time is spent on World of Warcraft, so the E6850 would make more sense.  if my board can support 1333mhz, it'll be a tough decision.
 

I'll be getting a new motherboard too, so I have the luxury of getting something compatible right from the get-go.
That keeps the decision pretty tough.

Have there been any benchmark tests or anything between these two?

I'm hearing that the 'quad core is faster'. Really? Lower FSB speeds, and lower clock speeds (lower cache memory? cant remember)
It's kind of a tough call. My thought is that the e6850 is one of the more 'veteran' core2duos, and a mastered chip. Thus, it may remain one of the better C2Ds of all-time. The Q6600 is still a newbie chip.. I hypothosize that the quad-cores will still have a long way to go--which may mean I'm getting one of the 'lower-end' quad cores, and would want to upgrade. I think I'd rather get a higher end Ford than some sort of prototype/low-end lexus. :P

I'm looking for additional insight if anyone has it. =D

Kudos to the topic.  Been having the same dilemna myself.  Im pushing my upgrade to July.  I agree with the previous poster, the difference here is you're looking at the high-end C2D 3.0GHZ vs an upcoming Q6600 @ ~2.4GHZ.  As a hardcore gamer, I tend to be leaning towards the C2D E6850 until further notice that quad cores are the ultimate gaming processor choice.

 

Maybe somebody can post a linky with benchmark comparisons?  I'm sure somebody is going to run a benchmark soon if one doesn't already exist.  Go eggers go!

arsonic:

Kudos to the topic.  Been having the same dilemna myself.  Im pushing my upgrade to July.  I agree with the previous poster, the difference here is you're looking at the high-end C2D 3.0GHZ vs an upcoming Q6600 @ ~2.4GHZ.  As a hardcore gamer, I tend to be leaning towards the C2D E6850 until further notice that quad cores are the ultimate gaming processor choice.

 

Maybe somebody can post a linky with benchmark comparisons?  I'm sure somebody is going to run a benchmark soon if one doesn't already exist.  Go eggers go!

Indeed, those benchmarks are what we really need.
See how these puppies perform in all types of situations.

I REALLY like my q6600 and have yet to hear of someone with a quality mobo that couldn't get it to 3.0Ghz.  do you need a quad, probably not, do you want a quad.........................He!! yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Conventional wisdom says get the e6850, because two cores is MORE than most people need, but I say that if you are in this forum you may not NEED a QUAD, but you sure as heck WANT a quad, so get it.

 

There's something to be said for encoding video's AND playing games at the same time.  sure a c2d could probably do both, but a 3.0Ghz c2d won't be able to do both as fast as a 2.4Ghz quad, unless you are using old single-threaded apps to do your encoding.

acruxksa:

I REALLY like my q6600 and have yet to hear of someone with a quality mobo that couldn't get it to 3.0Ghz.  do you need a quad, probably not, do you want a quad.........................He!! yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conventional wisdom says get the e6850, because two cores is MORE than most people need, but I say that if you are in this forum you may not NEED a QUAD, but you sure as heck WANT a quad, so get it.

There's something to be said for encoding video's AND playing games at the same time.  sure a c2d could probably do both, but a 3.0Ghz c2d won't be able to do both as fast as a 2.4Ghz quad, unless you are using old single-threaded apps to do your encoding.

You hit some interesting points here...

4 cores is better than 2--I get that point.  And taking a step toward the future holds some value too.  And as typical with technology "... more than most people need..." seems to turn up every day, yet we keep wanting more and more.

Getting that q6600 to 3.0 Ghz sounds interesting, but arguably, you could boost the e6850 as well.  Ultimately, you can't get the q6600 to the potential clockspeeds of the e6850.

The other thing that sticks out to me is the 1333 FSB vs 1066.  What kind of potential drawbacks might be seen there?

Another thing, of course, is the 4mb L2 cache * 2 in the q6600, and just the basic 4 in the e6850... although this may not be a huge deal if it's dedicated per-core.

I don't know... I just don't know. :(

I almost want to say "get the faster one with less cores, or the slower one with more".. but that seems like a paradox to me. :P

cigar3tte:

i too am thinking between these 2 procs for my next upgrade.  however, cpu is the only thing i plan on changing, and there's a possibility that my mobo won't support 1333mhz FSB.  if that is the case, my choice is clearly going to be Q6600.

majority of my pc time is spent on World of Warcraft, so the E6850 would make more sense.  if my board can support 1333mhz, it'll be a tough decision.
 

http://evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=61829

Looks like the EVGA 680i will support the 1333mhz,  which means that the other 680i makers will more then likely support the 1333mhz.

Here's a benchmark that shows only a 3-5% speed boost between the e6850 and the x6800 and only a 1% performance increase between the 1066Mhz fsb and the 1333Mhz fsb.  Neither of which can beat a stock q6600 when more than two things are being done at the same time.  If you are strictly a gamer you dont even need a dual core cpu.  If you use your machine for gaming, multi-media, encoding/rendering etc.  4 cores are better than two.  You must also remember that programs are increasingly being multi-threaded which only serves to futher future proof the quad core over the dual core.

e6850 overclocking will probably be similar to the x6800 meaning anything over 3.6Ghz will likely require more than air cooling.  although, unlike the x6800, I don't think the e6850 is multi-unlocked. 

 

 

acruxksa:

Here's a benchmark that shows only a 3-5% speed boost between the e6850 and the x6800 and only a 1% performance increase between the 1066Mhz fsb and the 1333Mhz fsb.  Neither of which can beat a stock q6600 when more than two things are being done at the same time.  If you are strictly a gamer you dont even need a dual core cpu.  If you use your machine for gaming, multi-media, encoding/rendering etc.  4 cores are better than two.  You must also remember that programs are increasingly being multi-threaded which only serves to futher future proof the quad core over the dual core.

e6850 overclocking will probably be similar to the x6800 meaning anything over 3.6Ghz will likely require more than air cooling.  although, unlike the x6800, I don't think the e6850 is multi-unlocked. 

 

Sounds like you're backing the quad core q6600 quite a bit.  But if quad cores are the future technology.. won't this be one of the "first and crappiest" ones?

I do a lot with my computer, including multimedia, games, rendering, and so forth.. but not usually at the same time. heh

a 1% difference in the FSB helps sell the q6600 I think.

Now all that's left is to look into its OC situation--i'm not into fancy cooling designs, so how far can I get?

Fizzter:

acruxksa:

Here's a benchmark that shows only a 3-5% speed boost between the e6850 and the x6800 and only a 1% performance increase between the 1066Mhz fsb and the 1333Mhz fsb.  Neither of which can beat a stock q6600 when more than two things are being done at the same time.  If you are strictly a gamer you dont even need a dual core cpu.  If you use your machine for gaming, multi-media, encoding/rendering etc.  4 cores are better than two.  You must also remember that programs are increasingly being multi-threaded which only serves to futher future proof the quad core over the dual core.

e6850 overclocking will probably be similar to the x6800 meaning anything over 3.6Ghz will likely require more than air cooling.  although, unlike the x6800, I don't think the e6850 is multi-unlocked. 

Sounds like you're backing the quad core q6600 quite a bit.  But if quad cores are the future technology.. won't this be one of the "first and crappiest" ones?

I do a lot with my computer, including multimedia, games, rendering, and so forth.. but not usually at the same time. heh

a 1% difference in the FSB helps sell the q6600 I think.

Now all that's left is to look into its OC situation--i'm not into fancy cooling designs, so how far can I get?

I'm backing them because I have one and love it.  If quad cores are the future wouldn't you rather have the first and far from crappiest than a dual core??  You dont do all those things at once because it bogs your computer down and makes it unuseable.  With a quad you will realize that you can play a game while rendering / encodeing / ripping etc.  Get the quad and you will be doing all those things at the same time because you CAN. 

Anyway, you asked for opinions and I gave you mine.  Either cpu is awesome, I'm just really happy with my q6600.  (off course I was also happy with the e6400@3.2Ghz that the quad replaced, but I will never go back).

First, at least 90% of PC users will see little/no benefit to a Quad as they'll only be using at most 2 cores at any one time. Now personally, if I was thinking of building a Quad system (just recently built a C2D system so no) I would wait and pay the extra $$$ and pick up the new 45nm Quads after they come out later this year or early next. For upgrading now, I'd probably go with the E6850.

IMO if ur goin quad then wait on penryn. C2Ds are all u need right now, the penryns will smoke the current quad line up.

Personally Myself  (being cheap and all) im in for a quad  in July.

The 4300 im running right now will got in to a under $100 mATX board and Ill use the quad.

More threaded goodness.

Sure Penryn is around the corner..but new ram, a new board.and of course the cost.Ugh 

I could see the need if the C2 were lacking...but they are not. 

And price must be and issue if you were considering a Q6600 

Adding 2 additional cores gives you the best bang for the Buck and the best look to make yourself future proof IMHO.
 

darkking with that EVGA board that you got the penryn cpu will work on it with just a bios flash. I have the same board and talked with EVGA tech support and they said a bios flash was all that is needed.

I guess you might be talking about the penryn and ddr3 mobos and ddr3 ram. I still would wait a good while for ddr3 to become more mainstream and prices come in line. 

sparker366:

darkking with that EVGA board that you got the penryn cpu will work on it with just a bios flash. I have the same board and talked with EVGA tech support and they said a bios flash was all that is needed.

I guess you might be talking about the penryn and ddr3 mobos and ddr3 ram. I still would wait a good while for ddr3 to become more mainstream and prices come in line. 

 

Good call, I was. if im going to commit to new its both feet first. I was looking thru the ddr3 boards even but the cost of the ram just keeps me away.

I was not aware of the info on the motherboard,thanks for the tip...
 

Anybody know if my Asus p5b deluxe will work with the penryn.  Their tech support is useless.

Thats one reason I have stopped using Asus as there tech support has gone down hill.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1

Look at where the E6850 and Q6600 top each other out. The Q6600 is the cpu for multi-tasking. For strictly gaming, a good E6XXX is all that is needed.
 

If you want to see where the future of games lie, have a look at the benchmarks for Valve's Source Engine Particle Simulation.  Games aren't there yet (not even close really, but give it a year), but they are rapidly heading in that direction.

 

As much as I'd like to wait for the new AMD chips to come out I just can't. So I'm trying to decide which Intel to go with. I will be gaming somewhat, but I will also be doing the Game and Simulation Devry program and producing music. When I'm doing music, I want to be comfortable in knowing I can play all the tracks at once smoothly. For now I just have a crappy old Dell with a pentium3. So I really need to have my new rig done in the near future since my classes start July 9th. I went to www.tomshardware.com and did some comparisons between the e6800 and q6600 and the e6800 wins every time. So I'm guessing that since I won't be schooling, gaming, and producing at the same time I should go with the e6850?

Looks like there are a couple others out there waiting until late July to buy a new cpu.  When I first saw the price list I was immediately in the E6850 or Q6600 debate as well as I was looking to put together a new system anyway and I figured I could wait another couple weeks for the price drops. Looking at this over the last couple weeks already I have decided that the E6850 is the way I am going to go.

There were a couple good points for either but it comes down to for right now, today, the E6850 would be a better performance for me.  It is 0.6ghz faster at stock (and I am not sure I would be oc'ing anyway).  As of today nothing I am doing would take advantage of the extra cores, frankly there is still lots of things that don't see any gain going from 1 core to 2 cores.  The 3rd big decider is that I see lots of people posting about how the Q6600 is more future proof and that in a year or so you will be taking advantage of it.  Well that argument for it to me is actually an argument against it.  If it is going to be a year+ before I see this big advantage, well big deal, in a year+ I will just buy a new cpu that is likley better than the Q6600 and will likely cost less or even if it is around the same cost I know that the Q7200 or whatever is equivilant cost as today will be a much better performance cpu than the Q6600.  Why skimp in the meantime. 

If the Q6850 was more in this price range than I would consider a quad core but for the 3ghz quad core that is still going to run you about $1000.  

I have seen some forums around that have this debate and some that have polls attached to them, the general consensus is for the Q6600 but unless you actually would be using all 4 cores today it ends up being a no brainer to the E6850 imo.
 

 

I have the Q6600 and I love it! I would just buy the Q6600, get a nice cooling device and OC it to the clock of the E6850.

i would buy a 6850 and get a good cooling device and overclock it to 3.6ghz. then jus wait on the "real" quad core to come out