New PC gaming rig - E6850 vs Q6600

I've done a last-minute about-face and now I think I'm gonna go with the E6850. That should put me way ahead of the curve for the next 12-18 months and I'm thinking that by the time that games are more commonly supported quad cores there will be higher-speed quads for cheaper prices on the market so that will be the right time to go quad.
 
Gary Whitta said:
I've done a last-minute about-face and now I think I'm gonna go with the E6850. That should put me way ahead of the curve for the next 12-18 months and I'm thinking that by the time that games are more commonly supported quad cores there will be higher-speed quads for cheaper prices on the market so that will be the right time to go quad.
Click to expand...
Glad to know you made the same choice as me. I like knowing I'm not alone.
 
Hooker said:
Wrong decision if you ask me
Click to expand...
Well, explain why. I've done a fair bit of digging around and I'm just not seeing many games over the next year that will be making much use of those extra cores.
 
What does quad core bring to the table outside of gaming? Is it better for playback of hi-def content (720p) or is that all on the video card? Is it better for stuff like winrar?
 
If you don't want to bother overclocking, then don't get the Q6600. Watercooled and overclocked it's an awesome deal, but you can get pretty much the same results stock with the E6850 for 99% of the games. The only one that I have noticed any benefit from 4vs2 cores is Supreme Commander, and then not by enough to really matter.
 
Go with the quad. You can easily overclock it to 3Ghz, even with the stock cooler, but you'd be wise to get a decent heatsink. No need for water cooling or whatever, tho. I've seen it done and I'm about to do it myself. This way you get all the advantages of the E6850 + you'll have a processor that's significately faster, if you won't be using the PC for gaming only. And you know you won't, because you never do.

At the same price, there really isn't much of a choice to make. Get the Q6600 and be happy.
 
Zabojnik said:
Go with the quad. You can easily overclock it to 3Ghz, even with the stock cooler, but you'd be wise to get a decent heatsink. No need for water cooling or whatever, tho. I've seen it done and I'm about to do it myself. This way you get all the advantages of the E6850 + you'll have a processor that's significately faster, if you won't be using the PC for gaming only. And you know you won't, because you never do.

At the same price, there really isn't much of a choice to make. Get the Q6600 and be happy.
Click to expand...
I think I'd prefer to avoid overclocking if I can. I know it's not that hard but I was in Fry's yesterday looking at all the massive fans and heatsinks and frankly I found it all a bit intimidating. I'm not really a hardcore expert and I prefer things that can just run out of the box without having to fiddle with BIOS settings and buy aftermarket parts.

To clarify, while this machine won't be used exclusively for gaming the other things I plan to do it are not CPU-intensive applications - web-browsing, email, Word, etc. I don't do 3D rendering, I don't encode much video... I'm just wondering where I'm going to see the improved benefits of Quad-core power.
 
Gary Whitta said:
I think I'd prefer to avoid overclocking if I can. I know it's not that hard but I was in Fry's yesterday looking at all the massive fans and heatsinks and frankly I found it all a bit intimidating. I'm not really a hardcore expert and I prefer things that can just run out of the box without having to fiddle with BIOS settings and buy aftermarket parts.

To clarify, while this machine won't be used exclusively for gaming the other things I plan to do it are not CPU-intensive applications - web-browsing, email, Word, etc. I don't do 3D rendering, I don't encode much video... I'm just wondering where I'm going to see the improved benefits of Quad-core power.
Click to expand...

I'd say go with the Core 2 Duos. From the looks of things, the Q6600 will only benefit you when it comes to some smaller quad-optimized apps. Whether or not you want to build in anticipation of all these huge incoming quad-core optimized games is up to you; it's a calculated risk.

I was all psyched about the quad but decided to tone down and get the E6750 instead. Higher clock than the Q6600 at $100 less works for me. The rest of your hardware should be ready to take advantage of quads when the new gen comes out anyhow.
 
Guys, say if I wanted a mix between a 3D graphics rendering machine and a gaming rig, i'm guessing a quad core would be a bit more suited for me right? (will be overclocking)
 
Here's a relevant article from Tom's hardware. Keep in mind that this is the E6750 vs. the QX6850, so you're looking at a slower duo vs. a faster quad compared to the two chips initially covered in this thread. The methodology has its faults, but it's still a useful read for someone who's looking to make the decision between quad and duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/
 
I have a question as well......I'm trying to decide what I need to upgrade first. I want to either upgrade the memory, cpu, or video card and I want opinions on what would give me the bigger boost in gaming currently.

Here's what I'm running with as of now:

AMD X2 4600+ (AM2 Socket)
MSI Nvidia Geforce 7900GT 256MB
2GB RAM Corsair XMS PC6400
 
Fragamemnon said:
Do you really need to upgrade? That computer still has a lot of life left in it.
Click to expand...

It does. Which is why I was leaning to just adding another 2GB of RAM, just wanted to make sure that the GAF PC council agreed! :lol

I'm running Vista 32 as well, BTW.
 
VE - Assuming you were making a new rig to run today and tomorrow's games, which CPU would you recommend at the $266 price point? A Quad-core Q6000 2.4GHz or Dual-Core E6850 3.0GHz?

Tim - If you're buying a CPU primarily for gaming, the sweet spot of the market seems to be dual-core. There, you can get a higher clock rate than is available (at least economically) in quad-core. All UE3 games, for example, scale really well to two cores, and you get significantly more performance than single-core much of the time. Though UE3 and many other engines scale somewhat to 4 cores, the benefits aren't huge.

That will change in a couple of years, but that's another upgrade cycle.

If you plan to do heavy level-building and mod making, I'd recommend quad-core. The development tools scale well to quad-core, having lots of content authoring apps open in Windows benefits from quad-core, and if you're going to be running a dedicated server on your machine to test a mod while also playing on that machine, it helps for that.
Click to expand...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/807/807197p1.html

If your not overclocking, dual core is best for most games. Overclocking complicates things a tad in terms of which is best.
 
The real options here is Q6600 vs e6750.

The e6850 is 100$ more expensive than the e6750, only 333mhz faster, which is retarded.

Well if you have the money, goes for Q6600.

For overclocking, it's so easy now if you don't do it, you are wasting money. Also, if you dont, the guy that pay half what you pay end up having a chip faster than you.
 
Gaming rig? e6850.

Don't listen to people who spout "futureproof". How hard is it to sell your e6850 and drop in a q6600(or faster) down the road? Answer: It isn't. What are the odds of running into the type of multithreaded programming in a game that would make the q6600 a better choice? Slim and none and Slim just left town.

Great multithreading code is rare in the business world where you can make an economic case for going to the effort. It barely exists in the PC gaming world, except for people who can afford to do it for the "hell of it".

I don't expect to run into a game that "needs" more than 2 cores until most of the installed PC base is running on > 2 cores. In other words, probably never.
 
Woo-Fu said:
Gaming rig? e6850.

Don't listen to people who spout "futureproof". How hard is it to sell your e6850 and drop in a q6600(or faster) down the road? Answer: It isn't. What are the odds of running into the type of multithreaded programming in a game that would make the q6600 a better choice? Slim and none and Slim just left town.

Great multithreading code is rare in the business world where you can make an economic case for going to the effort. It barely exists in the PC gaming world, except for people who can afford to do it for the "hell of it".

I don't expect to run into a game that "needs" more than 2 cores until most of the installed PC base is running on > 2 cores. In other words, probably never.
Click to expand...

Intel officially revealed the name of Kentsfield this morning, and branded it Core 2 Quad.

It will be out in November. We were treated to a demo of a Core 2 Quad machine running Remedy's unreleased follow-up to Max Payne, Alan Wake.

The game looked, frankly, stunning. Remedy has coded the engine to take advantage of quad-core processors - the engine scales as you move from single to dual to quad. We saw some amazing environmental effects, not to mention true next-gen graphics that easily rival anything from Unreal Engine.

Markus Maki, Remedy's rep at the forum, said that Alan Wake had been 18 months in the making so far. The multiple cores are used to stream data in the background in preparation for moves into new areas, and to prepare output for the graphics card to render.

Markus also revealed that one whole core is used for physics calculations, and we saw a hurricane tear up the in-game world in a rather realistic fashion as illustration.

For the true enthusiasts, Intel revealed that this Kentsfield, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700, had been overclocked up to 3.73GHz, a 1GHz clock, with no issues. "Overclocking is allowed here, huh?" mused Otellini.

Alan Wake looked stunning, and it seems that quad-core could soon be ready for gamers. We'll be hearing far more later on in the day, so we'll be sure to let you know.
Click to expand...

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/09/26/Intel_shows_Core_2_Quad_threaded_Alan_Wake/

Games utilizing a quad core chip are on the way already. Alan Wake may be a catalyst for other game developers to start taking advantage of the quad core market or it may not. The hardware game moves so fast that it is hard to make a call as to what the PC demographic may look like a year from now. In the end both will be good upgrades. Pick whichever you get a better deal with and just go from there.
 
I've wanted to post in this thread since it started, because I find myself in the exact same situation, choosing between these two processors. When it first started last week, the general consensus in this thread at the time was to go with the Q6600, while I'd been leaning towards the E6850. I felt like I shouldn't bother posting what I thought because with so many people saying to go with the Q6600, I was afraid that I'd be, I dunno, generally verbally rebuffed, and with the discussion all but seemingly finished anyway, I thought 'why bother'.

Meanwhile, I looked at my financial situation, and how much I'd have to spend, and it seems I'll have to wait 2-3 months anyway. Nvidia's next card will be out by then, which I also want to get, and the newest Penryn cores will be as well, and I can re-evaluate the situation.

Had I built the PC now, I would have went with the E6850. I want raw horsepower over all else, and Quad cores aren't there just yet. The Quad core equivalent of the E6850 with a 1333FSB and a 3Ghz clock speed is the QX6850, at ~$1350 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115026, compared to ~$320 for the E6850 on Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028. I can wait till the Penryn CPUs are out to see what changes, and even if nothing worthwhile does, a least prices will drop. Also, its been said here before, it'll be very easy to upgrade later on anyway.

I just hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the ass in the end. When I bought this PC in Sept 2005 (Dell Dimension 9100, they changed the name to XPS400 soon after I got it), the stock configuration was a dual core P4 @ 2.8Ghz. I wanted raw horsepower, so I went with a single core 3.0Ghz instead. I realize now I should have went with a Dual core 3.2Ghz.

Anyway Good Luck to you Gary. Try and post how it all ends up for you, I'll be doing the same when I build my rig later on this year.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Yeah but when you start to OC don't you get into a whole world of aftermarket heatsinks, thermal paste, etc? I admit all that scares me a little bit.
Click to expand...

If you're not willing to get aftermarket cooling, then quad-core isn't for you

Quad-Core run incredibly hot to begin with, so overclocking is not possible without good cooling. You'll get more performance out of a stock E6850, so go with that.

If you're willing to overclock and spend $100 or so on cooling (Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme + Arctic Silver 5 + installation), then you could go quad-core.

For an unexperienced overclocker though, I still say your best to stick with the E6850. Good amount faster at stock speeds in all of today's games and runs cooler.

In another 2-4 years, when quad-core is widely available and games are scalable to multi-core architectures, then I'd recommend a quad-core...but until then, dual-core is overkill enough.
 
It is built.

I absolutely love this machine so far. It kicked ass in 3DMark06 (94th percentile) and pretty much maxes out Vista's Windows Experience Index.

Ran Half-Life 2 Episode One last night and it runs like an absolute dream at 1900x1200 with all settings maxed, just a thing of beauty.

I even really like Vista so far, such a pretty and nice environment. Of course I haven't been using it long enough to find any real problems, which I'm sure I will. The UAC stuff is a pain in the ass but easy to turn off. Oh, and my printer's not compatible but I kind of expected that. I wanted a new one anyway.

Oh, and I'm amazed at how quiet it is. My last machine was like a fucking Dyson, but I can barely hear that this thing is even on. The loudest component is the WD Raptor, which is a fair bit noiser than a typical HDD.

Pic:

1122919761_622555f9b6.jpg
 
Gary Whitta said:
It is built.

I absolutely love this machine so far. It kicked ass in 3DMark06 (94th percentile) and pretty much maxes out Vista's Windows Experience Index.

Ran Half-Life 2 Episode One last night and it runs like an absolute dream at 1900x1200 with all settings maxed, just a thing of beauty.

I even really like Vista so far, such a pretty and nice environment. Of course I haven't been using it long enough to find any real problems, which I'm sure I will. The UAC stuff is a pain in the ass but easy to turn off. Oh, and my printer's not compatible but I kind of expected that. I wanted a new one anyway.

Oh, and I'm amazed at how quiet it is. My last machine was like a fucking Dyson, but I can barely hear that this thing is even on. The loudest component is the WD Raptor, which is a fair bit noiser than a typical HDD.

Nice, congrats on the new computer :)
Click to expand...
 
Yeah. I haven't run any games yet, but I installed XP Media Center Edition and after FUCKING with it for a LONG time I got it working. (I found some 3rd-party program that re-registers all the dlls. It refused to see my TV card) It blazes in the menus on that. REALLY smooth. Now I'm tempted to get MCE on my TV. It's that good. It rivals TiVo.

The only problem is that I fucked up the installation and partitioned the drives weird. One 500GB is split into 100 (C:) and 400 (G:) and G: is my Windows folder. Dammit.

I also noticed the Segate Barracuda drives I bought are a little noisy, too. Especially when I'm downloading fast or watching TV. Kind of a bummer when my other 500GBers aren't that loud. My Samsung Spinpoints are very quiet.
 
raptor under heavy seek = bag of spanners

seems the new 750gb western digital AAKS drives are the way to go.
 
On the topic of dual cores. For games that were available before dual cores became wide spread; ala World of Warcraft, do they take advantage of the 2 cores or do you have to optimize the code some how?
 
MickeyKnox said:
:D
*big ass heatsink*

more info later.
Click to expand...

That heatsink is massive. What one is it?

I'm going to be putting a system together myself in mid September and having a heatsink that massive hanging off my motherboard makes me nervous.
 
VictimOfGrief said:
Still mind boggling that gaffers are buying 2 cores instead of 4. :lol
Click to expand...
We've been all over the reasons why... the games that effectively use 4 cores (or will in the near future) can be counted on the fingers of one hand. No doubt there will be more mainstream quad-core optimization a year or so down the road, but until then quad has virtually no game application - it's for high-end 3D renderers and encoders and multi-taskers.

Dual-core = superior base clock speed TODAY. If you buy a quad now you're gimping yourself in the gaming short term, and in the long term superior (and cheaper) quads will be available, along with enough multi-threaded games to make their purchase worthwhile.

Check out this graph:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8

As you can see, E6850 owns Q6600 in almost every single GAME, while quad offers superior performance in 3D rendering and other CPU-heavy non-game applications.

Hell, the E6850 even beat out the Q6600 in SupCom, which is supposed to have a hard-on for multiple cores.

Quad-core is the gaming future. But it's not the future yet.
 
WhatRuOn said:
HAWT

4gb RAM? Is that 8800GTS or GTX? Looks a little short to be GTX..
Click to expand...
4gigs of PC8500, 1066mhz, and that's a GTX, my case is just that beefy.

nataku said:
That heatsink is massive. What one is it?

I'm going to be putting a system together myself in mid September and having a heatsink that massive hanging off my motherboard makes me nervous.
Click to expand...
120xtrm.jpg


+

120mm.jpg



Thermalright Ultra 120 extreme. There are only two stipulations before I go recommending it.

1st: it's huge so check your case depth for clearance

2nd: The base is convex, so you have 2 options, either spend the extra $15-$20 when you order it for it to come pre-lapped or be prepared to do it yourself.

Here are the pics I took while doing mine, starting with 120grit and progressing up to 800grit.

LappingHS1.jpg


LappingHS2.jpg


LappingHS3.jpg


LappingHS4.jpg


LappingHS5.jpg



The e6850 is somewhat concave, so I decided to lap that as well.

LappingProc1.jpg


LappingProc2.jpg


LappingProc3.jpg
 
VictimOfGrief said:
Still mind boggling that gaffers are buying 2 cores instead of 4. :lol
Click to expand...

Because not everyone lives in cold climates.

And because for the 100 dollars you save (with a 6750), you can apply that to a quad-core Penryn when they come out if the need for quad-core is there. Quad core now is stupid for me. Maybe it's not stupid for you, but it was stupid for me.
 
SleazyC said:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/09/26/Intel_shows_Core_2_Quad_threaded_Alan_Wake/

Games utilizing a quad core chip are on the way already. Alan Wake may be a catalyst for other game developers to start taking advantage of the quad core market or it may not. The hardware game moves so fast that it is hard to make a call as to what the PC demographic may look like a year from now. In the end both will be good upgrades. Pick whichever you get a better deal with and just go from there.
Click to expand...

bullshit.

1 game != games.

At the end of the day, buy a quad core when a game is released where it actually makes a difference. That day is not today. That day is not coming any time soon. When that day does come, there will be faster quad cores than the Q6600 and odds are fairly good that they won't cost any more than a Q6600 does today.

Long story short, the wise man buys the PC hardware he needs today, not the PC hardware he might need in some distant future.
 
xtyen said:
Does that akasa matting really not increase case temps? Also how much noise does it absorb?
Click to expand...
I use it for the aesthetics not so much for the sound dampening, case temps aren't effected as I'm not blocking airflow.
 
One would think with so many 360 ports we'd see more games wanting more than two cores / four threads.

I think Alan Wake will really use the four cores well.
 
You kids and your new processors are nuts! I'm sticking to my overclocked Opty 939 setup - running like a core 2 6600 at stock. That'll have to do until holiday '08 for me.

Congrats to those getting them however. :)
 
MickeyKnox said:
I use it for the aesthetics not so much for the sound dampening, case temps aren't effected as I'm not blocking airflow.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I didn't mean cause of blocked air vents. I always thought the matting stuff kept in heat which defeated the purpose of using an aluminum case. At least thats what kept me away from it.

Your setup does look extremely 'clean' though.
 
Woo-Fu said:
bullshit.

1 game != games.

At the end of the day, buy a quad core when a game is released where it actually makes a difference. That day is not today. That day is not coming any time soon. When that day does come, there will be faster quad cores than the Q6600 and odds are fairly good that they won't cost any more than a Q6600 does today.

Long story short, the wise man buys the PC hardware he needs today, not the PC hardware he might need in some distant future.
Click to expand...

I don't expect to run into a game that "needs" more than 2 cores until most of the installed PC base is running on > 2 cores. In other words, probably never.
Click to expand...
Simply refuting your statement here. Sure that 1 game probably won't make or break it as far as giving the Q6600 an edge over an E6850 at the moment, but I was just pointing out the quad core games are on the horizon and from what the Alan Wake preview sounds like quad core gaming certainly will be a pretty nice leap forward.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Yeah, not using a soundcard or any RAM will do that :-)
Click to expand...
? I have 4gigs in there.

As for sound, the only reason I'm using on board is because I fucking hate the stranglehold Creative has on the market, I will get a separate card later but even then my cables would be neatly folded and tucked away.
 
Goddammit GAF, I had no desire to upgrade my PC which is around 2 years old before entering this thread!
 
MickeyKnox said:
? I have 4gigs in there.

As for sound, the only reason I'm using on board is because I fucking hate the stranglehold Creative has on the market, I will get a separate card later but even then my cables would be neatly folded and tucked away.
Click to expand...


Stranglehold is an over statement lol. Creative is a company that has been doomed for a long time.

edit: but I know what you mean.
 
MickeyKnox said:
? I have 4gigs in there.

As for sound, the only reason I'm using on board is because I fucking hate the stranglehold Creative has on the market, I will get a separate card later but even then my cables would be neatly folded and tucked away.
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, I didn't realize the RAM was orange, at first glance that looked like the holding clips.

Question, though: Why 4gb? Even the $11,000 "Dream Machine" that Maximum PC built this month only had 2gb RAM because as they explained anything over 2gb is overkill that most OS's/applications can't even address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What is your current wallpaper(s) on your gaming rig? [Phone wallpapers also welcome if non-PC]
2 3
103
3K
MrJangles replied
  • Locked
Indiana Jones Consoles (PS5 Pro) vs PC comparison
2 3
122
6K
Killjoy-NL replied
NX Gamer: Monster Hunter Wilds - PS5 Pro vs PS5 vs PC vs Xbox Series X|S Performance Review
2
78
6K
DanielG165 replied
A dedicated Windows gaming PC
2 3
129
5K
JohnnyFootball replied
Is Nvidia Damaging PC Gaming? feat. Gamers Nexus
22
23
Black_Stride replied
Top Bottom