New PC gaming rig - E6850 vs Q6600

Gary Whitta said:
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.
Click to expand...
4gb for gaming isn't really advisable, but for image editing and whatnot, it's a good idea sometimes.
 
Gary Whitta said:
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.
Click to expand...
4gigs is overkill for XP32 but 64bit OS's take full advantage of it and running "only" 2gigs in Vista is slooooow.

I'll be running a partition on my 500gig drive so I can have both XP and a 64bit Vista client to boot into.
 
Here is my new baby with Quad Core Extreme and 8800gtx

http://www.randomxt.com/pc/

Only change since then is I now have a Scythe Ninja CPU cooler

Ninja + All Silenx Ixtrema 120mm (no screw 1db) fans = 0 NOISE!!!!!

Case - Cooler Master CM 832
PSU - Thermaltake Toughpower 850W Modular
Mobo - Asus P5N32 E-Sli 680i
CPU - Intel QUAD Core (QX6700) EXTREME
RAM - 4 Gigs of OCZ PC 8500 1066MHZ Sli Ready ram
Grafix - Evga 8800GTX (Nvidia)
HD - 1x 150Gig Raptor (10k RPM), 1x 300 gig Caviar
Sound - Sound Blaster Extreme Gamer Fatality
Cooling - 6 Silenx (4dba) IExtrema 120mm Fans
Mouse - Logitech Lazer G5
Keyboard - Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard
Speakers - Logitech THX 4.1
Monitor - Samsung 226BW 22" Widescreen 2ms RT
 
Gary Whitta said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, I want to build a new PC this fall as well and I'm also wondering what to do.

Cause you know, as my screen is only like 1280x1024, I don't really see the use of gaming in 1600x1200 (okay, that's kind of cool.) or higher. 1280x1024 with some aliasing seems fine to me. And I think qith the quadcore, I can run HL2 easily in that resolution, with all settings maxed. I'd guess same goes for BioShock/Assassins Creed, as long as you have a good GPU - which matters the most if I'm right.

So although I might not profit that much NOW, it won't be bothering me as I'm not one of those bigger resolution == better guys, while I still profit when (for example) Alan Wake comes out.

Just laying down some questions from my side :)
I think both processors are awesome anyway. Lots of power.
 
What exactly is lapping and what do you need to do it? I was looking at that Thermalright cooler, but if it's gonna cost be a hassle to get setup think I'll just get something easier.

Edit: Might aswell ask this here, looking at a spec similar to this: http://www.ikuu.net/images/currentlist.jpg

Any comments? Such as a better part, or something to avoid. Using Overclockers.co.uk got all the parts. Oh yea, for price around the same, maybe a little bit extra, though I'm thinking of dropping the heatsink for something cheaper. Don't need RAM as I bought some already.
 
Just recieved my Q6600 in the mail today, going to install it into my rig-in-progress build tonight.

This is the rig I'm going for:

Case: Aurora 3d
POW: Silverstone ZEUS 850W
Mobo: Asus P5K Deluxe
RAM: 8gb (4x2gb) Mushkin XP2 DDR2 1066mhz
OS: Vista Ultimate 64x
CPU: Q6600 2.4ghz Quadcore
GFX: ATi 2900xt 1gb (or whatever's newest when I actually purcahse it)
HDD: Boot drive - 10k Raptor
HDD: RAID5 array - 4x500gb
AUX Card: BlackMagic Intensity Pro (HDMI in/out & analog IN) - Vid Capture

All that I have left to buy is RAM, HDDs, and GPU
 
Ikuu said:
What exactly is lapping and what do you need to do it? I was looking at that Thermalright cooler, but if it's gonna cost be a hassle to get setup think I'll just get something easier.
Click to expand...
Lapping is basically making the surface smoother between the heatsink and the proc, essentially it's a way to keep things even cooler.
 
I had this choice too, but I since I'm gonna do both gaming and rendering + other crap I decided for the quad along with the ultra 120 to see how far I can get it without going into too much trouble
 
DrEvil said:
AUX Card: BlackMagic Intensity Pro (HDMI in/out & analog IN) - Vid Capture
Click to expand...

The sad thing about that card is that it cant record HDCP-enabled signals. But I can only imagine how good it is with analog. No encoder, so you can get perfect, lag-free video inputs. I keep an old PCTV software tuner card for that exact reason.
 
Gary Whitta said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are exactly the reasons I decided to go with the E6850. Plus, modern P35 mobos already support Quad Core anyway. So when those CPUs are viable and worthy, it's just a simple CPU upgrade.
 
SleazyC said:
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.
Click to expand...

...and you're still somehow thinking that Alan Wake = quad core games (multiple, meeting your criteria).

When in reality, Alan Wake = potential quad core game (singular, possibly meeting your criteria).

Do you think processor development is going to stop and prices start rising, such that when Alan Wake is released, and if it really does need a quad core processor that a person won't be able to buy more than q6600 for equal or less money? If you do, I suggest you think again.

Both those processors will work on the same motherboard, worst case scenario he sells his dual core in that misty future of yours and buys a q6600, which will be even cheaper than it is now. Best of both worlds, would seem to me.

Buy a quad core when your future arrives. Otherwise you're gimping yourself today for the potential to be gimped in the future(faster quads will be out whenever your future arrives).

I'm talking about a gaming rig, obviously. Quad core is great for people that run certain types of non-gaming software.
 
Gary Whitta said:
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.
Click to expand...

So here's the thing. You can justify your purchase to me all you want. I'm happy that you're getting what you want.

What you need to be brought into the loop on is parallel processing and how in the next 12-36 months, is going to get a WHOLE lot better. Now sure, the tests have been done and the E6850 is a quality chip, but you have to remember, games, software, programs in the not so long term are going to benefit from more cores.

With the quad-core chips, we've hit the top of the bell curve and we're waiting on programing to catch up with the hardware. Now sure, for what... $40 bucks more you get a "faster" Core 2 over the Core 2 Quad, however, you overclock the Quad, it's going to be faster. Then again, overclocking.... meh.... I don't look for overclocking features on my chips that I buy, but that's just me.

My point still stands though, for someone that wants an overall kick ass chip that does media, gaming and is practically future proof, you still cannot beat $290 bucks for a Quad core.
 
VictimOfGrief said:
So here's the thing. You can justify your purchase to me all you want. I'm happy that you're getting what you want.

What you need to be brought into the loop on is parallel processing and how in the next 12-36 months, is going to get a WHOLE lot better. Now sure, the tests have been done and the E6850 is a quality chip, but you have to remember, games, software, programs in the not so long term are going to benefit from more cores.

With the quad-core chips, we've hit the top of the bell curve and we're waiting on programing to catch up with the hardware. Now sure, for what... $40 bucks more you get a "faster" Core 2 over the Core 2 Quad, however, you overclock the Quad, it's going to be faster. Then again, overclocking.... meh.... I don't look for overclocking features on my chips that I buy, but that's just me.

My point still stands though, for someone that wants an overall kick ass chip that does media, gaming and is practically future proof, you still cannot beat $290 bucks for a Quad core.
Click to expand...
:lol

The quads on the market right now aren't "real" quads anyway, just a stopgap solution that will be irrelevant when proper quadcore chips hit the market.
 
MickeyKnox said:
:lol

The quads on the market right now aren't "real" quads anyway, just a stopgap solution that will be irrelevant when proper quadcore chips hit the market.
Click to expand...

Oh you're in the camp that says "glued" Core 2's are gimped. Right.
 
I'd say my system is now 95% setup how I like. (It hangs on boot if my drivers for my TV card are installed AND MCE is setup properly. Yeah, ONE of those two'll cause it. I'm sure it's some initialize problem.)
XP MCE 2005
2GB Ram (DD2)
E6850
EVGA GeForce 8800GTS 320MB
LCD Monitor (1280x1024)

I've been catching up on 'older' stuff like Chronicles of Riddick, Prey and Half-Life 2 Lost Coast. Everything is amazingly fast.
153FPS average on Lost Coast.

~30 average on Lost Planet Demo with EVERYTHING on.
 
VictimOfGrief said:
So here's the thing. You can justify your purchase to me all you want. I'm happy that you're getting what you want.

What you need to be brought into the loop on is parallel processing and how in the next 12-36 months, is going to get a WHOLE lot better. Now sure, the tests have been done and the E6850 is a quality chip, but you have to remember, games, software, programs in the not so long term are going to benefit from more cores.
Click to expand...
I already made this point - E6850 better for games today, quad-core better for games a year or more down the line. And when that happens I'll go quad, but not before.

Now sure, for what... $40 bucks more you get a "faster" Core 2 over the Core 2 Quad
Click to expand...
Actually they're the exact same price.

My point still stands though, for someone that wants an overall kick ass chip that does media, gaming and is practically future proof, you still cannot beat $290 bucks for a Quad core.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point but it's irrelevant in a thread that's about choosing the best processor for a dedicated gaming rig. And how are today's quads futureproof when we know there are faster and cheaper ones right around the corner?
 
MickeyKnox said:
:lol

The quads on the market right now aren't "real" quads anyway, just a stopgap solution that will be irrelevant when proper quadcore chips hit the market.
Click to expand...

I'll ignore the fact that you don't produce a single shred of evidence Kentsfield and Yorkfield(?) are holding games back because they are 2 dies on one package. But even if they are, Conroe/Kentsfield are already so fast, that for gaming, these CPU's aren't even the bottleneck and won't be for a couple of years at least, keeping in mind that most games are still single-threaded and therefore only use half or a quarter of Intel's current line-ups potential anyway.

Intel won't have "proper" quads until their chips get an integrated MC, which won't happen until Nehalem hits in Q4 2008 at the earliest, and then that will be on a different socket and chipset, so a whole new system needs to be bought again anyway. That means when Nehalem hits you need new RAM (by then DDR3 latencies might be acceptable and prices might be reasonable), Mobo (different socket/chipset) and processor, so its moot whether you buy a E6850 or Q6600 now, they willl both be obsolete when Nehalem hits and both will require a complete system rebuild.

If you need a system now and can't wait 18+ months get one now and be happy, play Crysis this November and laugh at idiots waiting nearly 2 years for teh real quads. If you are overclocking, buy a quad (best of both worlds: clockspeed and cores), if not it depends on your usage: for games dual, otherwise quad. If you are happy with your rig and can stick it out, by all means wait, but it will be a long, almost 2 year wait, knowing you could be playing Crysis and Bioshock et al on max settings whilst you are stuck with an athlon xp and 9700.
 
dual core is the way to go now for gaming its as simple as that, a £40 e2140 will easily clock to 3ghz and while the lack of l2 cache will hurt it, its only a £40 at the end of the day and a great stop gap until the better quad cores hit in november which isnt far away at all.

some recent benchmarks posted from the dual core wolfdales show they are worth waiting for and this should also carry through for the quads too, by the time any games that really utilise quad core technology are released the q6600 will be outdated.

10c cooler running, 10-30% faster in games and in sse4 enhanced apps upto 115% faster really says it all for me.

penryn benchmarks
 
Gary Whitta said:
I already made this point - E6850 better for games today, quad-core better for games a year or more down the line. And when that happens I'll go quad, but not before.


Actually they're the exact same price.


That's a fair point but it's irrelevant in a thread that's about choosing the best processor for a dedicated gaming rig. And how are today's quads futureproof when we know there are faster and cheaper ones right around the corner?
Click to expand...

Same price? Where the fuck are you buying your chips? Newegg says otherwise.

Either way, not really going to go into this any longer since it doesn't really matter what chip you get, it's Intel and not AMD, for that, I commend you.
 
VictimOfGrief said:
So here's the thing. You can justify your purchase to me all you want. I'm happy that you're getting what you want.

What you need to be brought into the loop on is parallel processing and how in the next 12-36 months, is going to get a WHOLE lot better. Now sure, the tests have been done and the E6850 is a quality chip, but you have to remember, games, software, programs in the not so long term are going to benefit from more cores.

With the quad-core chips, we've hit the top of the bell curve and we're waiting on programing to catch up with the hardware. Now sure, for what... $40 bucks more you get a "faster" Core 2 over the Core 2 Quad, however, you overclock the Quad, it's going to be faster. Then again, overclocking.... meh.... I don't look for overclocking features on my chips that I buy, but that's just me.

My point still stands though, for someone that wants an overall kick ass chip that does media, gaming and is practically future proof, you still cannot beat $290 bucks for a Quad core.
Click to expand...

Yea you can overclock that quad core, and deal with it's insane heat output. But at the same time, you can also overclock that dual core. Q6600 stock speed = 2.4Ghz, E6850 stock speed = 3.0Ghz. So while you're overclocking your Q6600 to 3.0 Ghz, you can take that E6850 to something way beyond 3.0Ghz.
 
alexel said:
Yea you can overclock that quad core, and deal with it's insane heat output. But at the same time, you can also overclock that dual core. Q6600 stock speed = 2.4Ghz, E6850 stock speed = 3.0Ghz. So while you're overclocking your Q6600 to 3.0 Ghz, you can take that E6850 to something way beyond 3.0Ghz.
Click to expand...
you can overclock the quad way beyond 3.0GHz, but not on air. Friend of mine is running right around 4GHz on his liquid setup and it has been rock solid since day one.

But then again, for me it's not about overclocking, it's about pure, raw performance all round.
 
Xrenity said:
Okay, I want to build a new PC this fall as well and I'm also wondering what to do.

Cause you know, as my screen is only like 1280x1024, I don't really see the use of gaming in 1600x1200 (okay, that's kind of cool.) or higher. 1280x1024 with some aliasing seems fine to me. And I think qith the quadcore, I can run HL2 easily in that resolution, with all settings maxed. I'd guess same goes for BioShock/Assassins Creed, as long as you have a good GPU - which matters the most if I'm right.

So although I might not profit that much NOW, it won't be bothering me as I'm not one of those bigger resolution == better guys, while I still profit when (for example) Alan Wake comes out.

Just laying down some questions from my side :)
I think both processors are awesome anyway. Lots of power.
Click to expand...

Honestly, neither the Q6600 or E6850 will bottleneck HL2, neither will the 8800 series bottleneck it. So for HL2, it really doesn't matter whether you get a Q6600 or E6850, it'll be the difference between say 170fps and 185fps. At that point your eye can't even tell so who cares.

As for the newer games like Bioshock/Assasin's Creed, yes that E6850 will give you a significant performance boost over the Q6600. That's assuming Bioshock and Acreed aren't being programmed for quad cores which I haven't heard anything about. When you start scaling to higher resolutions, your GPU, and more specifically how much RAM your GPU has onboard is what will start bottlenecking it, not so much your processor. That's what I've read anyway, I might be wrong so take it with a grain of salt.
 
I would be worried about heat and power personally. I don't think the quad core is worth the extra heat, watts, and of course - price. Get the duo for cheap and when the time comes you can upgrade. It's all the same socket, and hey it'll be cheaper by then.
 
Gah, wish I hadn't seen this thread, now I'm not sure if I should get the E6850 or the Q6600 both are the exact same price. E6850 is more appealing for the performace in games just now, and the fact it runs cooler (etc).

Also can someone recommend a good heatsink for it? I was looking at that Thermalright Extreme, but can't really be bothered messing around and lapping it.
 
storybook77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have 4gb in my rig but I use the 64bit OS. From what I understand, a 32-bit system can only handle 4.096gb of memory. But this is total memory. So you need to subtract the memory that's used by your video card and by your BIOS. For example my computer only shows a little over 3gb if I were to load the 32-bit OS. So if you were to stick 4gb of ram into your 32-bit system you won't be using all of it. But if you were going to use the 64-bit OS I'd say go for it - since there's reports that 4gb of ram is the sweet spot.

Ikuu said:
Gah, wish I hadn't seen this thread, now I'm not sure if I should get the E6850 or the Q6600 both are the exact same price. E6850 is more appealing for the performace in games just now, and the fact it runs cooler (etc).

Also can someone recommend a good heatsink for it? I was looking at that Thermalright Extreme, but can't really be bothered messing around and lapping it.
Click to expand...

I have the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme and did some research on it before buying it. The benefits you gain from lapping it is marginal at best. Thermalright intentionally designed the surface to have the convex bow. If you want I can give you the link that explains the reasons the convex design. Anandtech did a review on the 120 Extreme and they say it's the best air-cooled heatsink they've tested (link below). So just go get the 120 Extreme.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2981&p=4

edit: Oh and about your processor question, It all depends on what you want to do. Do you want the best performance right now (E6850)? Or do you want to future-proof yourself (Q6600)? When I put my rig together a few months ago I got the E6600 since the Q6600 was like $500. But if I was in your shoes at the time I bought my processor I'd probably just buy the Quad-core to future-proof myself.
 
Go quad-core if you plan on primarily doing CPU intensive work on the machine (video, compiling, image processing, etc) and lots of multitasking.

Go dual-core if you plan on primarily playing games.
 
Thanks for that, pretty much decided on what I'm going to order tomorrow, feeling like a kid before Christmas right now :lol. Still not sure on whether to go with the dual or quad core, probably make my mind up five minutes before I order.
 
I've already made my decision (quad-core) as I do encode bunches of video (yes, I use Media Center) for DVD and what not - quad core will do me well (but I need to get my cash together!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gaming Handheld PC vs. Gaming Laptop?
13
333
Boss Mog replied
2025 | PC Gaming Show
2 3
100
1K
grvg replied
What is your current wallpaper(s) on your gaming rig? [Phone wallpapers also welcome if non-PC]
2 3
103
4K
MrJangles replied
Most used gaming platforms in Germany 2024 vs 2019: Smartphone - 22.9m (+17.5%), Console - 20.5m (+26%), PC - 13.1m (-20%)
Business  2
73
632
thismeinteil replied
  • Locked
Indiana Jones Consoles (PS5 Pro) vs PC comparison
2 3
122
7K
Killjoy-NL replied
Top Bottom