BF2S Forums What would you prefer an E6850 or a Q6600?

You can just OC the Q6600, so go Q6600.

Q6600 coz its four heheh. Plus, much more futureproof, youll need it for stuff like Supreem Commander, Crysis, Alan Wake etc.

joker8baller wrote:

GIGABYTE GA-P35-DQ6 LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail   - $240

This is the board my friend and I will be getting.

Well if you want the best for that board right now, get the E6850.

If you're prepared to wait a bit for the Quad that's designed for the features of that board, then get the E6600 or the E6750 (or even a cheaper one) and use that until the other comes out.

Roger. Thanks for yall's opinion. lol... still wavering, been reading up Tom's Hardware's forums, there's actually a thread IDENTICAL to this one.. ><

I also need a good wireless card...

Last edited by joker8baller (2007-07-22 10:17:49)

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/243475-28-e6850-q6600

definately Q6600. games are soon gonna start to be more and more multithreaded. plus, the Q6600 already overclocks like a bitch. there is no reason for this 1333 FSB bs. you can easily get the Q6600 to that FSB and maybe even higher with some decent air cooling.

With the Q6600 you want the newer G0 stepping but its a quad core and heat will always be an issue when overclocking so you need a very goods HSF

mafropetee wrote:

buLLet_t00th wrote:

mafropetee wrote:

plus, the Q6600 already overclocks like a bitch.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

i think i do. i know lots of people with it who have gotten it up to 3GHz on stock cooling. thats higher than the QX6800 stock.

Thats not really OC'n like a bitch now is it?

The normal E6600 gets to 3.4 - 3.5 easily. Not really the same is it?

buLLet_t00th wrote:

mafropetee wrote:

buLLet_t00th wrote:

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

i think i do. i know lots of people with it who have gotten it up to 3GHz on stock cooling. thats higher than the QX6800 stock.

Thats not really OC'n like a bitch now is it?

The normal E6600 gets to 3.4 - 3.5 easily. Not really the same is it?

ohh shut up. its basically two E6600's glued together. of course it wont overclock AS WELL as the E6600 because of heat issues, but still, a lot of people accept 3GHz and dont bother going past that. 3GHz is incredibly fast. and a 3GHz quad core... well. thats just the shit.

Bullet Tooth just hates the Quads rite now

mafropetee wrote:

buLLet_t00th wrote:

gvers wrote:

I think he means that 3Ghz is not really overclocking to the max 3.4-3.8 would be more like it. The 2 processors both have advantages over each other and I would expect the e6850 to overclock better that the Q6600 for most people because of the extra heat of the quad core.

But the E6600 is not hitting max at 3.4, if both had the best coolers and the best components to go alongside it, the E6600 would still beat it hands down. Thats at clock speed, not in multitask performance.

once again, my normal challenge: take two E6600's in two computers of the exact same specs, clock one at 3.0GHz and one at 3.4GHz, and tell me if you can honestly see a difference (besides in CPU-Z where it says "3400MHz"). no. i highly doubt you could.

in real-time, actual experience, the Q6600 will give you more satisfaction with A: its ability to multitask like crazy and B: the future of multithreaded aplications.

point made. thank you.

agreed.

JaMrulezass wrote:

Bullet Tooth just hates the Quads rite now

I just don't see the point for people who just play games on their PC.

mafropetee wrote:

buLLet_t00th wrote:

gvers wrote:

I think he means that 3Ghz is not really overclocking to the max 3.4-3.8 would be more like it. The 2 processors both have advantages over each other and I would expect the e6850 to overclock better that the Q6600 for most people because of the extra heat of the quad core.

But the E6600 is not hitting max at 3.4, if both had the best coolers and the best components to go alongside it, the E6600 would still beat it hands down. Thats at clock speed, not in multitask performance.

in real-time, actual experience, the Q6600 will give you more satisfaction with A: its ability to multitask like crazy and B: the future of multithreaded aplications.

point made. thank you.

You're really showing that you don't know what you're talking about now....I suggest you don't embarrass yourself further.

Multi-tasking only plays a part when you have got tonnes and tonnes of complex programmes running. The C2D's have shown that they can handle immense amounts of information being proccessed through it, I doubt you'd have enough programmes running to stop dead the E6850. So this part of your argument fails.

Next we have the multi-thread argument. Yes four is better than two, but how many games now and in the future are going to have four cores as something you must have to run a game? Whats that you're saying.....none? One core of each of the CPU's will be used much more than that of the others available (and this is putting it as simply as it can get) and obviously the one with the higher clock speed is better!

This all comes down to whether the OP wants to use video render software, Photoshop software etc. etc.

Now please be quiet.

Edit: And the fact that if you do buy a E6850 you need to have a P35 (or 680i, although that isn't futureproof), enables you to be truely futureproof with 45nm CPU's. Seriously, most people on here read a few tech reports on other sites and think they know what they're talking about.....I find that quite pathetic.

Last edited by buLLet_t00th (2007-07-22 14:21:58)