Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards Intel' started by cpuon, Oct 21, 2008.
Q8200 vs Q6600
which one should I get? I'm more on playing games and editing some videos.
E8400 is currently a better overclocker than the Q6600 which is about the only reason to get that dual core.
How about the Q6600? Is it good? If I overclocked it to 3.6Ghz. Does E8400 4Ghz perform better overall? Does 400Mhz really noticeable in gaming?
400mhz does make a small difference but its that the e8400 has a new instuction set sse4 and is on the 45nm fab so it runs cooler that makes it a better buy
I would probably buy the E8400 right now. I just upgraded to a Q6600 last month and when I bought it, the Q6600 cost me $189. Now when I look at the prices, the Q6600 is 229 and the E8400 is 203 so it depends where you live and how much you can pick it up for. I think both are great choices.
For gaming...go with the E8xxx....Quad core for gaming is pretty well pointless. The E8xxx has a faster bus, architectural improvements over Kentsfield, lower temps...and will more likely overclock better. (Since overclocking seems to be the most common recommendation these days) Also, most games don't take advantage of quad core processors. Another thing you could consider would be waiting for Core i7 if you're looking for the best possible performance.
Q8200 vs Q6600
How about in this two quad core? Q8200 and Q6600.
I second JDM.....quad core in gaming offers no performance benefit in the majority of cases. The switch from dual core to quad core does not have the same impact as switching from single core to dual core. In most cases, Quad core processors leave 1-2 cores idle at most times because software cannot currently make proper use of quad core processors. Currently, no software is optimized for quad-core processors.
Thats Kinda right, there is software optimized to use 4 cores out now.
I've seen software that will utilize multiple cores, but I have yet to see anything optimized for quad cores. AMD's "dual core optimizer" makes efficient use of multi-core processors under most circumstances, including gaming because it allows windows to more efficiently handle threads to make use of the extra processing cores. Hopefully Windows 7 will be optimized for quad-core systems, considering MinWin does leave the possibility open.
Get an E8XXX
Yeah, for gaming definitely an E8400. Very little software, as pointed out, is optimized for quad core so yes, two cores sit idle most the time. I actually ran a Q9450 for a while and in games the E8400 significantly outperformed it.
Q6XXX is soooo two years ago...unless all you do is play 3Dmark all day. The 8400, for very little price premium over the 8200, is very efficient and overclocks extremely well.
E8400/E8500 E0 Stepping
UNLESS all you're concerned with is running benchmarks, F@H, Boinc, doing 3D graphics rendering, or video editing....STICK WITH DUAL CORE. Even WindowsXP is very poor at multi-core utilization...AMD had to use a special driver to get around XP's poor use of multiple cores.
I bought my Q6600 for gaming and I do not regret it. I run multiple instances of EVE-Online and a Dual Core isn't good enough when I start running more than three clients. Sometimes I have five clients online at the same time and it makes a large difference. I went from 10fps in XP to 30fps (single to DC running three clients) and now in Vista I get 50fps when running five clients. So, if you do get a Quad install Vista as XP isn't optimised for it at all and SP3 is rubbish.
However if you don't do what I do then a DC is your best option. Do remember that you will have to clock your DC about 400MHz higher than a Quad to outperform them in games that can use more than two cores.