Computer Help forum

General discussion

E8400 vs Q6600

by JJX90 / July 27, 2008 6:05 AM PDT

I?m building my own PC and I need to choose between these two cpu?s.

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400- Speed: 3.0 GHz / Socket: LGA 775 / BUS: 1333MHz 6MB L2 Cache, Dual Core, 45nm


Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600- Speed: 2.40 GHz / Socket: LGA 775 / BUS:1066MHz 8MB L2 Cache, Quad-Core, EM64T

About the price, the Q6600 is around $20 higher than the E8400. I want a gaming pc and I don?t know which of these two would benefit me the most. Can you help me?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: E8400 vs Q6600
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: E8400 vs Q6600
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
For me the quad.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / July 27, 2008 6:19 AM PDT
In reply to: E8400 vs Q6600

But I do a little video editing...

Collapse -
I'd probably say the quad
by Jimmy Greystone / July 27, 2008 6:42 AM PDT
In reply to: E8400 vs Q6600

I'd probably say the quad too. The dual does have the faster FSB, and is the newer 45nm design so it'll use less energy and run cooler... The problem is is that the front side bus keeps getting faster while no other components even come close to keeping pace. PCI-E x16 is as close as it gets, and its still not going to be able to feed that fast of a bus.
Right now, the real problem is getting data from anywhere else on your system to RAM. Particularly the hard drive. While Serial ATA did finally provide some freedom from the aging 33MHz IDE bus, SATA is hardly an improvement. It's current top theoretical speed is about 3GB/s, and that's if you don't include overhead, while even a 1066MHz FSB could pump out data in the over 10X that rate.

So given the push for parallelism in programs, the quad core system is likely going to have a lot more staying power despite the lower clock speed per core and slower bus speed. Just be sure to feed either system with the proper DDR3 RAM for a gaming system. Or in the case of going with the quad core, make sure that your RAM speeds are some multiple of 2 relative to the bus speed. Either exactly half the bus speed, exactly the same as the bus speed, or twice as much as the bus speed. Otherwise you will actually take a performance hit due to overhead.

Ideally you could spring for one of the 45nm quad core chips, like the Q9300. Runs at 2.5GHz per core, but otherwise the specs are identical to the E8400. It will use less energy than a Q6600 and thus run cooler. I have one in my system, and even when it's 80+ degrees inside and 90+ outside, I've never seen it crack 60C on any of the cores. I do a little gaming with it, just Warhammer 40,000 so nothing too demanding by today's standards, but I do run it at the highest settings and I still don't think I've seen it top 59C, with just the stock cooling.

Collapse -
e8400 for gaming
by ramarc / July 27, 2008 12:21 PM PDT
In reply to: E8400 vs Q6600

the 3ghz e8400 is faster than the 2.4ghz q6600 in almost all modern games except unreal tournament 3 and supreme commander. those are the only games that can take advantage of all 4 cores and even in those games, the extra 2 cores only brings the q6600 up to the level of the e8400.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9300_Processor/?page=5
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3

the e8400 will also run cooler and will outperform the q6600 in most other consumer apps as well. so unless you've got other specific uses for a quad core, go with the e8400.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?