# E8400 vs Q6600



## epidemik

This debate was going on in two other threads and I still cant decide. Im going to be looking at it from a gaming perspective and would prefer not to  have to updat for as long as possible.  

Here are my thoughts. 

*Q6600*
Its 65nm and not worse stepping (compared to E8400) which makes it not as good for overclocking. It has 4 cores making it more future proof so more and more games will start taking advantage of the 4 cores (but not for a while). 

*E8400*
Makes a better overclocker (up to 4GHz on air!) but is only 2 cores. Currently it preforms better in games (than Q6600). Currently and for a while yet to come, games arent taking advantage of 4 core CPUs and therefore for gaming, its better to have the higher clock speeds with 2 cores rather than 4 cores with slower clocks.


_So, Im leaning heavily toward the E8400_. The only thing keeping me from going with it is the fact that currently games are mainly GPU Bound and therefore the Q6600 (as well as E8400) is overkill even for the latest and greatest games. If thats the case then wouldnt it make sense to get the Q6600 and be more ready for future games. 

 IDK, im kinda just thinking aloud (in text) but im also looking for your input. I guess its kinda a matter of predicting the future.

For a gamer who doesnt want to upgrade for a while (2ish years), which would you recomend?



Just for reference (not sure how much it matters), the rest of the build is probably an 8800GT and 4GB RAM.


----------



## Kornowski

I was actually in the same boat as you, but I jumped out after about 2 minutes. For me, The Q6600 won hands down!

Dude, You can get the Q6600 up to 3.6Ghz (If not higher), 400Mz difference and two more Cores, C'mon!

Also, Like you said, games will eventually start to utilize more cores, so it's more future proof.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

i would have to go with the q6600, because you mentioned you dont want to upgrade for a couple years, and in a year most intensive apps will perform better with an oc'ed quad core than an oc'ed dual core. most people can get the q6600 to 2.8 - 3.4ghz on air, but theyre both great choices.


----------



## epidemik

Kornowski said:


> I was actually in the same boat as you, but I jumped out after about 2 minutes. For me, The Q6600 won hands down!
> 
> Dude, You can get the Q6600 up to 3.6Ghz (If not higher), 400Mz difference and two more Cores, C'mon!
> 
> Also, Like you said, games will eventually start to utilize more cores, so it's more future proof.



Is it true that in current games there will be no (or very little) difference  between the E8400 and Q6600 because the games are so GPU Bound?

Ifthats the case, seems like i might as well get the Q6600


Thanks danny


----------



## Kornowski

Yeah, I mean, if you get a Q6600 up to 3.4Ghz, It'd be awesome!
And, Like you said, games are more GPU influenced...

No problem, dude!


----------



## Shane

im the same as you guys aswel,But im stuck between the Q6600 and Q6700.


----------



## Scubie67

I have read somewhere that if both the e8400 and  q6600 are are overclocked that there is only a few FPS difference between the 2 with the same components playing current games.There are some graphs somewhere but I cant remember where I saw them as I look at several diffrent Comp sites.When games switch over to multi core there is suupose to be huge difference so I decided for myself it would be best to go ahead and get a quad,plus multitasking is better now with the quad.With the price drop they are about the same price anyways.


----------



## Gareth

I was stuck between the Q6600, Q6700 and Q9450. I chose the Q9450.


----------



## Shane

Garethman!!` said:


> I was stuck between the Q6600, Q6700 and Q9450. I chose the Q9450.



ohh the Q9450 isnt a choice,i wouldnt pay that much 

its between the Q6600 or q6700.


----------



## Timo

What the hell are you guys talking about... Q6600 G0, that will get up to 4Ghz as well.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/2/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index.html
It starts on Page two... I was too lazy to zap back.

And just because these guys got it up to 4Ghz... It doesn't mean others haven't gotten it higher. I've seen 4.15Ghz and even 4.2 (though the 4.2 was on water and the 4.15 was on TEC). But I've seen plenty 4Ghz and 3.8 / 3.9Ghz come past on some good air-cooling.

Chances are you're not going to OC either of them to 4Ghz anyways. 4Ghz is too much on either of them, only usefull in benching or perhaps Crysis if you have some killer Videocards... Which you don't because one 8800GT will have enough to do with a 2.4Ghz Quad. If you'd run three GTX 280's (which are the next killer cards to be... If you don't consider the price) then I'd suggest you OC to 3.6Ghz... But still 4Ghz is way out of the order right now.


----------



## hermeslyre

Plus even if the wolfsdale did have a smallish bit of extra OC headroom, It wouldn't truly mean that much FPS wise, Most games are GPU bound as OP mentioned. 

And as soon as games start getting even crappy/unoptimized 3-4 core support, like crysis, the little bit of extra load will even things out, maybe even push things over the edge in favor of more cores.


----------



## Timo

Timo said:


> What the hell are you guys talking about... Q6600 G0, that will get up to 4Ghz as well.
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/2/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index.html
> It starts on Page two... I was too lazy to zap back.
> 
> And just because these guys got it up to 4Ghz... It doesn't mean others haven't gotten it higher. I've seen 4.15Ghz and even 4.2 (though the 4.2 was on water and the 4.15 was on TEC). But I've seen plenty 4Ghz and 3.8 / 3.9Ghz come past on some good air-cooling.
> 
> Chances are you're not going to OC either of them to 4Ghz anyways. 4Ghz is too much on either of them, only usefull in benching or perhaps Crysis if you have some killer Videocards... Which you don't because one 8800GT will have enough to do with a 2.4Ghz Quad. If you'd run three GTX 280's (which are the next killer cards to be... If you don't consider the price) then I'd suggest you OC to 3.6Ghz... But still 4Ghz is way out of the order right now.



I'll repost it now... I want the maker to read this.


----------



## Steelshivan

Finally a thread without fifteen E8400-obsessed fanboys.

I agree with you all, the Q6600 is IMO the better buy right now, especially for the longer haul.


----------



## Geoff

Go with the E8400, games will perform better on a faster/more advanced dual-core then a slower/older quad core.


----------



## cohen

i say the Q6600 better for everything and is good for gaming

P.S. - This should've been a poll.


----------



## Scubie67

[-0MEGA-];997242 said:
			
		

> Go with the E8400, games will perform better on a faster/more advanced dual-core then a slower/older quad core.




Oh no!!! ...Someone has hacked OMEGA'S account.Someone please report this as I remembered he had a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.8 Ghz and would never say such a thing!


----------



## cohen

Scubie67 said:


> Oh no!!! ...Someone has hacked OMEGA'S account.Someone please report this as I remembered he had a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.8 Ghz and would never say such a thing!



hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600....


----------



## epidemik

cohen said:


> hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600....



Thats exactly what I was thinking. 
On my other thread, there wasnt a single person who said E8400.
Grr, such a tough decision (but im starting to wonder if it will really matter that much) .


----------



## Scubie67

epidemik said:


> Thats exactly what I was thinking.
> On my other thread, there wasnt a single person who said E8400.
> Grr, such a tough decision (but im starting to wonder if it will really matter that much) .



I dont think it matters much which was the point.The price right now is pretty close between the e8400 and the q6600.If you can handle giving up a few FPS short term right now on games the payoff comes when games become more efficient on using multicores later on as well as multitasking right now.I may be wrong but I dont know if the human eye can tell a diiffernce between getting 3 or 4 more Fps when comparing a e8400 system to a similar q6600 one.


----------



## cohen

The Q6600 is much better for everything


----------



## ThatGuy16

Talk to OMEGA, he has owned both 

You say the Q6600 will do 4.0Ghz? SOME will do 4.0Ghz with water, only benchmark stable. The E8400 will do 4.0Ghz stable on AIR. I have water cooling, and a very low voltage chip, i haven't even pushed it to its max stable OC.

Go with the E8400, this is the last time I'm going to say this. Maybe..


----------



## Scubie67

ThatGuy16 said:


> Talk to OMEGA, he has owned both
> 
> You say the Q6600 will do 4.0Ghz? SOME will do 4.0Ghz with water, only benchmark stable. The E8400 will do 4.0Ghz stable on AIR. I have water cooling, and a very low voltage chip, i haven't even pushed it to its max stable OC.
> 
> Go with the E8400, this is the last time I'm going to say this. Maybe..



If you read my post youll see that Omegas account may have been compromised


----------



## Kornowski

Read my original post on Page One. I've already said that you CAN get 4GHz out of it, 3.6Ghz pretty easily on air! Two more cores... You can't go wrong!

Shane, Get the Q6600, You won't notice the difference with the X10 Multi, They'll both OC the same.


----------



## Kesava

yeah get a q6600. they are great and in my opinion you probaby wont notice a decrease in performance comapred to the E8400....
i have a q6600 now and its amazing.


----------



## Geoff

Scubie67 said:


> Oh no!!! ...Someone has hacked OMEGA'S account.Someone please report this as I remembered he had a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.8 Ghz and would never say such a thing!


haha!  Yes I did it have it up to 3.8GHz on water, but only 3.6GHz on air.  The E8400 performs better clock for clock anyways because it has a 45nm process, and has an updated version of the Core 2 architectures. 



cohen said:


> hhmm....... well one min when i'm on here people are saying E8400 for gaming and now we are all saying the Q6600....


Both can be good, but the E8400 is 600MHz faster stock, runs cooler, and can OC higher.


----------



## Timo

Q6600 is a better balance between Gaming and Other non-gaming apps. Why not take it when it's cheaper and will OC high enough to play whatever game you throw at it?


----------



## Kornowski

Timo said:


> Q6600 is a better balance between Gaming and Other non-gaming apps. Why not take it when it's cheaper and will OC high enough to play whatever game you throw at it?



Exactly!


----------



## shenry

*Q6600*
*Pros*
Multitasking
Better @ Video Encoding
Overclocks around 3.5 w/ 3rd party cooler
4 Cores
Probably will be better @ gaming in the future.
Temperature sensors work

*Cons*
Older Architecture
Lower Clock Speed
Less power per clock

*E8400*
*Pros*
Higher Clock Speed
Overclocks to 3.6 w/ stock cooler, 4+ w/ 3rd party cooler
Currently better @ gaming
Newer Architecture
More power per clock

*Cons*
2 Cores
Temperature Sensors (They're faulty kinda)

Things to consider: do all those pros apply to you? If overclocking do you want to have to buy a third party cooler or will you just stick with the stock? Do you want the performance now or some future proofing for later? Or is it worth waiting for something even better to come out.

Just got a little bord and decided to input! I haven't put price in because its different everywhere and often to close to really matter. Plus it changes.

Enjoy.

PS: Don't quote me on those figures.


----------



## Steelshivan

Excellent comparison of the two processors shenry.  Very fair and unbiased summary.

Only thing I would have to take your word for is the temperature sensor comparison, anyone else have input on that?


----------



## Scubie67

I read that some Q9450's have had some problems with temperature reporting from sites like tomshardware and tech-forums.net.


Found a link:

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f76/q9450-temperature-misreports-176721/


----------



## headcrabCAKE

i am the same as you epid but thanjks to this topic i think ill go with the more future proof cpu (Q6600) 

thanks for making this thread


----------



## epidemik

headcrabCAKE said:


> i am the same as you epid but thanjks to this topic i think ill go with the more future proof cpu (Q6600)
> 
> thanks for making this thread



NP. 

I however am still not convinced. But I'm guessing its simply a matter of predicting the future. I guess i'll keep thinking about it but i still gotta raise $500  (but i get paid to sit in the sun and count heads occasionally save a life...lifeguard  )


----------



## Timo

A friend of mine has his Q6600 running at stock (2.4Ghz) with the stock Intel cooler mounted and it does about 35/36 idle and 42/43 (43 at maximum, after an hour of stressing or something) at room temperatures of 21 maybe 22 degrees. I think you can do 8*333 easily without having to change the stock cooler if you don't want to OC all that high 

(though I can't try that with his nor with mine because mine has a 3rd party cooler and his is a Dell, which have the Bios' totally locked as far as I know... Though I will look into it anyway...)


----------



## shenry

Steelshivan said:


> Excellent comparison of the two processors shenry.  Very fair and unbiased summary.
> 
> Only thing I would have to take your word for is the temperature sensor comparison, anyone else have input on that?



Thanks.

You can sort of get around the temperature faults with real temp. It seems to be more accurate than all other temperature programs for the E8400 and was made for it specifically but works with other intel CPU's as well. It also tests whether your sensors are faulty or not.


----------



## Gareth

Id wait, the Q9460 is apparently going to drop to $266 in Q3.


----------



## UriA702

If you are considering "future proof" CPUs, overclocking to 4 ghz is not an ideal approach. If you are going to overclock please do so in moderation to extend the life of the CPU.


----------



## ThatGuy16

Most 8400s do 4Ghz just above stock voltage. By the time a cpu would kill over in the long run from a stable overclock, they would be nearly extinct. I've never heard of someone killing a cpu from a shortend lifespan due to a overclock. Its all stories...


----------



## Kesava

yes although it does sound wise... its hardly necessary, given how fast technology advances.


----------



## childsy_1985

All the benchmarks I have read ave lead me to the conclusion that for the moment the dual core is better for gaming if you dont want to overclock. The quad will win out every time when it comes to apps.

As for overclocking, what you need to remember is that you can push both chips quite high and still wont see much differance between them in games at the moment. So realy I guess it comes down to personal preferance and budget. If you want out of the box performance in games then the dual core is for you, If you want future proofing and can spent the extra 40 or 50 bucks then go the quad. Wichever you choose, they are both good chips.


----------

