The Q6600 vs E8400

Syndicate2083

Hey everyone,

First off, I'd just like to say that this place is great, and I am really happy to have found it. There is an immense wealth of knowledge here, so thanks first off for any previous help and responses here.

So down to the meat of the situation.

Ok, So my title, Q6600 vs E8400 is kinda obvious on it's face. I wanted to talk about some of the things I see as a difference between the two, and what makes it 'better'.

First off the major difference, the Q6600 is of course a quad core, and the E8400 a dual core. This presents some obvious benefits and no real detractors. It is more 'future' proof in that sense, however I feel other items are worth mentioning and I wanted some opinions as to why it is simply better, as a whole product.

So some specs on the two procs for comparison, forgive me for those who are intimately familiar:

E8400:
Standard operating Freq. 3.0GHz
FSB 1333MHz
L2 6MB
Tech 45 nm
Multimedia Instruction Sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, EM64T
Power Draw 65w
Wolfdale Core

Q6600:
Standard operating Freq. 2.4GHz
FSB 1066MHz
L2 2 x 4MB
Tech 65 nm
Multimedia Instruction Sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3,SSSE3, EM64T
Power Draw somewhere near 100-104w??
Kentsfield

Ok, so some major differences, aside from the dual/quad core aspect:

1, Tech. the E8400 is 45nm and the Q6600 is 65nm. What real difference does this have? It should in theory allow for higher transmission rates, and a faster interface also, no?

2, The frequency, yes yes 600mhz, however thats a per core difference. So we are getting a faster per core processor also. Could matter for some, or the difference could be negligible. However it gives us a bit more push against the 'big brother'

3, Cache. So the Q6600 advertises 2x4mb for 8mb total. The way that is set to me seems that it is a 4mb cache shared per two cores, and if that is the case the cache of the E8400 on a 2/1 scale would technically be better, correct? How much of a performance increase would that garner?

4, FSB. 1333 v 1066 is a nice improvement, and again helps our E8400 carve out some nice performance compared to the Q6600 stuck on the slower bus. How much of a difference I honestly couldnt say, what are your experiences? Would this really help the E8400 shine, and look better overall compared to a Q6600 or is the difference not very noticeable?

5, Instruction sets. Ok I have a basic passing knowledge of these. I have no extensive research or knowledge into what exactly this impacts. That being said, with the exception of an added SSSE3, the E8400 comes equiped with a newer instruction set, SSE4. How would this impact current technologies and programs? Is there a good reason to want an SSE4 rated processor?

6, Power draw, I wasnt able to get a specific number in my two minute search, but the E8400 seems to use less power, which makes sense, however overall the quality of the dual core seems higher. Improved energy savings on a constantly used PC add up.

So. My questions above are in relation to my next system. I plan to go with the E8400 for a seemingly better processor in general, minus it being dual core. The price points are similar, but the Q6600 just seems 'low end' comparatively. My thinking is that the E8400 is going to be a great current gen processor and last me long enough until better Quad Cores come down in price and mimic the overall quality of the E8400. I think at this point, just going for the Q6600 because it is Quad Core, isn't exactly the best idea because it is lacking in other relevant areas, and overall my performance gain through strict horse power won't outweigh the positives of the E8400.

Thoughts?

-Syn

CDsDontBurn

IMO, it would better to go with the e8400 for the reasons you stated above. Unless you will be using programs and/or games that specifically work better on quad core CPUs, there shouldn't be a need for the q6600. Also, having the higher clock speed, FSB speed, and L2 cach also make up for the lack in cores.

so, i say go with the e8400.

Judas

1: The nm differences isn't a huge deal, unless your concerned about heat and power not to mention want to overclock alot. But imo it's no big deal as the 65nm chip is very very capable of substantial overclocking, the q6600 is known specifically for overclocking capabilities. As for having higher transmission rates, it only means it's capable of "possibly" faster rates....

2: 2x3ghz vs 4x2.4ghz..... 2 is better then 1, 4 is better then 2. Things are getting heavy into the multi core cpu's.. the more you have, the better off you'll be. while ATM there isn't a WHOLE LOT of programs that make use of the quad core system, and super enthusiasts tend to streamline things so much to get the biggest performance, results in usually the dual core system outperforming the quad core simply because of the slightly slower clock/fsb. But on a typical home machine considering the users using it, the quad core has proven to be robust enough to show the advantage usually.

3: e8400 = 6mb = 2x3mb where as q6600 = 8mb = 4x2mb
Is this going to impact things considerably? Only in a very select few programs. Your still running technically twice the number of cpu's, so properly load balanced is going to win always.

4: The FSB is negilable at best in most cases, like i said, unless your an extreme super enthusiast that runs a streamlined super tight windows install, disabling services and startup features beyond the norm or even suggested, the FSB difference is not going to be a huge difference, the 2 extra cores are going to compensate for that quite easily, course you can always just pump the FSB up to 1333 without breaking a sweat on the Q6600 (i've yet to have one not capable of doing this) provided you get a decent heatsink such as a artic freezer 7 pro.

5: SSE4 is a nice addition guaranteed, it's not heavily made use of yet, kinda like the quad core, but it's nice when it becomes the norm (like the quad core).

6: Obviously the newer generation of CPU is going to be more energy efficient, if it wasn't, someones head would have been rolling. And it's true the Q6600 is now considered "low end" and old, but it still is one hell of a good cpu.

it's only a matter of itme before dual core goes the same way of single core cpu's....

But if you could, the newer Q9xxx series is worth looking at as it includes everything the e8400 has.. only quad core..

Anyone building a computer today, if they plan on playing some games or doing anything computer oriented that demands cpu power, i try and recommend getting a quad core, cause they'll thoroughly enjoy it more as the machine ages, as it'll be prone to surviving MUCH MUCH longer then the dual cores will.

IMO

Q6600>E8400

BlueMak

When I first bought my AMD X2 4400 I thought I would have it for about 3-4 years without speed issues. It being a dual core (when almost everyone had a single core CPU), would surely mean it would still be good for the 3-4 years ahead.
I was wrong. It just wasn't fast enough for future games and it was always the bottleneck in my system, after the first 7 months. Games that didn't care all that much about how many cores you had, weren't that impressed with it.

I believe it all depends on how long you plan on keeping it the CPU you are planning on buying. Also what programs you are going to use.
If you use programs that take advantage of more and more cores, then you have to go for the Q6600. If not, then go for the E8400. I would say the E8400 has longer life expectancy as well, though not by that much. (performance wise).
So, if you play modern games, you will probably need to upgrade the CPU in about 2 years anyway and even if more games and programs use the extra cores by then, the Q6600 will be too slow anyway.

Syndicate2083

Thanks for the responses guys. Thats about what I figured. And as the two posts indicate the division between thinking.

I think at this point I'd still get the E8400 for price and performance ratio, and upgrade to a Q9xxx as they come down in price.

I really appreciate the feedback, keep it coming! Thanks allot again!

-Syn

*edit: I plan on using the system for gaming, light PSing, light coding (in textpad haha), and some low end web design for my blog site. Otherwise the primary function is as a gaming rig. The upgrade path I planned was about 2yrs or less for a quad core from the E8400 as those Q9xxx's drop in price.

T3hn0

what about q9300? if i remember correctly it's not a very good overclocker :/

Judas

I was one of the first to get a AMD dual core, that was 4 year ago. Those dual cores were the VERY first dual core cpu's to arrive, and were/are plagued with the first generational issues of the conceived multi core design.

While it's not a performance crown today, it's still one of the most solid and reliable cpu's to date, still performing excellently with games and programs not to mention windows VISTA x64 smooth as hell, scoreing a 4.9-5.1 on average for a 4400+ x2 939. Not bad at all.

But today, 4 years after the fact, and between amd and intel, intel has had a fair bit of practice in developing and making dual/quad core work very well, i would expect a q6600 to continue to trump every dual core to come still in the future much like the amd x2 still blows the doors off even the most speedy single core cpu's today..

Reguardless of how powerful the single core cpu's today are, they still choke when multiple tasks are thrown at them, where a much much slower dual core will swiftly move through them with ease.

This is no different, comparing a dual core to quad, the quad will reguardless of what is occuring today, kill the dual core reguardless of how new it is.

BlueMak

No.
If the say game doesn't take advantage of the extra cores, a faster dual core will be better than the q6600, unless you are running many more applications at the same time.

Judas

which generally.. most people are

even the gamers have more programs running then most people realize..

more cores always wins in the end...

BlueMak

I meant major applications.
I can have video editor in the back, plus messengers, plus music player, plus world of warcraft (just trial version), plus 2-3 security programs, plus Opera with 15 tabs open, plus winSPMBT, plus Renegade plus tv tuner program running and no problems with my E6600. If I reached a point where I would need to get a more than 2 cores CPU, I might as well close a couple of the games...


(the above is what I'm currently running)

[hobo]eclipse

you'll wet your drawers with either and 4GB+ of RAM with vista x64 and a good GPU/PSU.

if you go with the wolfdale i would definatly look to the new intel P45 chipset

Syndicate2083

Thats a really good point. What would be great is the ability to target cores with apps. So for instance you run say Sins of a Solar empire off core X and use core Y for your HD movie app to the TV.

I know that's somewhat OT, but itd be pretty sweet, forced core use FTW. hehe

-Syn

Syndicate2083

Id go with the new P45 chip, however i plan to go SLI and am going with an xfx 780i mobo instead. I know I know. :P Well see what nVidia's answer to ATi's new offerings are before I make any major switches.

-Syn

kris23

Q6600 because it is a quad, and the general rule of thumb is that more cores make it better, thats why AMD tri-Cores are so good compared to Dual-Cores

nearly everything worth using is multithreaded and SSE4 is too new to make a difference.

Mousey

Put it this way dude, judging by the specs of the lappy in your sig, anything is a massive bound forwards.
The HD3850 for example, hardly impressive on paper compared to the HD3870, but when it came to real world gaming performance it blew my tiny mind to smithereens because i'd never had anything so powerful before.

kris23

man here speak the truth... when i first got my system i was blown away, i never used something so strong.....

today, i see my system and use it as the minimum bar, every system i piece together for people here on DH or for people who ask me is to at the VERY least match my system, if it doesnt, its not good enough for anyone else.

Syndicate2083

Hehe, yeah compared to this laptop anything is good. That being said, my actual desktop in the states has the following specs:

Antec 900 case
Antec 500w psu, the actual 'family' name escapes me
BFG 8800GTOC 512
4 gigs of corsair XMS cas 5 DDR2 800
ASUS M2N32 SLI Delux
X-Fi platinum eddition
AMD x2 6000+

Yeah im upgrading from an AMD dual core, to an Intel Dual core, funny times. Anywho. This laptop was just what I brought with me on my 6 month business trip to the philippines. My upgrade is the present I'm givin myself for the trip, and the old system is mainly going to remain intact, minus the VC for my fiance.

I know compared to this thing either of those things will own this puppy, but its definitely served me well for a low end laptop running vista ultimate. I can even play Sins of a Solar Empire with my pal in the us on this baby with little lag.

I think as I said I will start out with the E8400 for now, because i do have a budget of sorts, and the 189 is a great price. Yeah the Q6600 is close in price, but for what I will use it with, the added 2 cores and overall lower performance per core doesnt justify going quad just yet. I'll wait for those awesome Q9xxx's to come down in price first

Thanks again for all the replies!

-Syn

kris23

youd be surprised how many apps use 4 cores and more......simply running 4 apps at once uses 4 cores, the simple fact that if you up the FSB of the Q6600 to a 1333mhz level will give you more performance than the E8400 is a good enough reason to buy for me..

theres also the whole thing that the 45nm cores are very fragile, being EXTREMELY sensitive to voltage thats just slightly outside their safe limits.. motherboards dont usually have a set stock voltage so it can usually be anywhere from 1.25 to 1.4 depending on what you choose.....

Syndicate2083

That's true. But but.. how can you pass on a core name that has wolf in it? hahaha. Ok, enough silly. Yeah I see your point. I dunno, I'm going to order the parts for the new beast in a week or so, and have em sit at my friends until I return home. At this very moment I have some absurd want for the E8400, so thats my plan. That could change at the last second though if I come to my senses hehe

-Syn

kris23

my personal opinion...... but i regret ever buying a Dual Core.......

my cousin has a Q6600 G0 in his Dell and it feels so much better than my chip, the two are generally the same spec but his is snappier and my computer has double the speed in everything EXCEPT the CPU, even at 3.5GHz you just cant do anything against those extra cores......

Syndicate2083

hmm.. thats true.. again good point. damn doubt! lol

kris23

and his system is overloaded with porn and mine is on RAID 0 with it defragmented daily, i can tell you, that thing is way better than any Dual Core, it also clocks to 4GHz with enough force, the 45nm chips cant except for the EE chips....

the 45nm chips have a real high FSB and low multiplier, the Q6600 has a low FSB and REAL high multiplier EXTREMELY well suited for overclocking.

Syndicate2083

Hrm.. more and more good points. This is exactly what I was hoping for by the way. I have been with AMD so long that I don't know the Intel ones well enough to say which is going to be good for OCing and whatnot.

Hm Hm Hm, decisions decisions.

Judas