Q6600 or E6600?

[mrfatboy]

I have been trying to decide on whether to get the Q6600 or E6600 (after price cuts). I will be pairing it with a gigabyte p35 board and a 8800 GTS.

The main apps i use are:

Outlook
Excel
Word
Skype
Sketchup
IE
DVD Decryter
DVD Shrink
BF2
Crysis + future games (future)

Skype is always running. I thought I could run BF2 and skype on individual cores so I could have a nice clear voice connection with my buddy. Is that realistic?

So does an E6600 do the job? Should I get the E6600 now then upgrade to a Penryn Quad later for Crysis or just get the Q6600 now? Will the Q6600 be challenged/stressed by my apps at all?

I don't like to upgrade unless I have to. You might as well throw money down the drain. My current system is:

athlon XP 2000
ECS board
9800 AIW Pro

My BF2 settings are low but I still kick ass

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I would say get a 6420 now and overclock it. It will be more than enough for those apps listed. Then wait for Penryn or Nethlam, I have an E6400 and will probably wait until at least Nethlam for my next upgrade.

The Q series chips are hot and very hard to cool and thus don't overclock nearly as well as C2D's, and are severely underutilized by software at this point. In the vast majority of apps a C2D at higher clock speeds performs better than the Q's

 

[stevty2889]

As the owner of a Q6600, and seeing the types of programs you are going to run, I'd just go with the E6600. The Q6600 is pretty much an overkill, other than folding@home I have a hard time finding a use for the additional 2 cores.

 

[mazeroth]

Another option is the $114 E4300. It's 1.8ghz stock but I can run mine at 3.3ghz on the stock cooler no prob! I'm running it right now at 3.0ghz without even touching the voltage.

 

[SupersoniX]

E6420 is a good cost-effective solution and this very similar than E6600.
DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink are much beneficied with Q6600 and their four cores. If it is essencial to you, I sugest you wait the next Intel prices reductions... US$266 por a Q6600 is a big deal!

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: SupersoniX
E6420 is a good cost-effective solution and this very similar than E6600.
DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink are much beneficied with Q6600 and their four cores. If it is essencial to you, I sugest you wait the next Intel prices reductions... US$266 por a Q6600 is a big deal!

Err, DVD shrink and Decryptor didn't really use more than 2 cores of my quad, so hardly benifited at all..

 

[TheSpy007]

Wait for E6850. Will have G0 stepping and can overclock to 3.9ghz +.

 

[mrfatboy]

Is the E6600 dropping in price July 22 or is it part of Sept. price cuts?


What does everybody think of my skype/BF2 individual core idea? Will an E6600 beable to handle both of them running at the same time without any problems or am i just dreaming?

 

[trOver]

E6600 will handle me having aim, firefox, CSS, CNCZH, xfire, and itunes up at the same time flawlessly.

I would say just get the e6600 if your only going to be running 2 things!

 

[mrfatboy]

When you say "handle" do you mean actually "using" the apps? Of course you are going to be playing the game but do you think I can activly talk/use skype at the same time.

I have Qtracker, skype, and bf2 all running. However, i can't play bf2 and have an active phone call on skype with my xp2000.

 

[bryanW1995]

get the e6600. I am planning to get a Q6600 after the G0 stepping comes out, and I've been amazed at all of the extras that go into overclocking a quad core. You will get 3.2-3.5 at stock voltage with no effort on an e6600. You will cry for joy and wonder why you waited so long to upgrade.

 

[mrfatboy]

For my situation it seems that i'm leaning for an e6600 which i have been looking at for 1 year now. i got greedy with excitement for a q6600 when the price cuts were announced. It seems smart to use the e6600 now then upgrade to the penryn or better later. My gigabybyte board will handle it plus ddr3.


Now to drill down... e6420 or e6600? e6600 is only $40 more. They seem almost identical but there has to be something diff. Just the .29 mhz? If I OC both to 3.0ghz does it matter which one i get besides price?

 

[bryanW1995]

e6420. the only diff btwn those is the stock multiplier. e6600 is x9 and e6420 is x8.

 

[mrfatboy]

there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: SupersoniX
E6420 is a good cost-effective solution and this very similar than E6600.
DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink are much beneficied with Q6600 and their four cores. If it is essencial to you, I sugest you wait the next Intel prices reductions... US$266 por a Q6600 is a big deal!</end quote></div>

Err, DVD shrink and Decryptor didn't really use more than 2 cores of my quad, so hardly benifited at all..

so - if DVD shrink & Decryptor are using 2 cores - you can do MORE stuff with the other two...

 

[Toadster]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mrfatboy
there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

</end quote></div>

not necessarily...

one of my buddies and I did some tests with Camtasia in compiling a video

P4D 3.0Ghz - 3:50
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 55 minutes
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 25 minutes

it seems that if you can keep 2 CPU's pegged at 100% you can compute a HECK of a lot more than just a dual core... the other two cores do the 'everyday stuff' while your multi-core enabled application uses the other CPU's...

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mrfatboy
there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

</end quote></div>

not necessarily...

one of my buddies and I did some tests with Camtasia in compiling a video

P4D 3.0Ghz - 3:50
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 55 minutes
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 25 minutes

it seems that if you can keep 2 CPU's pegged at 100% you can compute a HECK of a lot more than just a dual core... the other two cores do the 'everyday stuff' while your multi-core enabled application uses the other CPU's...

He was refering to the E6420 vs the E6600..both running at 3ghz, both with 4mb of cache...they will perform almost Identicaly.

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mrfatboy
there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

</end quote></div>

not necessarily...

one of my buddies and I did some tests with Camtasia in compiling a video

P4D 3.0Ghz - 3:50
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 55 minutes
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 25 minutes

it seems that if you can keep 2 CPU's pegged at 100% you can compute a HECK of a lot more than just a dual core... the other two cores do the 'everyday stuff' while your multi-core enabled application uses the other CPU's...

</end quote></div>

He was refering to the E6420 vs the E6600..both running at 3ghz, both with 4mb of cache...they will perform almost Identicaly.

that's what we thought as well, but if you read carefully in my post - the Core 2 Duo was a 2.66GHz CPU and the Quad is a 2.4GHz.... the slower processor was almost 2x as fast because those 2 CPU's could be maxed to 100%
take a look at all your processes running on your PC, a CPU has to control those at all times within the OS - if you can allocated the processor affinity to a dual-core based app - the other two cores can do more on the backend

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mrfatboy
there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

</end quote></div>

not necessarily...

one of my buddies and I did some tests with Camtasia in compiling a video

P4D 3.0Ghz - 3:50
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 55 minutes
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 25 minutes

it seems that if you can keep 2 CPU's pegged at 100% you can compute a HECK of a lot more than just a dual core... the other two cores do the 'everyday stuff' while your multi-core enabled application uses the other CPU's...

</end quote></div>

He was refering to the E6420 vs the E6600..both running at 3ghz, both with 4mb of cache...they will perform almost Identicaly.</end quote></div>

that's what we thought as well, but if you read carefully in my post - the Core 2 Duo was a 2.66GHz CPU and the Quad is a 2.4GHz.... the slower processor was almost 2x as fast because those 2 CPU's could be maxed to 100%
take a look at all your processes running on your PC, a CPU has to control those at all times within the OS - if you can allocated the processor affinity to a dual-core based app - the other two cores can do more on the backend

If thats the case, both cores of the E6700 should have been at 100% as well..so something else was the bottleneck for the E6700 system. And there is no such thing as a P4D, it was Pentium-D, and everyone knows that they are the overheating power hungry celerons of dual cores.

 

[Toadster]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Toadster
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mrfatboy
there is a slight speed difference also. My question is does the speed difference really mattter if you OC both to 3.0ghz? I say no! but is there something else that I am over looking?

In other words
Comparing both at stock the E6600 wins. but OC both to 3.0ghz it's a tie right?

</end quote></div>

not necessarily...

one of my buddies and I did some tests with Camtasia in compiling a video

P4D 3.0Ghz - 3:50
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 55 minutes
Core 2 Quad Q6600 - 25 minutes

it seems that if you can keep 2 CPU's pegged at 100% you can compute a HECK of a lot more than just a dual core... the other two cores do the 'everyday stuff' while your multi-core enabled application uses the other CPU's...

</end quote></div>

He was refering to the E6420 vs the E6600..both running at 3ghz, both with 4mb of cache...they will perform almost Identicaly.</end quote></div>

that's what we thought as well, but if you read carefully in my post - the Core 2 Duo was a 2.66GHz CPU and the Quad is a 2.4GHz.... the slower processor was almost 2x as fast because those 2 CPU's could be maxed to 100%
take a look at all your processes running on your PC, a CPU has to control those at all times within the OS - if you can allocated the processor affinity to a dual-core based app - the other two cores can do more on the backend</end quote></div>


If thats the case, both cores of the E6700 should have been at 100% as well..so something else was the bottleneck for the E6700 system. And there is no such thing as a P4D, it was Pentium-D, and everyone knows that they are the overheating power hungry celerons of dual cores.
</end quote></div>

the E6700 was pegged at 100% - but not solely to the Camtasia application - it had to give up a certain amount of CPU cycles to the other 50+ processes running on the system - just because an application is running doesn't mean that it can TRULY use 100% of the CPU - otherwise the OS woudn't be able to run the application in the first place

add more CPU's and set your processor affinity, and you CAN assign 100% CPU to an application - while the other CPU's can manage the 'overhead' items...

and yes, I mis-stated - it was a Pentium4 HT (not Pentium-D)...

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: SupersoniX
E6420 is a good cost-effective solution and this very similar than E6600.
DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink are much beneficied with Q6600 and their four cores. If it is essencial to you, I sugest you wait the next Intel prices reductions... US$266 por a Q6600 is a big deal!</end quote></div>

Err, DVD shrink and Decryptor didn't really use more than 2 cores of my quad, so hardly benifited at all..

It should if you run two instances at once. One instance of DVD-Shrink maxes out both of my cores and if I run two I can't play games at the same time unless I limit both instances to a single core.

 

[DrJeff]

This whole thread has been very helpful to me (just read, not lurking).

I grabbed one of CUSA's Acer q6600 system units on yesterday's ad just because I had been thinking of an upgrade and saw this one on sale for less than the sum of its parts. Q6600, 2GB DDR2, 500GB SATA150 HD, DL burner, X1650SE card, Vista Home Premium, etc. for $735 seemed to be >$1100 worth of parts.

However, leaving it unopened and taking a pause to reflect using this thread, sounds like most feel an OC'ed E6600 or E6420 with a P35 board would actually be faster in real world use. My most CPU intensive app is DVD Shrink which, it sounds like from your discussion, maxes all the cores it can find unless you limit it. Would Paintshop Pro use multi cores? How do I monitor multi cores to watch utilization? Or limit a process to just one core?

I would spend a bit more now to buy parts and build the E6420/P35 rig with other quality parts, which arguably are NOT in the Acer box. And it would be much more future-friendly, including DDR3 and Penryn capability.

I don't Skype, but I have been known to watch video in a window while working in 3 FFox windows and ripping a DVD in the background. Any thoughts or recommendations would be appreciated.

 

[DrJeff]

Or, looking at the upcoming price cuts, I could opt for something close to the E6750 and not have the cooling probs. C'mon, nobody has anything to add to help me decide whether to return the Acer Q6600 machine?

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: DrJeff
Or, looking at the upcoming price cuts, I could opt for something close to the E6750 and not have the cooling probs. C'mon, nobody has anything to add to help me decide whether to return the Acer Q6600 machine?

i have no cooling problems on an overclocked Quad (see sig)

temps around 50c with the house at 78 degrees

 

[DrJeff]

i have no cooling problems on an overclocked Quad (see sig)

temps around 50c with the house at 78 degrees

So with the receptiveness to overclocking without overheating, you might rec. waiting on the q6600 price cuts late this month but take back the Acer in favor of something with a OC-friendly BIOS? Makes sense.