Q6600 or E6600?

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: DrJeff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>i have no cooling problems on an overclocked Quad (see sig)

temps around 50c with the house at 78 degrees</end quote></div>

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.

It sounds like you got a great deal on the Acer system.

You could always look for a hacked BIOS that will allow you to overclock, otherwise you're stuck re-building with another motherboard (or else you can just return it).

I think I would keep that setup considering what you paid for it (provided that you actually need an entire rig). I don't think the cooling issues will be all that serious. You can get high end air cooling for $50 if you must.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: 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.

That is one heck of a deal you got. Is the motherboard a standard ATX form factor?
If it is, I would swap out the mobo for a P35 and add an aftermarket HSF and probably swap out the Power supply and keep everything else. Also check and make sure they gave you a full installable version of Vista and not just a recovery disk.

 

[DrJeff]

It sounds like you got a great deal on the Acer system.

You could always look for a hacked BIOS that will allow you to overclock, otherwise you're stuck re-building with another motherboard (or else you can just return it).

I think I would keep that setup considering what you paid for it (provided that you actually need an entire rig). I don't think the cooling issues will be all that serious. You can get high end air cooling for $50 if you must.

Actually, I can return it w/o restock fee. I was really looking at building up a new primary rig when I saw this pop up Sunday in the ads. My main rig case is a pretty dated Antec. I want some better fan options as well as better front port access

How are people OCing the C2Ds? through the multiplier or by upping the FSB?

 

[DrJeff]

That is one heck of a deal you got. Is the motherboard a standard ATX form factor?
If it is, I would swap out the mobo for a P35 and add an aftermarket HSF and probably swap out the Power supply and keep everything else. Also check and make sure they gave you a full installable version of Vista and not just a recovery disk.

Yeah, that's what I thought immediately. I hate to waste it, but once I buy a P35 mobo and better PSU, I've spent as much as a whole new part list but without the new age Antec case or something else. I dunno. Got another week to think it over before my ability to return without restock runs out.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

We are approaching quite a unique situation here in the computing world-- bleeding-edge technology at an affordable price for the masses that don't normally find themselves purchasing bleeding-edge products. When the Q6600 drops in price, there'll be many folks weighing the higher clock of the 6850 vs the lower-clocked and harder-to-cool Q6600. Myself included.

I've seen a lot of folks claim that the 6850 is the better buy for several reasons-- the main being the lack of apps that take advantage of quad-core; the other is how hard it is to cool an overclocked quad (though the G0 stepping should help a bit).

My thoughts are that if I am faced with 2 processors that cost the same, but one has twice the cores, I'm going to pick that quad. My reasoning is that even though I don't play Supreme Commander, I may find myself wanting to play a game while encoding. And, yes, I could do this with C2D easily enough by forcing both apps to a single core each. But what if that game significantly uses dual-core capabilities? Or, if needed, I could get that encoding done a lot faster with both cores going?

If you're a gamer, other than SC there aren't any games that will use your quad at all. In fact, from the benches I've seen, SC mainly uses 3 at max. BUT, that being said, if you game at a decent resolution like 16x12 with AA/AF and high settings, CPU *speed* is going to matter little. In fact, in many benches, a stock e6600 gets similar frames to a C2D @ 4ghz at those settings. If the extra speed isn't doing me much good, then at least I can have the extra cores out there for doing other tasks. A faster-clocked e6850 won't be able to grow more cores when Alan Wake comes around (or several of the other games that have mentioned to take advantage of quads).

I guess it's going to come down to each individual, their setup, and how they use their system. For me, my setup, and what I do, I can make a good argument for going with a G0 Q6600. But, again, I haven't completely made up my mind yet. But I think I've decided that if I am spending $266 on a chip, it's going to be a quad. I might go the other direction and grab an e6420 until something comes out that I care about that uses quad well. But, the idea of using 2 cores for encoding and 2 cores for gaming sounds intriguing (no matter how rarely I would do it).

 

[lopri]

What will be the price of E6600 (or its equivalent) on July 22nd? I know the Q6600 is supposed to be $266. (right?)

 

[deadseasquirrel]

The new e6600 will be the e6850 (same 4mb of cache and 9x multi, but clockspeed boost to 3ghz due to the 1333mhz fsb). It will be priced at $266 also. Theoretically, the e6600 should drop in price, as should the e6(4/3)20s.

 

[Wedge1]

I have a couple of questions:

1. What of this bandwidth bottleneck issue with a the Q6600? Quoting a review from Newegg: "Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600."

2. To achieve the 1333Mhz fsb with one of the newer core 2 duo's, is DDR2 Ram rated at higher than 533Mhz needed?

I'm trying to make the same decision as the original poster. Replies are appreciated.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: lopri
What will be the price of E6600 (or its equivalent) on July 22nd? I know the Q6600 is supposed to be $266. (right?)

if i remember the price sheet correctly, the E6850, should 249. So this is the dilema that people are going to have to consider.

A quadcore @ 2.4ghz vs A dualcore @ 3.0ghz

 

[DrJeff]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
I guess it's going to come down to each individual, their setup, and how they use their system. For me, my setup, and what I do, I can make a good argument for going with a G0 Q6600. But, again, I haven't completely made up my mind yet. But I think I've decided that if I am spending $266 on a chip, it's going to be a quad. I might go the other direction and grab an e6420 until something comes out that I care about that uses quad well. But, the idea of using 2 cores for encoding and 2 cores for gaming sounds intriguing (no matter how rarely I would do it).

Very nice analysis. I don't do sophisticated games, but I do plenty of encoding and would like to do other stuff at the same time. Newb question, but What utility assigns programs to a single core? When the price comes down, how do we find specifically G0 quads?

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
We are approaching quite a unique situation here in the computing world-- bleeding-edge technology at an affordable price for the masses that don't normally find themselves purchasing bleeding-edge products. When the Q6600 drops in price, there'll be many folks weighing the higher clock of the 6850 vs the lower-clocked and harder-to-cool Q6600. Myself included.

I've seen a lot of folks claim that the 6850 is the better buy for several reasons-- the main being the lack of apps that take advantage of quad-core; the other is how hard it is to cool an overclocked quad (though the G0 stepping should help a bit).

My thoughts are that if I am faced with 2 processors that cost the same, but one has twice the cores, I'm going to pick that quad. My reasoning is that even though I don't play Supreme Commander, I may find myself wanting to play a game while encoding. And, yes, I could do this with C2D easily enough by forcing both apps to a single core each. But what if that game significantly uses dual-core capabilities? Or, if needed, I could get that encoding done a lot faster with both cores going?

If you're a gamer, other than SC there aren't any games that will use your quad at all. In fact, from the benches I've seen, SC mainly uses 3 at max. BUT, that being said, if you game at a decent resolution like 16x12 with AA/AF and high settings, CPU *speed* is going to matter little. In fact, in many benches, a stock e6600 gets similar frames to a C2D @ 4ghz at those settings. If the extra speed isn't doing me much good, then at least I can have the extra cores out there for doing other tasks. A faster-clocked e6850 won't be able to grow more cores when Alan Wake comes around (or several of the other games that have mentioned to take advantage of quads).

I guess it's going to come down to each individual, their setup, and how they use their system. For me, my setup, and what I do, I can make a good argument for going with a G0 Q6600. But, again, I haven't completely made up my mind yet. But I think I've decided that if I am spending $266 on a chip, it's going to be a quad. I might go the other direction and grab an e6420 until something comes out that I care about that uses quad well. But, the idea of using 2 cores for encoding and 2 cores for gaming sounds intriguing (no matter how rarely I would do it).

My thoughts exactly, I'm still having a hard time deciding which path to go but I'm still leaning more towards the Q6600.

 

[lopri]

Plus the *intellectual curiosity* that every human being has. Admit it. We all have the desire to see the latest and the greatest for ourselves.

At least that was a big part of my Q6600 purchase. I do not regret the purchase and indeed I do enjoy it with Virtual OSes and games. OS upgrade (Vista) was also a factor. (XP = poor at taking advantage of dual/quad-core CPUs) It was a big overhaul on my 2nd rig, which originally had an E6400 and 2GB of RAM) But I don't think I will buy another one anytime soon, TBH. It's an overkill for my daily computing.

I think many will do the same. Whether your applications or usage pattern warrant a quad-core, it's hard to resist when a CPU that used to cost $800 becomes $266. It is really not a lot of money for a CPU considering what we used to get for the same amount of money only a couple years ago. If you have a desire to experience a quad-core, I'd say go for it. You won't see a miracle but you won't be disappointed, either. Just keep a reasonable expectation when it comes to overclocking, and make sure that your board is well prepared for a quad.

 

[kagy600]

A semi-quote form an Anandtech review (not exact words)

"You can always OC and add extra cooling to your Quad-core CPU, but you can't add those 2 extra cores to your Dual-core"

Maybe you will only be able to OC your q6600 to 3.2-3.4ghz with air cooling compared to 3.6-3.8ghz on e6x50 (pure theoretical). But are you going to see a noticeable difference in those 400mhz outside of benchmarks?

Thats your choice, but for me a 3.2 ghz CPU will be plenty and those 2 xtra cores will become useful down the road (I feel a little more useful than an extra 400mhz)

 

[Sirrion]

Originally posted by: Wedge1
I have a couple of questions:

1. What of this bandwidth bottleneck issue with a the Q6600? Quoting a review from Newegg: "Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600."

2. To achieve the 1333Mhz fsb with one of the newer core 2 duo's, is DDR2 Ram rated at higher than 533Mhz needed?

I'm trying to make the same decision as the original poster. Replies are appreciated.

Could someone please comment on the above post, as I am very interested in the answer to those two questions myself. Thanks!

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: kagy600
A semi-quote form an Anandtech review (not exact words)

"You can always OC and add extra cooling to your Quad-core CPU, but you can't add those 2 extra cores to your Dual-core"

Maybe you will only be able to OC your q6600 to 3.2-3.4ghz with air cooling compared to 3.6-3.8ghz on e6x50 (pure theoretical). But are you going to see a noticeable difference in those 400mhz outside of benchmarks?

Thats your choice, but for me a 3.2 ghz CPU will be plenty and those 2 xtra cores will become useful down the road (I feel a little more useful than an extra 400mhz)

Same thought exactly. I think I am going with a Quad core. I don't think the few hundred mhz is going to matter too much. If I really care about games, I'd go get a nice video card which is gonna matter more to the gaming performance anyway. For those cpu intensive app, most of them take advantage of multi-cores and double the number of cores is gonna have more impact than the few hundred mhz you get with dual core.

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: Wedge1
I have a couple of questions:

1. What of this bandwidth bottleneck issue with a the Q6600? Quoting a review from Newegg: "Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600."

2. To achieve the 1333Mhz fsb with one of the newer core 2 duo's, is DDR2 Ram rated at higher than 533Mhz needed?

I'm trying to make the same decision as the original poster. Replies are appreciated.

Bizump for my 2 questions....

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: Wedge1

Originally posted by: Wedge1
I have a couple of questions:

1. What of this bandwidth bottleneck issue with a the Q6600? Quoting a review from Newegg: "Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600."

2. To achieve the 1333Mhz fsb with one of the newer core 2 duo's, is DDR2 Ram rated at higher than 533Mhz needed?

I'm trying to make the same decision as the original poster. Replies are appreciated.

Bizump for my 2 questions....

1: what? Q6600 is just 2xE6600s together. thats it. so you can run the same memory (at least ddr2-533 to get it fully solid) no problem. the only thing quads are different for than their duals is...obviously the number of cores, heat output and overclockability (quads generally overclock less than duals).

2: i would say so...at least ddr2-667. but then again, ddr2-800 and even ddr2-1066 are so cheap that 533/667 are pointless to get now.

 

[sdcarl]

1. What of this bandwidth bottleneck issue with a the Q6600? Quoting a review from Newegg: "Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600."

Computer architecture is a little bit more complex than #cores/FSB speed. For instance, one of the ways modern CPU design takes into account FSB limitations is with increased cache. AMD CPUs have had much less cache then Intel CPUs, but they never needed as much because they didn't have a (relatively) slow FSB they had to use to fetch data out of memory. Current Intel CPUs have a pretty fast FSB, and it's quite easy bump it up even further. Plus, C2 CPUs have very large caches and some of the best caching algorithms even invented, so they don't need to go into main memory nearly as often. Is a quad core more bottlenecked by the FSB than a dual core? Yes. Does it make a material difference? Only in a very small number of memory intensive applications, and those apps would be FSB limited on a dual core as well, just not as much.

If you want some anecdotal evidence, consider this: Intel has been selling a crap load of 1066MHz FSB quad core Xeons in the server space, and those buyers only pay for real benefit, not quad core bling, and they are using apps that drive all four cores.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: 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.

Got mine at 3.2, as far as bang for your buck you cant do much better

 

[Wedge1]

Originally posted by: sdcarl

Computer architecture is a little bit more complex than #cores/FSB speed. For instance, one of the ways modern CPU design takes into account FSB limitations is with increased cache. AMD CPUs have had much less cache then Intel CPUs, but they never needed as much because they didn't have a (relatively) slow FSB they had to use to fetch data out of memory. Current Intel CPUs have a pretty fast FSB, and it's quite easy bump it up even further. Plus, C2 CPUs have very large caches and some of the best caching algorithms even invented, so they don't need to go into main memory nearly as often. Is a quad core more bottlenecked by the FSB than a dual core? Yes. Does it make a material difference? Only in a very small number of memory intensive applications, and those apps would be FSB limited on a dual core as well, just not as much.

If you want some anecdotal evidence, consider this: Intel has been selling a crap load of 1066MHz FSB quad core Xeons in the server space, and those buyers only pay for real benefit, not quad core bling, and they are using apps that drive all four cores.

Thank you for putting this into perspective.

 

[lopri]

And also try think this way: If you plan to overclock a CPU, what would stop you from overclocking memory?

 

[Genison]

Well, after reading all the posts and considering the same dilemma bewteen a dual or quad, one question that comes to mind has to do with the new bus speeds by these G0 stepping Cores. On one hand, the 1,333 Mhz bus speed is definitely a great thing, but hasn't this already been possible on the current motherboards by manually setting that speed and, if necessary, setting the multiplier down (I'm currently on an AMD where it is only locked if setting higher, but I may be mistaken in assuming you can set the Intel chips lower also).

Additionally, doesn't this limit the overclockability by decreasing the growing room of the bus speed? Which brings the issue back around to the dual vs. quad. If they aren't raising the bus speed of the quad, wouldn't that allow for more overclockability?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

.... that being said, if you game at a decent resolution like 16x12 with AA/AF and high settings, CPU *speed* is going to matter little. In fact, in many benches, a stock e6600 gets similar frames to a C2D @ 4ghz at those settings. If the extra speed isn't doing me much good, then at least I can have the extra cores out there for doing other tasks. A faster-clocked e6850 won't be able to grow more cores when Alan Wake comes around (or several of the other games that have mentioned to take advantage of quads).

My thoughts exactly. If I can sell my system at a reasonable price, I am getting a Quad. Even at 3.0ghz, a quad will be plenty fast for any game out there. Even looking back now, 2 years ago one could have purchased a 2.4ghz A64 4000+ or a 2.0ghz X2 3800+ for around the same $. Now almost anyone would gladly take the slower clocked X2 over A64 4000+ at stock speeds. By the time Q6600 @ 3.0ghz is a bottleneck, so will any of the graphics cards we can buy today. Even today E6600 at 2.4ghz is fast enough for 8800GTX which will surely be put under more serious stress in Crysis and Unreal 3.

If say Q6600 is overclocked to 3.2ghz, and E6850 to 4.0ghz, that implies giving up at most 25% in framerates (which today is far less unless one were to play at 800x600). Yet Q6600 holds the potential in the future years when AI and physics continue to improve as well as more units are incorporated per battlefield. I don't have vista but I bet it would provide smoother experience in that respect and what about distributed computing?

Also, let's not forget, E6850 at 4000 mhz will require DDR2 888 (FSB of 444) which puts extra pressure on overclocking the memory and motherboard (a minor point for us overclockers , but still should be pointed out). However, stock DDR2 800 ram will allow Q6600 to go to 3600mhz (400FSB), more than enough for air cooling means.