Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs. Core 2 Duo E6750

[drummerboy92]

I'm putting together a parts list and I can't decide between these two CPU's. The computer I'm building is mainly for gaming, but I will also do some photo editing and webpaging, and I always listen to music on my computer while I do anything.The Core 2 Quad is only $80 more, but the two seem pretty evenly matched bases on CPU Charts on Tom's Hardware. I'm trying to future proof my system as much as possible, is the Quad going to play a bigger role in the future?

Core 2 Duo E6750:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115029

Core 2 Quad Q6600:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

Charts:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=873&chart=435

Thanks for any help.

[chuck4456]

E6750 rocks.
Dollar-for-dollar, it's the best buy.

[Krazeee]

The e6750 is by far the best Bang-for-your-buck CPU right now. Having said that, the q6600 will definately future proof your PC much longer than the other. If you're playing music and have other things going while you game, the quad will probably be your best choice, especially if the $80 is within your budget.

edit: I also remember reading an article that Toms did regarding the two while gaming. The e6750 overclocks better, so it would be the better choice for those that only game and want to OC their system to the max. However (if I remember correctly) the Quad did beat the Duo at stock speeds in some situations, simply because it could task different cores to all the backround applications. But then the margins were minimal, so it comes back to your future proofing. Quad for the future, Duo for the guy who games and plans to upgrade in 18 months anyways.

[drummerboy92]

Yes I see the article you mentioned.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/

They only mention the Q6600, they actually use a Quad Core Extreme. I looked it up, its a little out of my price range ($1,449.99) haha. Even at $1,250 more, the QX6850 is pretty much on par with the E6750 when overclocking, unless running an application that uses more than one core. Since I'm using the computer for mostly gaming, I'll stick with the E6750 and upgrade to a Quad-Core when the need arises.

Thanks

[id325]

Originally Posted by Krazeee The e6750 is by far the best Bang-for-your-buck CPU right now. anyways.

i like the E6850 better. only few $ more but it puts you in the right place

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 i like the E6850 better. only few $ more but it puts you in the right place

A few dollars more?!? The E6850 costs $100 more than the E6750...that's more than a few dollars if you ask me.

Cricket

[id325]

Originally Posted by Cricket A few dollars more?!? The E6850 costs $100 more than the E6750...that's more than a few dollars if you ask me. Cricket

no sir, 100$ is few dollars , the price of 2 good large pizzas and few canes of beers..

besides the chip looks prety man and will last longer , a real monster if you know what
i am talking about. all that for a painfull extra 100$, common i know you guyes can take
some beatting lol... you will feel good when you have it.

it is 100$ more but i say if you dont get it you are losing the other 200$
just like i did when i got my self a high end p4 3ghz with a crapy mother board that dont
supoort good vga cards and a funny little 5200 geforce back at 2005 ..
look at my pc now.. its dead and i lost what i paid in it and i cant fix it..

but this time no fooling around :

_core2 duo E6850
_ some decent intell mother board
_8800gtx geforce
_ and all the ram it can eat .

and i see you guyes at year 2012

[freakitchen]

I think it would be wrong to suggest that the E6850 is good *value for money*. Take a look at the 1333MHZ Core 2 Duo range at Newegg. The E6750 - which is my recommendation - is clocked at 2.66Ghz. It's $25 more expensive than the E6550, clocked at 2.33Ghz. And yet to get the same jump in clock speed again (the 3.0Ghz clocked E6850), the price difference quadruples to $100. You will always pay a premium for the fastest piece of hardware in a range, which is why it often makes much more sense to go for the next highest performing item.

[id325]

Originally Posted by Freakitchen I think it would be wrong to suggest that the E6850 is good *value for money*. Take a look at the 1333MHZ Core 2 Duo range at Newegg. The E6750 - which is my recommendation - is clocked at 2.66Ghz. It's $25 more expensive than the E6550, clocked at 2.33Ghz. And yet to get the same jump in clock speed again (the 3.0Ghz clocked E6850), the price difference quadruples to $100. You will always pay a premium for the fastest piece of hardware in a range, which is why it often makes much more sense to go for the next highest performing item.

ohh,, dear sir, i wouldnt dare to say that i am recommending or suggesting anything to
the respected readers of this forum..

i have been addressed before by forum admin glc not to advice unless i am a moderator
or an experienced and known member , and i am not either of that plus i am totaly
ignorant in this field .. your words are defnatly the law and i repeat what i wrote at my
first post

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 i like the E6850 better. only few $ more but it puts you in the right place

i didnt say the E6850 is better,
i said (i like) in Purpose here just to show that its what i want to get and i said why
i want to get it. but i never meant to argue on what is best for forum members man. i am sorry

[blue60007]

That's some expensive pizza and beer, heh.

If you want to go for the top of the line that's fine. I like to go for the best bang for the buck, and I think the E6750 falls right in that range for the reasons Freakitchen mentioned.

The problem with going for top of the line stuff is it becomes outdated in a year or two. Not to say it will be like say, a Core 2 Duo and a Pentium 3 today - but new CPU's seem to come out every 6-12 months. My 2.66GHz Pentium 4 machine which was pretty high end 5 years ago...now it's a pretty outdated machine and a Core 2 Duo today at the same speed is faster by leaps and bounds. Things in the computer world move really fast... you won't be able to build a machine today that won't be on the low end 5 years from now. You might upgrade between now and then to keep it competitive...

As for the original question - I personally would go for the Quad Core as I feel that's where the CPU world is headed (multi-cores) but a Dual core isn't a bad choice either.

[id325]

ok then , i will learn from you and switch to the E6750...

no arguing at that point with guys like you..

a little off topic talk : i live in the middle east and western foods and goods are expensive
to get 2 large pizzas from dominos with sea food (my favoret) is about 30$
and a pack of six hinaken beers is about the same so you are so near a 100$ with the tip
if you know what i mean..

[glc]

If you WANT to spend the extra $100, go for it. We are just saying that we don't think the marginal improvement is worth that much money.

[The Village Idiot]

And i'd push that 8800GTX aside, best bang for the buck again is the 8800GTS, not quite top of the line, but still able to take anything you throw at it.

[id325]

ok, lets bang the buck then

[drummerboy92]

Hmmm... I don't plan on buying for another month or two, so I'll decide between the E6750 and the Core 2 Quad then. As for the E6850, I'm not old enough to drink "canes" of beer, and I'm not a big tipper. Thanks

[id325]

hehehe... i bet you spend those 100$ on candy..

[drummerboy92]

If I had $100 laying around to spend on candy I would be one lucky kid with rotten teeth

[MaxRat]

of those you linked it would depend on budget for me...

if the 80.00 allowed I'd go for the quad just because it's only 80.00 more for 2 extra cores..

if money was a issue I'd get the 6750 and run with it...

you probably wont notice a difference between the two unless you had about 8 opticals on the thing and had them all encoding/burning at the same time...

for doing that kind of work you cant really beat any one of those chips and I think the choice would come right down to wanting to spend another 80.00 or not...

I just got a Gigabyte P35 myself and a little ole' 2160 because that would be good enough to do some testing but soon after I will get a q6600 and just run it for what it is...

Most of my rigs currently are all AMD-AM2 rigs with anything from a 3600-x2 to a 5000-x2 and they do everything I want to do and then some...if that tells you anything...

[id325]

Originally Posted by blue60007 As for the original question - I personally would go for the Quad Core as I feel that's where the CPU world is headed (multi-cores) but a Dual core isn't a bad choice either.

ok now we know why the E6750 is better than the E6850 and the Core 2 Quad money wise..

but what about the E6850 and the Core 2 Quad i mean the diffrence is only 20 dollars here.
the prise of a berguer sandwitch lol..

so what do we get here and why? in case we are willing to pay the 300$. the quad is 280$ and the E6850 is 300$
no real money is lost here but what is the point?

dose the quad realy have 4 cores in it ? eatch core is 2.4 ghz? so i buy a total hardware
of 9.6 ghz?? even if it works separately ? and olso why the hell do i need 4 cores if my
games will use only one of 2.4 ? why would any one needs 4 cores anyway?
wouldnt be better to use the mighty 2 cores of 3 ghz of a E6850

[freakitchen]

You are correct in theory here. A game that's written only to take advantage of a single core - still the majority as we speak - will technically perform better on the higher clocked dual core. I say technically, because you must remember that the performance of games depends significantly more on the ability of your video card than on your processor. For example, I'd say that a computer running an E6850, and an nVidia 8600GT graphics card, would be easily out-performed by a computer running the Q6600 and an nVidia 8800GTS. In short, don't place too much emphasis on your processor for games at the moment; of course, this may change as multi-core processors become the standard.

Between the E6850 and the Q6600? I'd still take the E6750 (!!), because of the value for money aspect. But if I was going to spend my British equivalent of $280-300 on a processor, I'd pick the Quad Core because of its great multi-tasking ability, and its strength with the multi-threaded programs I use for video editing.

[id325]

yes but if i have a 8800gts then i would rather use the 3 ghz processor with it.

i never need multi tasking my self plus the E6850 allready using 2 massive 3 ghz
cores i dont think any normal application will need more cores than that ..

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 so what do we get here and why? in case we are willing to pay the 300$. the quad is 280$ and the E6850 is 300$ no real money is lost here but what is the point? dose the quad realy have 4 cores in it ?

The early Intel quad core processors were two Core 2 Duo processors put on one processor package. The newer Intel quad core processors do have 4 cores on one processor package. But yes, quad core processors have 4 cores on one package.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 eatch core is 2.4 ghz?

Yes, each core runs at whatever speed it's rated at.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 so i buy a total hardware of 9.6 ghz??

No, the total speed of the processor is still 2.4GHz but you have the processing power of 4 cores working for you.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 and olso why the hell do i need 4 cores if my games will use only one of 2.4 ?

You have to remember that processors aren't designed with just gaming in mind...gaming is only a small fraction of what most computers are used for. The multicore processors were designed mainly with multi-tasking in mind...being able to do more than one thing at a time with your computer. And by that I mean actually running several programs at once, not having several program windows open but only running one program to do something.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 why would any one needs 4 cores anyway?

Not everyone is a gamer (I'm not), some people actually do productive things with their computers. In business situations you could be crunching numbers with Excel while editing digital pictures with Photo Shop and encoding a video for a presentation all at the same time. In the home you could be editing a vacation video while creating a photo slide show and surfing the net with no slowdowns. In the future as more programs are written to take advantage of the multiple cores you could have all 4 cores working together to do the work...4 cores working at one time would encode or decode a video much faster than one core.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 wouldnt be better to use the mighty 2 cores of 3 ghz of a E6850

It depends on what you're going to be using the computer for and what kind of software you'll be using.

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 y i never need multi tasking my self plus the E6850 allready using 2 massive 3 ghz cores i dont think any normal application will need more cores than that ..

Not yet...but programs and software are now being written to take advantage of multiple core processors so in the near future the more cores you have the better your system will perform with the latest software/programs.

But this is going to be your computer and if you feel the E6850 is the right processor for you go ahead and get it. It sounds as if you've already made up your mind about it.

Maybe now we can get back to helping the original poster.

Cricket

[Milliron1]

Originally Posted by Freakitchen You are correct in theory here. A game that's written only to take advantage of a single core - still the majority as we speak - will technically perform better on the higher clocked dual core. I say technically, because you must remember that the performance of games depends significantly more on the ability of your video card than on your processor. For example, I'd say that a computer running an E6850, and an nVidia 8600GT graphics card, would be easily out-performed by a computer running the Q6600 and an nVidia 8800GTS. In short, don't place too much emphasis on your processor for games at the moment; of course, this may change as multi-core processors become the standard. Between the E6850 and the Q6600? I'd still take the E6750 (!!), because of the value for money aspect. But if I was going to spend my British equivalent of $280-300 on a processor, I'd pick the Quad Core because of its great multi-tasking ability, and its strength with the multi-threaded programs I use for video editing.

I was thinking also that Vista supposedly provides native support for up to four cores, so your Vista apps will run faster with the Q6600. Tom's Hardware seems to confirm this fact (based on the "Windows Experience Index," whatever that is supposed to be). That is actually what persuaded me to go with a Q6600 over the E6850.

[id325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by g2fgh3
so i buy a total hardware of 9.6 ghz??
No, the total speed of the processor is still 2.4GHz but you have the processing power of 4 cores working for you.

yes but i mean if you buy 4 cores x 2.4 that is 9.6 of speed purchased .



_ Maybe now we can get back to helping the original poster.

he already chosed the E6750

[blue60007]

XP supports multi-cores too and so does Vista. But the OS can't change how other programs were written and designed to run. Maybe Vista uses mult-cores better at OS tasks, but I'm not sure there.

The Windows Experience Index I think is just the number Vista assigns to your system to determine how it will perform relative to other computers, and if it meets Vista's required and recommended Index. And games using the 'Games for Windows' thing (or whatever its called) that integrate with Vista show recommended index numbers for the games. For example, Company of Heroes on my Vista machine shows the recommended and required Index numbers compared to my system's numbers (and displays the rating, developer info, etc.). I would imagine Vista gives quad cores more points than a dual core since there is more processing power available in a quad core.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 yes but i mean if you buy 4 cores x 2.4 that is 9.6 of speed purchased .

You don't multiply the speed of the 4 cores to get 9.6GHz of total speed (I thought this was pointed out several times in this thread already), the processor is still only running at 2.4GHz but you now have 4 cores working for you instead of 1. You have the power of 4 cores running at 2.4GHz working for you but the total speed is still only 2.4GHz (speed and power are two different things), not 9.6GHz (if this was the case Intel would advertise it as a 9.6GHz CPU, not a 2.4GHz CPU).

Cricket

[drummerboy92]

Originally Posted by drummerboy92 Hmmm... I don't plan on buying for another month or two, so I'll decide between the E6750 and the Core 2 Quad then. As for the E6850, I'm not old enough to drink "canes" of beer, and I'm not a big tipper. Thanks

I havn't completely decided yet, g2fgh3.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I'm trying to keep my budget low, but $80 isn't much to help future proof my system. However, I may still go with the e6750 as it is a champ at overclocking:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/...ghz/index.html

[id325]

Originally Posted by Cricket You don't multiply the speed of the 4 cores to get 9.6GHz of total speed (I thought this was pointed out several times in this thread already), the processor is still only running at 2.4GHz but you now have 4 cores working for you instead of 1. You have the power of 4 cores running at 2.4GHz working for you but the total speed is still only 2.4GHz (speed and power are two different things), not 9.6GHz (if this was the case Intel would advertise it as a 9.6GHz CPU, not a 2.4GHz CPU). Cricket

yes i know i dont know why i cant explain my self to you at this point . here is another try :

i know you dont get a 9.6 ghz clock speed. what am saying is if you buy a core 2 duo

you get : core1 3ghz+core2 3ghz = 6 ghz bought (i know earch one will work at 3 ghz)
but i will have a 3+3=6 ghz on my machine but my machine will run at 3 ghz only

now if i bought a quad then :

core1 2.4 + core2 2.4 + core3 2.4 + core4 2.4 = 9.6 of cores bought

i know my machine will run at 2.4 but it has a 9.6 of cores divided in it
the core 2 duo machine have only 6 .. so with the same money i get more cores

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by g2fgh3 yes i know i dont know why i cant explain my self to you at this point . here is another try : i know you dont get a 9.6 ghz clock speed. what am saying is if you buy a core 2 duo you get : core1 3ghz+core2 3ghz = 6 ghz bought (i know earch one will work at 3 ghz) but i will have a 3+3=6 ghz on my machine but my machine will run at 3 ghz only now if i bought a quad then : core1 2.4 + core2 2.4 + core3 2.4 + core4 2.4 = 9.6 of cores bought i know my machine will run at 2.4 but it has a 9.6 of cores divided in it the core 2 duo machine have only 6 .. so with the same money i get more cores

Here is a much simpler way of looking at all this...

With the Core 2 Duo processor you have 2 cores.

With the Core 2 Quad processor you have 4 cores.

4 cores are better than 2 cores.

There, nice and simple.

Cricket

[id325]

nah,,, here is my way of looking simpler at this :

with a 2.4 cores your nob games will only use 2.4 ghz
with a 3ghz cores your game will feel better.....

when the games start to use the 4 cores , that is another day, and another talk .

the only thing i was saying which you understand now is that with the quad you buy more cores with less money..
with the core 2 duo you get 2 only 2 cores but you hit the desierd massive 3 ghz of power..

now as i said befor i will not go and advice the respected forum members but i find it educational just to go through facts.
thanks