E 8400 vs Q 6600

[eXo]

Whats better in your opinion?

[watashiwa]

For the common man, the E8400 would be way better than the Q6600.

Most applications don't run multi-threaded. Windows will usually run single threaded applications evenly distributed across the logical cores. The applications that do, usually are only coded to take advantage of 2 logical cores more often than 4 cores. (Then again, some applications allow you to define how many cores are used...)

Anyways, the E8400 starts off @ 3.0ghz with 2 cores whereas the Q6600 starts off @ 2.4ghz and 4 cores.

The E8400 wins in both an overclock and non-overclock scenario, usually.

E8400 is based on the 45nm process, which is a smaller dye on the chip, which results in a more efficient and cooler running processor. That is to say, a 45nm chip, for example, running at 2.0ghz runs faster and more cool than a 65nm chip running at 2.0ghz. Giving more power per clock than the older chip.

If all you're planning on doing is gaming, browsing the web and so on, the E8400 will provide you with a lot more speed than the Q6600. If you plan to do A LOT of CPU heavy things all the time, such as video encoding, and other things of that nature, you should probably go with a Q6600.

If you plan to overclock, the E8400 can overclock to past 4ghz on air alone... the Q6600 stops way before that, maybe around 3ghz... unless you have a crazy stable motherboard and hardcore cooling system.

Since the E8400 is a 45nm chip, the performance increase to 4ghz+ is a lot more pronounced than a 65nm overclock to that same speed.

I'd advise the Q6600, actually I'd advise the 45nm version which is the Q9450 or higher, if you're going to be using your computer more like a "Workstation" than a gaming or internet web browsing machine. Otherwise, the E8400 is excellent.

[eXo]

Q 6600 2.4 GHZ geforce 8800GT pci-e and 4Gb DDR2 800mhz is what im thinking of running.

[watashiwa]

4GB = Waste unless you're running a 64-bit operating system.

You want to run either 2 or 3GB. 32-bit OS cannot address all of the 4GB of RAM.

But, like I said, depending on what you'll be using your machine for, if you're just a gamer and web browser, the E8400 is superior to the Q6600.

If you're going to be using a lot of multithreaded apps which do a ton of CPU work, like video editing, CAD drawing, or other things like that, then go for the Q6600... otherwise the E8400 will outperform the Q6600 every time.

[MetaZedlen]

On 2008-04-07 07:45, watashiwa wrote:
4GB = Waste unless you're running a 64-bit operating system.

You want to run either 2 or 3GB. 32-bit OS cannot address all of the 4GB of RAM.

Actually, Service Pack 1 for Vista made address all 4 GB of RAM on my computer when I got it, but then again, if he wants the troubles of Vista just for 512 MB of RAM...

[watashiwa]

Actually, Service Pack 1 for Vista made address all 4 GB of RAM on my computer when I got it, but then again, if he wants the troubles of Vista just for 512 MB of RAM...



If you're running Vista 32-bit with SP1, you might THINK it does, but it is only showing you the memory you have installed on your computer. Not what's usable. (The service pack note even specifically says this.)

It's impossible for a 32-bit operating system to fully address all 4GB of system RAM because of the addressing system. (I believe only Windows Server 2003 is able to address more than 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit system using some sort of virtualization process...)