GTAIV: E8400 vs. Q6600

[Wenis IV]

I am about to build a PC and want to get a good performance out of this game. I heard that the E8400 is better for gaming while the Q6600 is better for 'everything else', but then I heard GTA IV runs much better on Quad cores? I am not planning on OC'ing, so which would be better: E8400 3.0 or Q6600 2.4? (don't know if this really matters but i'll have 4g ram, HD 4830 512mb and Vista 64)

[anus]

Go for the Q6600. Its an extremely good processor for the price. It will run IV way better than an E8400 at stock and with some overclocking you'll even be able to get it up to 4GHz! Which would destroy a E8400.

 

Besides, quads are the future, no point going with duals now especially considering how quads are priced these days.

[Drunk Russian 9]

Actually, depending on what you do, either is good. A dual core will bring you the most performance from current games and the ones coming out this year. A quad core may bring you more performance in future games but with current games it would give you less FPS. If you do video encoding or CPU heavy tasks or run alot of processes then the quad would be much better.

 

Infact: Click Here E8500 vs Q6600 . . . E8500 is pretty similar to E8400.

 

@Warlord.: You cant get a Q6600 to 4 GHz stably even if you use water.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Drunk Russian 9

[Picolini]

From what I've heard GTA IV can utilize up to 3 cores, so it will be able to take advantage of three different 2.4Ghz cores out of the 4 in the Q6600. Where as with the E8400 it will only have two different 3.0Ghz cores.

 

And I would say who ever told you "the Q6600 is better for 'everything else'" isn't correct. Lots of programs still don't use more than 2 cores at once. As far as I know only higher end programs like Photoshop use more than two cores. And really, not even all current games use more than two. As you can see GTA IV which is pretty much brand new can only use three.

 

Basically, if you only do things like go browse the web, write up papers, etc, etc, you might want the E8400.

If you want to allow your PC to be more capable in the future as more and more programs are capable of using more than 2 cores, and take advantage of programs and games that currently do so, get the Q6600.

 

Personally I'd go with the Q6600 in hope to "future proof" my build a bit. Of course, there's really no such thing as future proofing indefinitely, but it'll take advances in software much better, imo.

 

In searching for verification on the "GTA IV only uses three cores" thing I wrote above (which I couldn't find confirmation one), I found this which I find completely valid and somewhat important to the topic.

 

Grand Theft Auto IV on the PC ... ... ... It absolutely gobbles up CPU power and a fast quad core CPU is strongly recommended. GTA IV can run on the fastest available dual cores, but only barely, constantly hitting the CPU limit and leaving your video card idling. GTA IV isn't the first game to take advantage of all cores, but it's the first one that can max out two cores on a modern dual core system and ask for more.

Totally agree, from personal experience.

[anus]

Actually, depending on what you do, either is good. A dual core will bring you the most performance from current games and the ones coming out this year. A quad core may bring you more performance in future games but with current games it would give you less FPS. If you do video encoding or CPU heavy tasks or run alot of processes then the quad would be much better.

 

Infact: Click Here E8500 vs Q6600 . . . E8500 is pretty similar to E8400.

 

@Warlord.: You cant get a Q6600 to 4 GHz stably even if you use water.

There are lots of Q6600s around that run at 4GHz, some even on air. The only problem is keeping temps down, but it isn't that easy because you need to push a lot of volts to get it to run that fast.

 

But it is certainly NOT an impossible task. There are people who have got Q6600s stable at 4GHz with water and air. Its a matter of getting a good chip I think and the newer stepping help too.

 

About the Q6600 vs E8400, like Picolini and I said, quads ARE the future. I myself am planning on dropping a Q6600 into my rig in the near future and sell my E5200 .

[Paigey]

I would recommened a Q6600 hands down, I was running an E6300 for 2 years then got the G0 Stepping Q6600 and OC'd it upto 3.5GHz just using the Freezer 7 Pro Heatsink and it totally humiliates my old E6300.

 

Providing the rest of your machine is upto spec and can fully compliment a quad CPU then I'd say the Q6600 is the way to go.

 

[Drunk Russian 9]

 

Actually, depending on what you do, either is good. A dual core will bring you the most performance from current games and the ones coming out this year. A quad core may bring you more performance in future games but with current games it would give you less FPS. If you do video encoding or CPU heavy tasks or run alot of processes then the quad would be much better.

 

Infact: Click Here E8500 vs Q6600 . . . E8500 is pretty similar to E8400.

About the Q6600 vs E8400, like Picolini and I said, quads ARE the future. I myself am planning on dropping a Q6600 into my rig in the near future and sell my E5200 .

If you want a future proof CPU, don't buy a Q6600. A low-end i7 is the way to go.

 

Edit: I take that back. It seems an E8500 is still the best way to go if you just want to play games. Awesome.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Drunk Russian 9

[matthew1g]

As of late, games are running better on multicored systems than on dual cores. And with the release of windows 7, the gap between the two will increase even more.

 

I myself have had the Q66 for over a year and it served me well. however in this day and age. Either get a Q9XXX since they're faster and cooler. Or if you want to future proof your system get i7.

[Paigey]

Actually, depending on what you do, either is good. A dual core will bring you the most performance from current games and the ones coming out this year. A quad core may bring you more performance in future games but with current games it would give you less FPS. If you do video encoding or CPU heavy tasks or run alot of processes then the quad would be much better.

 

Infact: Click Here E8500 vs Q6600 . . . E8500 is pretty similar to E8400.

About the Q6600 vs E8400, like Picolini and I said, quads ARE the future. I myself am planning on dropping a Q6600 into my rig in the near future and sell my E5200 .

If you want a future proof CPU, don't buy a Q6600. A low-end i7 is the way to go.

 

Edit: I take that back. It seems an E8500 is still the best way to go if you just want to play games. Awesome.

That may sound like decent advice but the LGA1333 motherboards are sitting at around £250 for a decent one, which is needless to say, a little steep.

[Drag_Drift]

Being the resident Q6600 fanboy here, I'll suggest you get it. Developers and Programmers are now seeing the light and coding their games and programs to have multicore support and SLI, and so on. So embrace the future, dude. It's going to cost less in the long run.

 

Plus you can OC the Q6600 to stupidly high frequencies.

[MaxAwesome]

Ok, looks like you guys need some insight into this question.

 

And it's a rather simple point you all fail to realise:

 

- CPU architecture. Plain and simple.

 

First of all, Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes: multitasking level. Depending on what you do, a Duo or a Quad will better suit your needs. Still, bear in mind that nothing stops a Duo from being a decent performer even in heavy multitasking.

 

But this difference does not apply to gaming.

 

You guys seem to completely ignore Core 2 Duo for no reason. Yeah, it's pretty good for you that you have a Quad, but I had the choice to go Quad 2 months back when I built this computer, but I decided to go with the E8400. And I don't regret it any way.

 

A Quad is only useful if you do insane ammounts of multitasking, otherwise, if you just game, like me, a solid dual core will get you through all the gaming needs in the next 2-3 years, or even further.

 

And I say this because you seem to forget that CPU architecture is also a major factor in performance, and you also seem to neglect that s775 (core 2) quads are nothing more than 2 Duos glued together, so when Core 2 Duo starts to suck for gaming, you can expect your beloved Quads to suck as well. No other way around.

 

So please stop all this "f*ck Duos, get a Quad" bullsh*t.

 

Go Quad if you want to, but NEVER think that your Quad will outlast a Duo, because it won't.

 

So people, the truth is: You want gaming? A solid, fast Core 2 Duo (E8400,E8500, E8600) is all you need if all you do is game.

 

 

Cheers.

[leik oh em jeez!]

And if you do get a quad get a 45nm one, they perform the SAME with lower frequencies and a smaller L2 cache, and they also output a lot less heat, and can therefore be overclocked further, depending on which one you get; as the that is not the only factor in OC'ing.

 

And although quads may be the future, the Q6600 is NOT. Like was said before, it's just two C2Ds.

 

And stop treating the dual cores like they are only for light gaming at not for multitasking, they are great for multitasking. Some of you act like the amount of cores your CPU has is the same numbers of windows you can have open, I multitask with my three year old single-core. You do not need a quad core just because you multitask. Unless you for some odd reason decide to use Vista. And much of the 'multitasking' people do is listening to music while they browse the web, which a single core has no problem doing.

 

The only reason you should get a quad core is if you do extreme multitasking, like using photoshop while watching live TV and listening to music.

 

Don't even mention skulltrail.