q6600/e8400??

E8400/Q6600....

  • E8400 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN Q6600

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Q6600 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN E8400

    Votes: 6 37.5%

  • NEITHER E8400 NOR Q6600

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • WAIT FOR PRICE DROP AND GO FOR E8500

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
axxo

axxo

99.9% Idle
this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.
 
A

acewin

Point Blanc
axxo said:
this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.
Click to expand...

well its because, other than general users like and areas where really data processing is a matter, companies still base there database and finance on ancient periods. There are alot many servers running on 2000 Server OS, heehe.

But be damned sure certainly these res will get utilized, but I certainly say hardwares are now much more ahead of apps, in market terms.
If it wouldnt have been competition between AMDs and Intels, nVidia and ATI, we would still have very low hardware builds.
Multi cores are launched to show hardware improvement and lure people like us. Whatever it be I am happy hardware prices have gone lower, now most apps which I run, and the way I run(atleast 5-10 apps running in the background always, like everyone of us) our system doesnt hungs on us. Heehe:-D ;)
 
OP
coolest111

coolest111

Journeyman
axxo said:
this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.
Click to expand...
GUD ANSWER....

acewin said:
But be damned sure certainly these res will get utilized, but I certainly say hardwares are now much more ahead of apps, in market terms.
If it wouldnt have been competition between AMDs and Intels, nVidia and ATI, we would still have very low hardware builds.
Multi cores are launched to show hardware improvement and lure people like us. Whatever it be I am happy hardware prices have gone lower, now most apps which I run, and the way I run(atleast 5-10 apps running in the background always, like everyone of us) our system doesnt hungs on us. Heehe:-D ;)
Click to expand...
IF I HVE NOT MENTIONED TILL NOW ITS FOR MY PERSONAL USE

@all People Out Here....
I Dont Want Critical Comments On These Processors.......
Just Wat 2 Opt Wat Not......
 
Last edited:
H

hellgate

At Hell's Disq
^^ he meant that a 65nm quad is basically 2 C2Ds bridged 2gether.they r like Pentium Ds.i.e they r not native quads.

do u plan to upgrade within the next 12-16months after buying a procy now?
 
N

nish_higher

Wise Old Owl
coolest111 said:
PLS NAME SOME PRO APPS.....


why NOT 2 recommend e8400 over q6600 ?(THING COSTINK 2K LESS WITH SAME PERFORMANCE)
Click to expand...

Apps from-
Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few

I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600 , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.

i m no 3d guy but try rendering something in max--e8400 comes nowhere near a Q6600 but yea beats phenom :D

Games-
Supreme commander is Quad core optimised,
Alan Wake will do that properly..so expect Quads to perform better soon enough ..:cool:
 
OP
coolest111

coolest111

Journeyman
nish_higher said:
Apps from-
Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few

I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600 , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.

i m no 3d guy but try rendering something in max--e8400 comes nowhere near a Q6600 but yea beats phenom :D

Games-
Supreme commander is Quad core optimised,
Alan Wake will do that properly..so expect Quads to perform better soon enough ..:cool:
Click to expand...

you have too many processor......:cool:
thnx ,no doubt quad will perform better soon enough but for now ??


pls poll ur options tooo.....

anything new if u come across do tell....
 
N

nish_higher

Wise Old Owl
my poll choice= Q6600 anyday

For now-2-5% performance sacrifice (and that too not quite noticable) for just a short time is nothing compared to changing ur proccy to a Quad after 2 months
 
A

acewin

Point Blanc
nish_higher said:
Apps from-
Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few

I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600 , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.

i m no 3d guy but try rendering something in max--e8400 comes nowhere near a Q6600 but yea beats phenom :D

Games-
Supreme commander is Quad core optimised,
Alan Wake will do that properly..so expect Quads to perform better soon enough ..:cool:
Click to expand...

well said, which is true enough, general apps really dont need that much proccy utilization, its the games and rendering which demands more, that is why we add to a specialized graphic card. C2D have been around about year and half and 2, and we see good enough games for utilizing them.
Theres alot much improvement in quad cores which still has to come and sure games will also come. But current quad core option is just a heat sync, we cant get future proof with Q6600. Quads will perform better certainly but that will be another year, and till then real good quad cores will be around.

I say e8400 or any C2D just because of low power reqs. because Intel has done enough work for launching quad cores and not to make them anything below C2D in performance, unlike the Pentium D proccys which were nothing in performance and high in power requirement.
 
OP
coolest111

coolest111

Journeyman
acewin said:
I say e8400 or any C2D just because of low power reqs. because Intel has done enough work for launching quad cores and not to make them anything below C2D in performance, unlike the Pentium D proccys which were nothing in performance and high in power requirement.
Click to expand...
C2D requires less power i mean wats the difference
 
H

hellgate

At Hell's Disq
intel's Nehalem will bring native quads.also a six core procy is also slated 2 be released.so just buy a E2140 now and upgrade to Nehalem.
 
topgear

topgear

Super Moderator
Staff member
This polling has a bug :D

Q6600 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN E8400

Coz as of now q6600 is nowhere cheaper than e8400 ?

Anyway i'll vote for q6600 as it has four cores - so it will be more future proof. Some years ago gmaes were not optimized for dual cores - but now thaey are.

So in the future games will be optimized for 4 or more cores - That you will feel the real difference - So quad is the future
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom