Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 06:10 AM
derrXIII's Avatar
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 48
Default Q6600 = e8400??

Alright, so we all know that for some or most games that the E8400 clocked at 3.0 overruns the Q6600 clocked at 2.4. And that even with the Q6600 clocked at 3.0 does not seem to catch up to the E8400 stock. So i'm asking how fast do we have to clock the Q6600 to be soemwhat equal to the E8400.

Like, Q6600 @ 3.2= E8400 @ 3.0 : but i dont now..
__________________
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (400x9) | Biostar i45 | 4850 (700/2010) | G.Skill F2 PC2-8000 @ 800Mhz 2x2GB
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 06:59 AM
nckid4u's Avatar
Top Prospect
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 83
Default

It really depends on the game. All give slightly different results. 3.2 is probably pretty close to a fair comparison.
__________________

When all men think alike, nobody thinks very much.
Walter Lippman

2600K @ 4.8GHz 1.44v
ASRock Extreme4
GTX 460 SLI
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 07:10 AM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

the larger cache on the E8400 has it pull out ahead vs the Q6600 in apps that are not multi-threaded. nckid4u's compare of an extra 200mhz, going 4mb cache to 6mb cache, is fairly accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 07:26 AM
dataxpert's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chertsey , 60km north of Montreal
Posts: 366
Default

If the GPU can't fallow, what is the purpose to increase the speed of the CPU ?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 12:58 PM
Realityshift's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
Posts: 2,486
Default

Quote:
the larger cache on the E8400 has it pull out ahead vs the Q6600 in apps that are not multi-threaded. nckid4u's compare of an extra 200mhz, going 4mb cache to 6mb cache, is fairly accurate.
Q6600 has a larger cache, honestly why do you all figure that clock for clock these cpus dont perform the same? they are very close to eachother, the only reason the E8400 is better then the Q6600 for most gaming is that it overclocks to 4ghz on air where as most Q6600s hit walls at 3.4ghz
__________________
The Builders Hammer
Asrock P67 Fatal1ty, Intel i5 2500K @ 5.1ghz, 16gb HyperX 1600 CL8, Evga GTX 580 SC SLIed and water-cooled, HX850, Crucial M4 64gb, 640 black, 1tb + 3x 2tb greens, Haf X.


BF BC2: Bishop_SHIFT, Steam: Realityshift84, Xbox Live - SHIFTEDone84 ... Come play.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 01:01 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

q6600=8mb cache= 2MB/core. Although it is shared, becasue 1/2 the cache is on a seperate die, latency hurts a bit. Cores communicate across teh FSB, remember.
E8400=6mb cache=3mb/core, all inclusive.


And maybe B2/some B3 hit only 3.4, but all G0's I've had hit 3.8 or better...9x445mhz for 4ghz is actually pretty common. those that don't hit that high haven't been tweaked properly. 1.55v on Q6600 is safe, but most don't give more than 1.4v. My E8400 take 1.45v to do 4ghz, and I'm not afriad to give it more either...

and I base my claims off of having owned more than one of each cpu, and making the compares myself.



65nm core2 has faster ram access, by about 300mb/sec, but E8400 is about 3%-5% faster, clock-for-clock, in my experience.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 01:07 PM
Realityshift's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
Posts: 2,486
Default

Hmm I thought all the C2Ds shared their cache across the board, I wasnt aware that the Q6600 didnt. I agree that the Q6600 G0s can hit higher clocks but alot of people who own them are afraid of voltage and heat... Im right there with you on the voltages part, im not afraid to pump 1.45v or more through my CPUs, I dont believe in that rubish 1.36v MAX VCORE... its 1.36v Max VID not vcore, 1.55 is the ultimate max and 1.45 is the safe max as listed by intel.
__________________
The Builders Hammer
Asrock P67 Fatal1ty, Intel i5 2500K @ 5.1ghz, 16gb HyperX 1600 CL8, Evga GTX 580 SC SLIed and water-cooled, HX850, Crucial M4 64gb, 640 black, 1tb + 3x 2tb greens, Haf X.


BF BC2: Bishop_SHIFT, Steam: Realityshift84, Xbox Live - SHIFTEDone84 ... Come play.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 01:16 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

Yeah, I'm not too sure of whether they share cache accross cores...my first Core3 was E6600, so I even had teh "half q6600" to do my compares with. I at first thought the difference might be exclusively due to the quads sharing the FSB for each dualcore die, but I saw the same from E6600 to E8400...so my best conclusion is that the larger cache makes for slower ram access times, but having more so close to the cpu wins overall.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 01:19 PM
Realityshift's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
Posts: 2,486
Default

If you can get a Q6600 to 3.6ghz then you have a force to be reckoned with anyhow, especially when pitted against games with multi threading. Q6600s are very powerful CPUs, especially for their price range.
__________________
The Builders Hammer
Asrock P67 Fatal1ty, Intel i5 2500K @ 5.1ghz, 16gb HyperX 1600 CL8, Evga GTX 580 SC SLIed and water-cooled, HX850, Crucial M4 64gb, 640 black, 1tb + 3x 2tb greens, Haf X.


BF BC2: Bishop_SHIFT, Steam: Realityshift84, Xbox Live - SHIFTEDone84 ... Come play.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old April 24, 2009, 01:39 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

for sure. I think I'd trade my 4ghz E8400 for 3.6ghz quad...actually, i know I would.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[WTB] Q6600 G0 or E8400 E0 anthonee1230 Buy/Sell & Trade 4 February 27, 2009 11:25 PM
Wtb: E8400/q6600 Moneyless Buy/Sell & Trade 0 June 30, 2008 04:35 PM
E8400 vs. Q6600 Infiniti CPU's and Motherboards 7 April 3, 2008 03:45 PM
q6600 vs e8400 enaberif Overclocking, Tweaking and Benchmarking 39 February 21, 2008 02:57 PM
Q6600 vs. E8400 - Everyone else has this thread, so why not? zlojack CPU's and Motherboards 52 February 12, 2008 10:55 AM