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

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old August 28, 2008, 10:34 PM
Computergeek's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 148

My System Specs

Default Intel E6750 VS Intel Q6600

Hello,

I have both of these processors. Right now in my gaming rig i have the Q6600 but i wanted your guys opinion on what proc is better for gaming. Would the Q6600 be better served on my other rig were i multi-task more often? I think i was getting better performance in games with my E6750 am i crazy?

Thanks Compgeek
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old August 28, 2008, 10:35 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,574
Default

e6750 is better.

quad doesn't give any benefits to games.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old August 28, 2008, 10:38 PM
Computergeek's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 148

My System Specs

Default

seriously...so i should put my 6750 back in....i feel like i wasted my money
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old August 28, 2008, 10:38 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Computergeek View Post
seriously...so i should put my 6750 back in....i feel like i wasted my money


I don't know how often I must have this conversation but for the most part a quad is 90% unused in most computers these days.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old August 28, 2008, 10:39 PM
Computergeek's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 148

My System Specs

Default

Thanks for the info
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old August 29, 2008, 07:00 AM
zlojack's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,057

My System Specs

Default

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the E6750 is "better", Enaberif. If the CPU's were clocked the same, they would be equal...ie. you wouldn't see any extra benefit in gaming with the quad.

Of course, if you can get a higher clock out of the dual, then that's the way to go for gaming.
__________________
[SIZE=3]
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old August 29, 2008, 07:41 AM
magictorch's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Annapolis Valley, NS
Posts: 1,836
Default

I'm not sure you wasted your money on the quad as future games may use them more efficiently plus you said you use multiple apps. As stated, currently games respond better to faster cores rather than 2 vs 4.

You should aim for 3.2 and over to get the best frames out of a 4870.

3.6-3.8 is very achievable on an aftermarket air-cooler with an E6750, you'd need water-cooling to do that with a quad.

Just installed a loop on my brothers QX6700 and it really needs that watercooling to get past 3.2. Huge differences in temperature between the E6750 at a similiar OC.
__________________
White Night:: i7920 (4ghz), Rampage III extreme (A1), Mushkin XP 1600 (9,9,9,24),SLI480., white MM horizon.
CPU: Feser 220 int.|Apogee GTZ|S.Res.rev2| MCP655.

GPU: PA120.3|S.Res.rev2|2x EK FC blocks| MCP655.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old August 29, 2008, 08:13 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magictorch View Post
I'm not sure you wasted your money on the quad as future games may use them more efficiently plus you said you use multiple apps. As stated, currently games respond better to faster cores rather than 2 vs 4.

You should aim for 3.2 and over to get the best frames out of a 4870.

3.6-3.8 is very achievable on an aftermarket air-cooler with an E6750, you'd need water-cooling to do that with a quad.

Just installed a loop on my brothers QX6700 and it really needs that watercooling to get past 3.2. Huge differences in temperature between the E6750 at a similiar OC.
Games are more GPU bound than they are CPU bound which is why from 3.0ghz on a C2D to 4.0ghz you will see very little difference in FPS.

You can't talk about future in computers because once nehalem comes out and if it proves itself well the quads like the 6600 will become obsolete for the new stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old August 29, 2008, 08:52 AM
magictorch's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Annapolis Valley, NS
Posts: 1,836
Default

Yes thats true, I see a big difference up to around 3.2 then it levels off with only marginal gains to 3.6-3.8.

So you think game developers wll leapfrog the current quads in favor of nehalem..glad I didnt buy a quad then

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
Games are more GPU bound than they are CPU bound which is why from 3.0ghz on a C2D to 4.0ghz you will see very little difference in FPS.

You can't talk about future in computers because once nehalem comes out and if it proves itself well the quads like the 6600 will become obsolete for the new stuff.
__________________
White Night:: i7920 (4ghz), Rampage III extreme (A1), Mushkin XP 1600 (9,9,9,24),SLI480., white MM horizon.
CPU: Feser 220 int.|Apogee GTZ|S.Res.rev2| MCP655.

GPU: PA120.3|S.Res.rev2|2x EK FC blocks| MCP655.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old August 29, 2008, 09:08 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magictorch View Post
Yes thats true, I see a big difference up to around 3.2 then it levels off with only marginal gains to 3.6-3.8.

So you think game developers wll leapfrog the current quads in favor of nehalem..glad I didnt buy a quad then
I think game developers will wait for intel to stabilize before making ANY real big jumps in the gaming industry.

Even at the point we are at now games don't take full advantage of dual cores.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes