Hi,

I found a couple of interesting articles about Intel's Q3 offerings.

I've got a question for the experts: what kind of performance do you expect from the E6850? I would probably prefer a Q6600 for the same $266, but I may be wrong...

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php? [...] &endtime=0
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5873.html

Thanks!

The E6850 will offer great stock performace, but it's overclocking headroom is going to be pretty limited. At 500MHz FSB (a speed MBs are having a tough time cracking) the chip will "only" be running at 4GHz. That may seem like a lot, but many E6600s can get there today, for about the same price...so what's the point in waiting? :?

The Q6600 on the other hand has much more OCing potential! At 400MHz FSB, it's running at 3.6GHz, this speed is easy for most all motherboards to reach today. 8O

You seen where I'm going whith this?

DSid,

I would take the quad over the Dual any day... There are many reasons behind it... Granted not everyone will agree. But those that understand the direction we are taking (multithreaded applications) in the industry will probably agree with me.

Read the linked to threads HERE! and draw your own conclusions.

also

Have a read HERE!!

Both are threads that I started trying to settle on an answer for this very question..

Q6600.

I liked the "can't add cores" argument
OK, quad is the way to go. Thanks!

Im desperate for a quad , my dual core drives me mad when waiting for 3d renderings its so slow , yeah some people really need quad....or more.

smudgee
P820
2 GIG RAM
6800GT
830 GIG HD

lol, thats because u have what we like to call a "pentium"

they are teh suck.

still though, u have a point.

if i were an encoding kinda guy, or a 3d artist id mos def get a c2d quad

well... it realy depends on what/if anything, AMD releases...

but between a dual core and a quad core.. i would have to say go for the quad not everything can use the extra cores, but it just makes me feel happy in the pants knowing that soon enough they will then your dual core will be obsolete!

8O

Was that really necessary...

uh, the E6600 is a dual the E6850 is a quad there is a big difference.

When you overclock Quads, theres a lot more circuitry that has to tolerate the added Mhz so the odds of it not OC'ing to the level of an E6600 is not equal. They may no OC as high but the two extra cores give you more performance in the long run as long as software developers take advantage.

Also thats why you invest in a high end board that can deal with uber high FSB. That $250 680i is looking a lot cheaper now.

I totaly plan to ditch my duals for some cheap quads cause its a no brainer. I am just glad I didn't buy them when they were $1,000

OK, there's a bit of confusion here. E6850 is a dual core. Q6600 is a quad. E6600 is a beautiful thing from the past and let's not talk about it here.

I know there's a thread debating the merits of X6800 and QX6700, and most people voted for QX6700. By the way, that's a great thread.

Now between E6850 (slightly better than X6800 at stock) and Q6600 (a bit weaker than QX6700, again at stock) the race is closer IMO. Especially if O/C is not desired and we compare them at stock...

X6800 < E6850 < Q6600 < QX6700 < QX6800, is that how performance goes?

Edit: so I take it, E6850 is a rather pointless product because smart people would get a Q6600 instead?

warezme,

I hope you noticed the little tidbit about the 680i chipsets IO performance..

Since you offered your tidbits I thought I'd offer mine..

For instance why would you choose a 680i chipset that bottlenecks the enthusiast?

Linkage THG RAID ARTICLE

Also the quads from Intel overclock quite nicely so you would be wrong there too..

Linkage again THG - Quad OC article.. With a mild 25% OC

Please keep in mind that article was one of the first written and they have since gotten better OCs out of the quad with newer steppings.

Warezme,

What Dsid said...

We are NOT discussing the E6600 but rather the Q6600..

Thanks for playing though..

One of my brothers works as a 3D Graphics Artist...he just got a 2-Socket workstation board with two quad core xeons and is having a blast. His workstation is as fast as 16 of their server farm computers.

Well it depends on the level of multithreading support in the software of course, it's not so black and white. Some 'multithreading capable' software only spawns 2 threads anyway, though hopefully that will change in future where software can accept 'n cores' to help performance grow as technology advances.