E6750 vs. E6850 and/or E6850 vs. Q6600.......

Which processor is the better buy for a first build gaming rig? I want a processor that can last me a long time, yet I don't want to pay to much. Both are quality processors based on reviews, but which one is the better buy price and performance wise. Does the E6850 have enough of a performance boost over the E6750 to warrant an extra$85?

E6750 = $195

E6850 = $280

Q6600 = $280

If you suggest the E6850, then compare that with the Q6600 which is the same price. Which is the better processor between the two, performance wise?

i would not spend the extra 85 on the 6850 over the 6750 if i were you, if you wanted the slight performance gain that you would get, you could OC and get that no problem, BUT i would recomend the Q6600 for the extra 85 dollars, although right now the benchmarks may be showing the 6750 on top, new programs are going to be optomized to utilize all 4 cores and the Q6600 will easily slay the 6750. i bought one a few months back and not regretting it at all, great processor, if you did want to OC the new G0 stepping is rated for 15 watts less and has a higher temp rating as well.

i would not spend the extra 85 on the 6850 over the 6750 if i were you, if you wanted the slight performance gain that you would get, you could OC and get that no problem, BUT i would recomend the Q6600 for the extra 85 dollars, although right now the benchmarks may be showing the 6750 on top, new programs are going to be optomized to utilize all 4 cores and the Q6600 will easily slay the 6750. i bought one a few months back and not regretting it at all, great processor, if you did want to OC the new G0 stepping is rated for 15 watts less and has a higher temp rating as well.

PWN-Schubie

[QUOTE="PWN-Schubie"]

i would not spend the extra 85 on the 6850 over the 6750 if i were you, if you wanted the slight performance gain that you would get, you could OC and get that no problem, BUT i would recomend the Q6600 for the extra 85 dollars, although right now the benchmarks may be showing the 6750 on top, new programs are going to be optomized to utilize all 4 cores and the Q6600 will easily slay the 6750. i bought one a few months back and not regretting it at all, great processor, if you did want to OC the new G0 stepping is rated for 15 watts less and has a higher temp rating as well.

AlexKidd5000

crysis is supposed to be multithreaded to utilize as many cores as you can throw at it, how well its optomized im not sure.

What does the Q6600 have over the E6850?CB4McGusto

two cores?

[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]What does the Q6600 have over the E6850?Crysis_Pwns

two cores?

Okay one more thing about the Q6600, what is this B3 and G0 stepping thing I keep hearing about? Also whats the deal with the 1066 MHz front side bus?

[QUOTE="Crysis_Pwns"]

[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]What does the Q6600 have over the E6850?CB4McGusto

two cores?

Okay one more thing about the Q6600, what is this B3 and G0 stepping thing I keep hearing about? Also whats the deal with the 1066 MHz front side bus?

[QUOTE="Crysis_Pwns"]

[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]What does the Q6600 have over the E6850?CB4McGusto

two cores?

Okay one more thing about the Q6600, what is this B3 and G0 stepping thing I keep hearing about? Also whats the deal with the 1066 MHz front side bus?

The G3 stepping was the first wave of q6600s released, they are rated for 105 watts and a temp rating of around 60 degrees, and the G0 stepping is the newer revission, its rated for 90 watts and rated for around 70 degrees, so for most people it means one of two things, its going to run cooler, or you can OC it better.

and as for the FSB...that has been the FSB for the C2D family up until the release of the 6X5X processors, i dont really know what you are asking about the bus speed.

I'd actually go with the cheaper E6750. I have it and it's super-fast for everything I would want to use it for (I'm running Vista too). Plus, it OC's incredibly well. Much rather pocket the extra $85 and use it on something else, but that's just me. I don't find that an extra $100 on a processor offers you that much in real-world use. An extra $100 on a video card on the other hand... Hehe.

Plus. by the time applications and games actually really start taking advantage of quad cores, something much better is going to come out. I like to keep my parts within the same generation and not overspend on something that's "futureproof" when it really isn't. It's like buying a 8600GT for DX10 games. That card just isn't powerful enough for DX 10 games despite being a DX 10 card. So when the games actually come out, you'll be stuck wanting something better.

I'd actually go with the cheaper E6750. I have it and it's super-fast for everything I would want to use it for (I'm running Vista too). Plus, it OC's incredibly well. Much rather pocket the extra $85 and use it on something else, but that's just me. I don't find that an extra $100 on a processor offers you that much in real-world use. An extra $100 on a video card on the other hand... Hehe.

Plus. by the time applications and games actually really start taking advantage of quad cores, something much better is going to come out. I like to keep my parts within the same generation and not overspend on something that's "futureproof" when it really isn't. It's like buying a 8600GT for DX10 games. That card just isn't powerful enough for DX 10 games despite being a DX 10 card. So when the games actually come out, you'll be stuck wanting something better.

phan1

Agreed. I was going to buy the Q6600, But decided to save the $85 and buy the E6750, Rather then wasting it on a CPU that has two extra cores that will probably never be used.

[QUOTE="phan1"]

I'd actually go with the cheaper E6750. I have it and it's super-fast for everything I would want to use it for (I'm running Vista too). Plus, it OC's incredibly well. Much rather pocket the extra $85 and use it on something else, but that's just me. I don't find that an extra $100 on a processor offers you that much in real-world use. An extra $100 on a video card on the other hand... Hehe.

Plus. by the time applications and games actually really start taking advantage of quad cores, something much better is going to come out. I like to keep my parts within the same generation and not overspend on something that's "futureproof" when it really isn't. It's like buying a 8600GT for DX10 games. That card just isn't powerful enough for DX 10 games despite being a DX 10 card. So when the games actually come out, you'll be stuck wanting something better.

Hellsing2o2

Agreed. I was going to buy the Q6600, But decided to save the $85 and buy the E6750, Rather then wasting it on a CPU that has two extra cores that will probably never be used.

Multi-threaded Games

Unreal Tournament 3, Alan Wake, Supreme Commander and Expansion, Huxley, Oblivion, WoW Burning Crusade, Quake 4, CoD2, Crysis

LOL people with the E6750 tell's me to get that and the ones with a Q6600 tell me to buy that. Any neutral opinions likeAMD users want to comment?

*waits for an amd user to tell me to wait for the phenoms*

:P

Phenoms you mean. I wont quote so you can fix that :D

I'd get the E6750, overclock to 3.6GHz on stock cooling, profit.

well i'm in the same boat as you. i'm gonna be building a new comp within the next 2 weeks (must prepare for crysis and UT3 ;)) and so i've finally made up my mind on which vidcard i'm gonna get (8800GT) and so now I'm trying to decide which processor. But I think I'm gonna end up going with the E6750. As someone else already said, by the time that quadcores are being used to their fullest, a better quadcore will have been released (or the prices will have drasticaly dropped on current cpu's). And plus, it says optimised for multi-threaded processors... well the core 2 duo's (unless i'm mistaken) are multi-threaded processors! so Core 2 owners should still get that extra benefit. Like the dev from Crytek said, Core 2 Duo's will have like a 15%-20% advantage over single cores and quads will have a 20%-25% advantage over single cores. lol don't quote me on that cuz that's not the exact percentage but i'm just using it to get my point across.Forerunner-117

i know you said dont quote you, but i doing it for yourr theaory, not the numbers, two processors get more then 15-20% in a game that is optomized for two cores, more like goingfrom 7 fps to 21 frames, the larger cache on board helps to, and the reason i used the 3200 and x2 3800 is because they are the same clock speed (and i know you were comaring differant processors, but intel doesnt have a C2D with a single core, and comparing it to a older architechture of a P4 wouldnt be fair)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=927&model2=945&chart=421

then the next chart does only show a 25% increase, but this is the demo at 1024*768

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=877&chart=421

if you are playing at higher resolutions, your performance gain is much more.

Just wait till game are optomized better for quad core :)

How long do you plan on this being your gaming computer? maybe that would help you decide... 2-3 years: e6750 longer: q6600kidkit

hmm well i want this comp to last as long as possible but what i'm gonna do is just get it now and upgrade when needed. so which processor should i get?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it may actually save me money in the long run to get a Q6600... hm..