[Sneaky Snake]

Im wanting to upgrade my computer to a quad core CPU. My motherboard is a Gigabyte P35 board meaning that it'll support any C2D or C2Q. At the moment I'm trying to decide between the Q8300 and Q6600. I hear that the Q6600 has better OC'ing, which is a big factor for me.

This page lists most of the Quads that are in my price range. I'm also considering the Q9400 if it is much superior to the others and worth the extra $50


-Snake

[PeopleLikeFrank]

The Q6600 often reaches 3 GHz without really breaking a sweat, so that $220 OEM version would probably be the best bang for your buck. From what I've seen the 9400 gets about 10% more gaming performance at stock, but costs 20% more. Of course, it might likely overclock even higher than the 6600, but I haven't heard what its OC performance is like.

Of course if you don't want the OEM version, then the 9400 is only 15% more than the retail version of the 6600 (at $340). It's also 45nm, and has a higher FSB and larger cache. It'll save a bit on the power bill, if that's a concern.

Of course, the 8300 will perform a little better than the 6600 at stock for about the same price, except when its smaller cache hurts it. It has the higher bus speed and is also 45nm, but I don't know how well it overclocks, so that would probably make or break it for you. Overall I'd say the 6600 looks like the best performance/$ at the moment, unless the 8300 OCs decently. The difference isn't so huge that it would be nuts to shell out a little more for the better performance of the 9400.

[Sneaky Snake]

In what cases would the smaller L2 cache hurt operations?

[PeopleLikeFrank]

Sneaky Snake, on February 5th 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

In what cases would the smaller L2 cache hurt operations?

During heavy memory I/O usually. I wouldn't worry about it too much - it doesn't usually impair gaming. From what I'm reading, the 8300 isn't as good with overclocking though, so it looks like sticking with the 6600, or jumping to the 9400 would be the better options. The 8300 will be faster at stock speeds, and run a little cooler by default, but because it has a lower multiplier, you need to push your bus speed higher to reach a given OC, which puts stress on the whole system.

[Sneaky Snake]

nobody, on February 5th 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

During heavy memory I/O usually. I wouldn't worry about it too much - it doesn't usually impair gaming. From what I'm reading, the 8300 isn't as good with overclocking though, so it looks like sticking with the 6600, or jumping to the 9400 would be the better options. The 8300 will be faster at stock speeds, and run a little cooler by default, but because it has a lower multiplier, you need to push your bus speed higher to reach a given OC, which puts stress on the whole system.

sound advice.

now its down to the 6600 for $230, or the 9400 for $280. I think that the 9400 is probably what I'll get.

Its to bad i didnt have an AM2+ motherboard, the Phenom II 920 is low $200's. That's the ideal card I wanted


-Snake

[Atticus]

Hey, guys:

I have the same mobo (Gigabyte P35), but running the dual-core E8400 (not overclocked--I'm not smart enough to do it myself) and an XFX 8800 GTS 512. With last-gen processors going for good prices these days, would I gain much from upgrading to a quad-core like the 6600 or 9400? Or would it not make much of a difference b/c of my video card?

I mean, my rig plays everything I throw at it well, but, I'm always looking for another geek project. :-)

Atticus

[Sneaky Snake]

Atticus, on February 6th 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Hey, guys:

I have the same mobo (Gigabyte P35), but running the dual-core E8400 (not overclocked--I'm not smart enough to do it myself) and an XFX 8800 GTS 512. With last-gen processors going for good prices these days, would I gain much from upgrading to a quad-core like the 6600 or 9400? Or would it not make much of a difference b/c of my video card?

I mean, my rig plays everything I throw at it well, but, I'm always looking for another geek project. :-)

Atticus

I'd upgrade the GPU 1st. The E8400 is a great CPU and, if I'm not mistaken, can hit a stable 4 GHz with a nice overclock. I think that should be your 1st geek project. I'm surprised my CPU hasn't blown up yet , its a stock 1.8 GHz, and currently being run at 3.2. In my case I was just going to upgrade the CPU cuz its only an E2160 that I got with my computer (which is an older homebuild from my brother). It didn't seem very economical to for me to upgrade to a high end dual core, when a Q6600 wasn't that much more money.

Keep in the mind that few games are optimized for anything beyond 2 cores. Crysis is the only one off the top of my head that can take advantage of 4 cores. More and more games however are being made optimized for quad cores so it really depends on whether you want to stay on the bleeding edge gaming or not. Your CPU will probably be good for another year at least for games.

Is your 8800 a G80 or G92 core? If its G92 its still a perfectly capable card. If not, a GTX 260 core 192, or 4870 512 MB (both of which can be had for ~$200) would substantially boost your fps in all games.


-Snake

[The Liberator]

Which Crysis do you mean, because from what I know, the first one (at least) has not been optimized for that.

Liberator.

[J'nathus]

The Liberator, on February 6th 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

Which Crysis do you mean, because from what I know, the first one (at least) has not been optimized for that.

I don't know about "optimized" but it does "utilize" quad cores. The disappointing thing is the more optimized / better running Warhead is incredibly buggy for me, which sucks because I found it to be pretty fun, the parts that I played of it.

I built a system for my sister which included a higher clocked Core 2 Duo than my Core 2 Quad... otherwise it was the same system (built a year later when the parts were quite a bit more cheaper). The benchmarks are 'on average' lower (some are a smidge higher, but the ones that are lower are MUCH lower), and that's even reaching back as far as 3DMark2001SE and PCMark2002. Those systems are evenly matched otherwise... RAM (2 GB at the time of those benchmarks), Core 2 processors, P35 chipsets and 8800 GT's with 512MB of RAM.

So, to my way of thinking if quad core is in your budget, it's a worthy additive to any build.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

The Liberator, on February 6th 2009, 10:07 PM, said:

Which Crysis do you mean, because from what I know, the first one (at least) has not been optimized for that.

Liberator.

Certainly not the way it was originally claimed. It is a game that benefits from CPU power though.

Atticus - your CPU is already a pretty capable one. I doubt there would be many cases where you would benefit from an upgrade at this point. I'd echo the recommendation for a GPU upgrade first.

[Sneaky Snake]

J, on February 7th 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

I don't know about "optimized" but it does "utilize" quad cores.

That's what I meant, sorry

[Atticus]

Thanks, guys! I thought that might be the case, but just wanted to confirm. I'll probably get a new vid card towards the end of the year.

Atticus