here it is, thoughts/reactions?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121315

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820144099

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371007

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130291

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137

11/19/2007 1:31:00 PM

No reason to get a dual core. Get a quad core for 279$:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

An 8600gts? Lol. What kind of games do you want to play? That won't run too much. You want an 8800gt:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130303

Don't buy a cooler master case, they are horrible cases.

Stock intel boards are nice and reliable but if my memory is correct you can't really overclock them at all. Why micro?

-what kind of games do you want to play? The 8800gt is only a little bit more than the 8600gts and unless you're just playing Wow you should get something faster.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 1:38:47 PM

well, the FSB on the Core2Duo 3.0 Ghz is 1333, whereas w/ the Core2Quad it's 1066. mmeh. i don't know if that really makes much of a diff. it may though.

and i was planning on sli'ing another 8600 in the near future. i suppose it's better to go with a better vidcard from the get go though.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : sadf]

11/19/2007 1:47:32 PM

keep the E6850, it'll be a helluva lot faster than quad in gaming, less power requirements, and less heat

i agree about getting the 8800gt instead of the 8600, you'll notice a huge difference since the G92 core is on a smaller process (65nm i believe)

cooler master case is fine, their centurion case series outsell nearly all the cases on newegg 2:1 and most all of their cases >$50 are rated 5/5 eggs with over 150+ reviews

with the memory, i think you could probably find a better deal by going with OCZ, Gskill, Corsair, or Kingston, and probably have better compatibility

i'm also not keen on that intel board you picked out... not the greatest chipset and doesn't get good reviews for a board with that price tag. i'd recommend a P35 or 650/680i chipset with Gigabyte or MSI or eVGA

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM. Reason : /]

11/19/2007 1:51:43 PM

^^will you be overclocking? You don't want a stock intel board if you're overclocking. I'd still get the quad core, it's the same price as the e6850 and some of the newer games are taking advantage of quad cores (crysis, UT07, etc):

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/page2.html

Yeah please don't get a 8600gts for a gaming rig. Maybe for a media center rig, but not for gaming. The 8800gt just came out and is really cheap and performs like crazy.

^yeah what he said except you SHOULD get the quad core. heh. Same price and you'll be up to date with newer games that take advantage of more cores.

More on quad core vs dual core performance in unreal 07:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 1:54:01 PM

quads do not perform as well as dual cores for gaming purposes, unless all you play is Unreal Tournament

the E6850 will smoke the Q6600

^those are the only two games i know of that "specifically" use quad core, every other game the E6850 would be perform better

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 1:57:50 PM

Crysis and Unreal!!!! So what's the problem with making an investment in a quad core knowing newer games will take advantage of it?


[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ..]

11/19/2007 1:59:07 PM

i'd wait for the newer desktop quad cores based on penryn before i'd invest in the Q6600

Quote :

"knowing newer games will take advantage of it?"

i've been hearing that for the last 2 years, and now we have all of 2 games that take advantage of quad cores... but maybe there's more on the way... honestly i don't know... but i can tell you i haven't read about anybody else doing it, are their articles, proof that other games coming out are going to use quad cores?

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 2:00:25 PM

probably won't be overclocking.

yeah, i compared the quad/dual cores on tom's...that's why i'm leaning toward faster FSB.

i mostly play NWN, NWN2, and I want to be able to watch hdtv on it at some point.

i'll definitely go with a better vid card.

i'm taking a minute to check on the other boards...

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : adfgdfg]

11/19/2007 2:01:34 PM

^^Alright yeah i'd wait for the penryn quad cores to come out. But still they're the same price, and why get a dual when you can get a quad?

11/19/2007 2:03:56 PM

because the dual is faster in all but 2 games, less heat, less power, newer processor

more cores does not always mean its faster or better, it depends on the application, the fsb, the cpu frequency, manufacturing process, etc.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 2:16:51 PM

Yeah but what if he wants a really high benchmark in 3dmark06?!??!!! (kidding) Doesn't the quad run fah better?

11/19/2007 2:23:39 PM

yes, ok, you got me there

in the perfect world where all apps would be multi-threaded, then yes the quad core cpu would be best.

this is a tough time to upgrade since it's in-between cycles... i think end of december/january once the new intel cpu's hit the market you'll see the C2D's go down in price and you'll see the new penryn cpu's be at or around the $300 mark and be 20-30% faster, and it'll be due mostly to the smaller process, not because they are quad but the new penryn's should last a very long time (like the 2 years the C2D has been in dominance)... and yes, in the next 2-3 years we'll see a lot more multi-threaded apps out there.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 2:33:36 PM

Wow they hit 4.0:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770/page22.html

So you're saying he should just wait until Dec/Jan for the new cpus to come out rather than investing in an old one?

11/19/2007 2:38:36 PM

alright, here's what i'm mulling over now...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128064
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150173
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371007
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820144116

i gotta find some 1066 RAM in 2GB sticks somewhere online...i don't really want 8GB to start out with...just 4GB

11/19/2007 4:21:48 PM

^Not 8800gts 320, get the 8800GT.

11/19/2007 4:35:47 PM

^^why do you need 8gb? and if you only want 4gb, why not 4x1gb? will you ever need 8gb? and if you aren't planning on running a 64-bit OS, you can't use more than 4gb anyhow.

no 2gb single stick of pc2-8500 that i can see

and all the 8800gt's are OOS

11/19/2007 5:14:45 PM

Go w/ 8800GT, not 8800GTS.

8gb of memory? Even if you only went with 4gb, you would never use it all and even then you could only harness it if you ran a 64-bit OS. Just get 2 x 1gb and see how it runs. If you really want to stroke your e-peen, then get 4, but realistically, that's overkill too. Get a couple gigs of GOOD overclockable memory, and go wild. It'll be a lot more beneficial than just shoving a ton in there that will never get utilized.

I have a quad core Q6600, upgraded from a C2D. It is by no means at all worth anything other than an ego booster 99% of the time. It's very hot, puts a strain on your power system, and expensive to boot, all for little or no real benefit. Like Prospero said, unless you're playing Crysis and UT all the time, imo, you're might as well light your money on fire. It's about as worthwhile an investment, and this is coming from someone who owns one.

11/19/2007 5:36:03 PM

^Had to add a couple games to the list. Lost Planet utilizes 4 cores when you enable it in the game. Increases performance. Also valve source engine utilizes 4 cores (half-life 2 etc...).

Sooooo, the majority of games i'm playing right now seem to benefit from quad core. I don't have one, but maybe i should get one.

-oh and i play around with 3dstudio max every now and then. That seems to benefit also. Decreasing rendering times is always a good thing.

-Oh snap, supreme commander (playing that also) utilizes quad core:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwxMCwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

So lets recap (stuff i run):
Valve Source Engine
Lost Planet
Supreme Commander
Crysis
Unreal 07
3D StudioMax

So maybe i should get one? Have to wait for the penryns though.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 6:08:28 PM

the only reason why i would get a quad core is that having more processors reduces the run time of the nuclear codes i run

11/19/2007 6:18:08 PM

Yeah, listen to prospero. His advice is the most down to earth of all I've read.

Consider the nicest Intel Mboard with that Intel chip. It's not uber-tech-geek approved but its the most reliable bastard u can get. You arent going to get into crazy mods and all that, I know you too well to believe that. That setup is badass, but watch that price rising quickly when you start getting too geeky. is marginal benefit > marginal cost at that level? (Think next best alternative always...)

SLI is overrated as it has been for years, but it will be legit by the time this rig gets slow compared to software in years to come. Stick with nVidia for sure. Def the 8800GT, IMO.

11/19/2007 7:39:37 PM

right on, thx folks

11/19/2007 9:59:06 PM

Quote :

"the only reason why i would get a quad core is that having more processors reduces the run time of the nuclear codes i run"

That's because those things are insanely well optimized for multiple cores, unlike almost any other software anyone ever runs. You can probably thank Dr. Turinsky and Doster for that since they've done a lot of work with people on that shit.

11/19/2007 10:06:46 PM

yeah

MCNP works well but SCALE is a little bitch, it doesnt support mulitple cores or multiple instances on one core

11/19/2007 10:29:26 PM

Ah damn, they have you doing pure neutronics? Why don't they have you working with the more comprehensive thermohydrualic+neutronics+depletion codes?

11/19/2007 10:38:05 PM

Ended up going with this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813121313
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817153059
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115028
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148288
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119137
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Sku=C13-2022

Pretty psyched. Just waiting on shipping now...

11/20/2007 11:26:28 AM

how'd you end up with a 8600gts and 2x1gb corsair ddr2-800?

i thought you wanted ddr2-1066 memory?

i'm also baffled at how you chose the intel motherboard and thermaltake psu, neither have that great of reviews, and the PSU is 70% eff. when you could have gotten an enermax w/ 80% eff. for the same price w/ 260+ 5/5egg reviews... brand preference? friend recommendation? what?

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2007 12:40:59 PM

*add to my topics*

a lot of good info here

11/20/2007 12:49:26 PM

Um yeah why'd you switch everything up and why'd you go with the 8600gts? It's not really a gaming card. Not intending on playing any games?

11/20/2007 2:10:15 PM

my only advice is to run Folding@Home on that new PC

message_topic.aspx?topic=118820

11/20/2007 2:15:12 PM

^^oh come on, it's not THAT bad, not everyone needs to run their games on the highest settings possible, it's still a good lower mid-range card and as of now the card he's got is saving $100 over the 8800gt

(though i'd still recommend the 8800gt, or at least wait til the mid-range G92 cards come out)

11/20/2007 2:57:43 PM

When do the midrange G92 cards come out? I'm looking to upgrade after the new year. Seems like prices are up in anticipation of the demand increase due to Christmas, so I'm waiting.

It needs to be budget, but it needs to play the new games - I don't care about them being set to max detail, I just want to be able to play the next few years worth of releases.

11/20/2007 3:02:25 PM

isn't 8800GTS pretty much overclockable to GT speeds?

i've been running at 600/1029 for a while now, but prices might have dropped to the point where it's not even worth it to save the price difference. This was 6 months ago or so.

and i guess i'm the only one that gets trolled for posting a new pc shopping cart



[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2007 3:06:24 PM

which one would be better for a media pc


E6850 or the Q6600 ?


also, is the onboard sound on this thing support 5.1 ?

[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : x]

11/20/2007 3:34:24 PM

sounds like most people are saying:
"a fast dual-core chip
unless you know of specific application that you're going to use that can use all four cores"

but what if after you've had this processor 1-2y years some "media" applications come out which can use all 4 cores...then those applications would run slower than they would have if you got the 4 core

11/20/2007 3:42:49 PM

^^i'd say get the E6850 b/c it's uses 1/3rd the power a Q6600 requires and produces a LOT less heat, both major components of a good mediaPC

or wait til the new quad's come out. the reason being is the new quad's are at 45nm and produce the same amount of heat as their 65nm dual core counterparts, and produce more performance... but the Q6600 65nm chip has been huge energy problem

Quote :

"isn't 8800GTS pretty much overclockable to GT speeds?"

yes, but the G80 GTS is based on the 90nm core with only 92 stream processors, whereas the GT is based on the 65nm process and has 112 stream processors = faster.

11/20/2007 4:28:01 PM

my ME/EE friend recommended the thermaltake because of the "hold up time" and analog components.

my ME/EE friend recommended OEM board w/ OEM processor. Also, the gigabyte board was 2x as much as the intel board.

ALso, the 1066 RAM is 2.5x more expensive than the ddr2 800. i was wantin to come in at price-wise about 1000 bucks, which I did.

4 GB is going to run vista fine, and it'll run my apps and one game (NWN, NWN2) fine too. when/if i move to 64 bit, i'll still be able to up the ram to 8 GB, which should run 64 bit apps fine then too.

i do not pay much attention to the reviews on newegg. they're more of a baseline type of feedback in my mind. "Hey, I love this new item i just bought, and im going to write a great review of it on newegg." And as far as the bad reviews go, they really just make me not want to purchase the item in question, usually. Fact is though, for every bad review, there's probably another guy who hasn't written in that found the item worked fine (or two).

I don't overclock my shit, because I don't want to shorten the hardware life, so I want a fast processor with at least dual core. the quad cores don't necessarily run that much better (now, although they will get better as apps develop into more suited arrays for quad cores).

ANd I'm going to SLI another 8600 at some point, if the frame rates on NWN2 are unacceptable. THis may be the case, since I was talking with another guy at work yesterday who has an 8800 gt that he reports can't handle the 8x aliasing in NWN2...oh well.

BTW, the price diff in the 8600 versus the 8800 is HUGE. Also, when the 8800 comes down next year, maybe i'll switch to one then.

in the meantime, i'm very pleased with theoretically what i purchased...now if ups would just get here!

11/21/2007 12:43:23 PM

Quote :

"my ME/EE friend recommended OEM board w/ OEM processor. Also, the gigabyte board was 2x as much as the intel board."

sorry, but the gigabyte board (RETAIL - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128059) is less than your OEM intel board, why in the world would OEM instead of Retail be your determining factor in a motherboard... why not look at actual reviews and specs... not to mention you aren't buying an OEM processor it's a retail processor, and the Gigabyte board not only is less but has higher grade components on it
--

Quote :

"ALso, the 1066 RAM is 2.5x more expensive than the ddr2 800. i was wantin to come in at price-wise about 1000 bucks, which I did."

i was just asking because of your earlier post:

Quote :

"i gotta find some 1066 RAM in 2GB sticks somewhere online...i don't really want 8GB to start out with...just 4GB"

--

Quote :

"i do not pay much attention to the reviews on newegg. they're more of a baseline type of feedback in my mind. "Hey, I love this new item i just bought, and im going to write a great review of it on newegg." And as far as the bad reviews go, they really just make me not want to purchase the item in question, usually. Fact is though, for every bad review, there's probably another guy who hasn't written in that found the item worked fine (or two)."

i understand this logic, but how can you refute a board with 21 reviews versus motherboards with 200+ 5/5 egg reviews, obviously if you keep the same proportion of people who buy the item and people who review the item, you'll see that there are certain motherboards that are popular. this is usually a good sign of good, quality boards that are proven.
--

Quote :

"another guy at work yesterday who has an 8800 gt that he reports can't handle the 8x aliasing in NWN2...oh well."

i find this hard to believe, since the G92 8800GT is currently one of the fastest cards on the market right now, but ok.
--

Quote :

"ANd I'm going to SLI another 8600 at some point,....BTW, the price diff in the 8600 versus the 8800 is HUGE. Also, when the 8800 comes down next year, maybe i'll switch to one then."

yes it is, but the performance difference is huge as well, and i highly doubt your SLI G80 8600GTS's will outperform the G92 8800GT by that much to warrant the $100 more that you are going to end up paying for SLI, so by your logic you are actually getting worse price/performance ratio.

just some food for thought, i think your system will run just fine, i'm just questioning some of your reasoning that's all, if you ask the TWW opinion then not take it, that's your prerogative.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 1:20:08 PM

The 8600 series blows balls, get the 8800GT if you want to actually play games. It can be found for ~$250 on the right day.

Also SLI 8600's still suck, they have a 128bit memory interface and this seriously handicaps them. I had a 128bit memory interface on my old 6800. The 8800GT can even beat out the 8800GTX with slight overclocking.




[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 1:26:34 PM

Prospero, you read the tomshardware article comparing the dual core vs quad core in gaming, right?

quad core came out on top, by the way (on all games)

11/21/2007 1:45:09 PM

^i'm sorry, were you referring to the one where they compared a $150 E6750 to a $999 QX6850? look at the charts, when you compare the E6750 or the E6850 to the more comparably priced Q6600, the dual core's have it, they even say this to some regards on this page:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/page11.html

Quote :

"Gamers will be happy to see how close these two are, as it justifies buying the cheaper processor and spending the huge amount of leftover cash on something more important - like a second $600 graphics card!"

also, FYI, the hold-up time on the enermax liberty is 17ms, about twice that of the thermaltake's 8ms

in lamen's terms that means that the enermax will hold it's output longer on power loss than the thermaltake

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:54 PM. Reason : /]

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 1:49:18 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/

ive got my q6600 running at 3.5ghz stable & cool

is there anything in the core 2 duo world that can beat that?

11/21/2007 1:55:35 PM

^from that article

Quote :

"In video-editing and 3D-rendering scenarios, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is noticeably faster than the dual-core CPU. On the other hand, it still trails its sibling when it comes to gaming. In our benchmark suite, only one of the six games supported the additional cores, allowing the Q6600 to catch up with the E6750. Bear in mind though that upcoming gaming titles, especially those expected this holiday season, will change this situation, bringing much better quad/multi-core support to the table. Only after this happens will the quad-core processor get our recommendation, even for the gaming enthusiast."

if you are going to overclock, pay for extra cooling, and the extra electricity, then no, but then again what are you getting in return, a 3-5% increase in performance? and that's the E6750 not the E6850 which would make it closer i'd imagine

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to downplay the Q6600, for me it's just it carries more baggage that i wouldn't want to deal with for a minimum performance gain

and all this get's thrown out the window in a month or two anyhow, so why invest in a power hungry Q6600 now a month away from the new quads? that's the question.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ,]

11/21/2007 2:02:01 PM

^but still clock for clock a quad core beats the dual core in the majority of games i'm playing (atleast from what i've read):
Valve Source Engine
Lost Planet
Supreme Commander
Crysis
Unreal 07
UT 04 also it seems.

Plus i do some 3dstudio max, and i haven't checked on if CS3 PS utilizes it or not. Adobe premier also gets a 35% performance increase. Plus i don't see why the heat/electricity is such a big deal. Just get a good air cooler, etc. Does anyone really notice the extra electricity it takes? I mean define "power hungry" in terms of a computer. What would i notice because of the power increase? Do people complain because the q6600 takes more power than the dual core? What does pulling more power cause that a person would notice?

-Oh and why in the WORLD did you get a 8600gts? Neverwinter nights 2 is taxing on my 8800gtx /w ultra clocks. 2 8600s will still suck balls.

Plus what's the average price on a 8600GTS, like 150-175? You can get a 8800gt for 280-300. It's not THAT much more, plus you'd actually be buying a gaming video card, not a lower midrange media center card.

Check out the benchmarks for the 8600gts. I mean it really sucks:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=854&model2=707&chart=318

I mean it's beaten by the 7800-7900s. That's last generation. You've downgraded. I just think the video card is one of the most important parts in a gaming computer, and there's where you should spend your money.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 2:54:01 PM

i'm not talking to you neodata, we already know the short list that benefits from quad core cpu's you just happen to play the 16% of games that support it and gain from it.

Quote :

"In our benchmark suite, only one of the six games supported the additional cores,"

Quote :

"What does pulling more power cause that a person would notice?"

$60/year increase in electricity bill, but your right no one would notice the $5/month increase

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ,]

11/21/2007 4:00:06 PM

^That review tests really old games. They picked the older games that don't benefit from it, and didn't mention the newer games that are being played that do.

Games from Review:
UT04: March 2004
Prey: July 2006
Supreme Commander: Feb 2007
Quake 4 : October 2005
Warhammer: November 2006
Serious Sam 2:October 2005

That's like one from 2007? Is that accurate to test quad cores with these old games?

Release of the Q6600:Janurary 2007

I mean the quad core 2 duos were released in NOVEMBER 2006. How does that make sense to test it on games that were developed waaay prior to its release??? Supreme Commander is THE ONLY game on the list released AFTER quad cores came out and it does benefit greatly from a quad core.

It just doesn't seem accurate to me. I mean test the new games people are playing...HL2 Team Fortress 2, Unreal 07, Crysis. Those are some of the biggest games of the year and they all benefit from a Quad core.

I don't know too much about quad core game development but why should these ancient games utilize a quad core when they weren't even out when the game was developed/released?

^5$ a month? I mean anyone who is going to pay for a quad core, or build a nice gaming rig probably won't mind a 5$/month increase in power consumption. I mean these are the type of people who will pay the extra for a 8800GT or extra for a nicer power supply. Calculating wattage costs for a year and comparing that to the the other components in a computer will show you that 60$/year isn't really anything when you're talking about a 1000-1500$ computer.

So i guess in conclusion my question is. If you know how to overclock a quad core, then why buy a dual core? I GUESS if you're playing older games AND don't overclock, then a quad core isn't for you.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 5:11:35 PM

this isn't an objective topic we're talking about, it's subjective. i'm just giving my stance on the across-the-board, what i think is best for the general public, average gamer, based in part by my opinion, and the opinion of reviews by peers and the media... the enthusiast gamer that has money to spend falls into a different category altogether

just because YOU play ALL of the most recent games doesn't mean everyone does or will, if you are an enthusiast, chances are your rig will be custom tailored to the specific game you play the most often (at LAN/tournaments,etc.)... of course if all you play are the latest, greatest games, then you should obviously choose Q6600

also you have to look at the percentage of time spent using other (non-games) application usage. chances are the average and majority of computer users only spend 10-20% of their time using multi-threaded apps... so while YES your performance will be greater by 3-5%, it will only be beneficial 10-20% of the time.

like i said before neodata i'm not talking to you because you represent a small percentage of computer users

and while i do spend a lot on my computer, i don't have money to burn, and i do care about another $5/month

i just don't think the Q6600 is the best choice for everyone, thus i wouldn't recommend it to everyone, only to those whose application warrants it... same reason i wouldn't recommend a xeon

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 7:09 PM. Reason : nvm]

11/21/2007 6:59:55 PM

I prefer ATI

11/21/2007 7:21:02 PM

ah hell no

11/21/2007 7:32:17 PM

this is why i say wait:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071029-intels-45nm-penrynyorkfield-architecture-debuts-packing-a-serious-punch.html

Quote :

"As for raw performance, Yorkfield typically streaks past the QX6850 (its 3GHz Conroe-based quad-core predecessor), while drawing one-third the power of its counterpart at idle and just under half at load. The processor's performance improvements and dramatic power reductions are delivered by a number of architectural advances Intel implemented in its 45nm process technology, including hybrid gates that incorporate hafnium, 12MB of 24-way set associative L2 cache (up from 8MB), SSE4 instructions, and and several other design improvements."

Quote :

"In terms of overclocking potential, Yorkfield seems to have quite a bit of headroom. Opinions on exactly how much vary from review to review, but it seems that a 3GHz QX6950 is easily capable of hitting 3.6GHz, often managing 4GHz (sometimes with a voltage increase, sometimes not), and has an upper range (on air) of between 4.4 and 4.6GHz."

3D Mark 06 score: (the E6600 would be somewhere in the 2100 range)
My specific CPU score was 2874 Marks for the E6600 OC'd to 3.3Ghz


OC potential of up to 4.4Ghz


Power Usage
NOTICE: Typical Quad Core is at 67W, the Penryn is at 20W, the E6600 would fall in the 19W range


more mixed reviews:
Team Fortress 2, BTW, E6750 had a higher framerate than Q6600
Lost Planet, split decision, E6750 won on snow, Q6600 won (by far) on cave
Bioshock, E6750
Supreme Commander, split decision E6750 higher in 2/3 tests, but Q6600 ended up with slight margin in framerate
Valve, Q6600
Worldbench - Overall tied, CS2 though was E6750
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13470/4

Here's the killer, for Folding@Home out of all the WU's the E6750 scored higher PPD than the Q6600, but the final graph shows the Q6600 with a higher 'projected' PPD score.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13470/12

one thread - E6750
two threads - E6750
four threads - Q6600
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13470/13

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ,]

11/21/2007 8:13:15 PM