Just curious. This guy is beast! But was it a downgrade?
Is going from an e7300 to a Q6600 a downgrade?
Lord Xeb
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
not really
might be an upgrade though for encoding n stuff
might be an upgrade though for encoding n stuff
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
No. Q6600 is superior to the e7400
Joined
·
3,895 Posts
IMO its a little of both, clock for clock 45nm > 65nm but the Q6600 has more cache to help counter it and 2 extra cores. But E7300 has SSE 4.1 which is mad fast when utilized. I'd say its a slight upgrade NOT counting the 2 more cores. If you went from a E8500 to a Q6600 then I would say its a general slight downgrade.
Joined
·
4,151 Posts
From a gaming perspective:
At one point it might have been considered a downgrade, as most games only used 2 cores and a dual @ 4.0 beat out a quad @ 3.6... however, just about all games now benefit from quads, so it's definitely a wise move to jump to a quad even if it is just a q6600. Ideally though, you'd want to upgrade to a q9x50.
From other uses (video encoding/rendering/multitasking/etc) perspective:
Quads = better. No further elaboration really needed.
At one point it might have been considered a downgrade, as most games only used 2 cores and a dual @ 4.0 beat out a quad @ 3.6... however, just about all games now benefit from quads, so it's definitely a wise move to jump to a quad even if it is just a q6600. Ideally though, you'd want to upgrade to a q9x50.
From other uses (video encoding/rendering/multitasking/etc) perspective:
Quads = better. No further elaboration really needed.
Joined
·
49,299 Posts
A Q9X50 beats a Q6X00 in everything ~ 5-7% max and thats because it has 6MB vs 4MB L2. E7XXX in the other hand have only 3MB L2 vs 4MB L2 which clearly indicates its not going to be superior even though its 45nm. I dont understand why people say because its 45nm it makes it faster, its not that , is the fact 45nm like E8XXX have more L2 and the extra SSE4.1 which if not used does not make a difference.
Joined
·
3,895 Posts
Quote:
45nm has multiple optimizations over 65nm, its not just about cache and SSE 4.1. Q9X50 beats the Q6X00 by more than 5~7% in CPU dependent tasks and they have 12MB L2 while Q6X00 have 8MB.. Take a E4X00 65nm CPU and compare it to a E5X00 45nm CPU at the same speed in the same system, both have the same cache and use a benchmark that utilizes SSSE3, the next fastest instruction both support then say theres no difference between the fab processes.
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er  A Q9X50 beats a Q6X00 in everything ~ 5-7% max and thats because it has 6MB vs 4MB L2. E7XXX in the other hand have only 3MB L2 vs 4MB L2 which clearly indicates its not going to be superior even though its 45nm. I dont understand why people say because its 45nm it makes it faster, its not that , is the fact 45nm like E8XXX have more L2 and the extra SSE4.1 which if not used does not make a difference. |
Countless threads on this topic. The E7300 will clock to around 3.9GHz. The Q6600 to around 3.6GHz. With the Q6600 you get two additional cores and more L2 cache. All-in-all, the E7300 might edge out the Q6600 in apps that are unable to utilize any of the extra cores, but the Q6600 should give you better performance in many apps, especially newer ones. If given the choice, I would take a Q6600 hands down. Is it worth an extra $90 (difference in retail cost between E7400 and Q6600), probably not.
Think about it this way, would you take a 4.5GHz single core over a 3.8GHz dual core? Didn't think so. Q6600 = win
![Image]()
Think about it this way, would you take a 4.5GHz single core over a 3.8GHz dual core? Didn't think so. Q6600 = win
Joined
·
27,668 Posts
Quote:
I went from a 3.6-3.8 q66 to a 4.5 E8400 and love it, IMO for average use and gaming, a 4ghz+ duo is better than a 3.6 Q66.
Quote:
Glad to see you finally got some hertz out of it
![Image]()
Originally Posted by Lord Xeb Just curious. This guy is beast! But was it a downgrade? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3v0 No, i traded my e8400 for a Q6600 and never turned back 
|
Glad to see you finally got some hertz out of it
Joined
·
24,855 Posts
Quote:
I wish I had a Dual that could do it...... But meh, I got this Q for such a good deal it is amazing! trade e7300 + 60 USD for a Q6600
![Image]()
Originally Posted by grunion I went from a 3.6-3.8 q66 to a 4.5 E8400 and love it, IMO for average use and gaming, a 4ghz+ duo is better than a 3.6 Q66. Glad to see you finally got some hertz out of it
|
Quote:
Just about all games benefit from quads eh? Don't think so. Even the largest MMORPG in the world, WoW doesn't support quads.
Originally Posted by killa_concept From a gaming perspective: At one point it might have been considered a downgrade, as most games only used 2 cores and a dual @ 4.0 beat out a quad @ 3.6... however, just about all games now benefit from quads, so it's definitely a wise move to jump to a quad even if it is just a q6600. Ideally though, you'd want to upgrade to a q9x50. From other uses (video encoding/rendering/multitasking/etc) perspective: Quads = better. No further elaboration really needed. |
Joined
·
20,953 Posts
I agree as well Kluez. There are barely a handful of games that support any kind of significant quad core optimization at this point.
Not to say in the not too distant future that most games will be quad ready. Just not currently.
Mind you we have been talking about quad ready games since the Q6600 was released and yet there seems to be so few titles that are actually benefitting.
Not to say in the not too distant future that most games will be quad ready. Just not currently.
Mind you we have been talking about quad ready games since the Q6600 was released and yet there seems to be so few titles that are actually benefitting.
Joined
·
23,733 Posts
are you serious?
definitely not, at that speed. and GTA IV will thank you for it
definitely not, at that speed. and GTA IV will thank you for it
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
