# Intel processors...which one?



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad-Core Q6600 Processor (2.4GHz,1066MHz,8MB cache)

IntelÂ® Viivâ„¢ Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad-Core Q6600 Processor (2.4GHz,1066MHz,8MB cache)

Both of the above are priced equally. So for a machine that will be used a lot for gaming and web surfing, what should I be choosing between the two?

Have you seen any benchmarking and how they compare to each other.

Please only discuss these two as I am not looking at AMD or other speeds.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

This for a brand new machine or upgrade to existing kit?

Regardless of the answer your processor choice comes down to one thing - VIIV - if the rest of the PC is not specifically built around VIIV then it's pointelss buying the VIIV enabled processor. Also if you have no plans to utillise VIIV or don't even know how to or where to access it.... blah blah.

IE: Just by the Quad Core2.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

PS - did you know the new Pentium Core2 @ Â£45 can outperform a number of the CORE2 processors double it speed?!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Thanks

What about this?

IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢ 2 Duo E6850 processor (3.00GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB cache)

It is faster than the Quad core but has half the cach and only duo. Is it expected to be a lot less fast or marginally fast to the quad core chips?

I am trying to find some benchmarks where they test Intel chips. Intel normally have something like this, but I can't find it. Have you seen something similar?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

saint said:


> PS - did you know the new Pentium Core2 @ Â£45 can outperform a number of the CORE2 processors double it speed?!


you mean this NEW Core2 I just added to my other message?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > PS - did you know the new Pentium Core2 @ Â£45 can outperform a number of the CORE2 processors double it speed?!
> ...


No.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

If you want some benchmarks to look at, go to Tomshardware.com

You can add in processors for each benchmark - obviously some of the new ranges do not feature in those tables - but it gives you a fair idea.

For me I like to see a cpu with a decent level of cache - in some cases makes lesser powered cpus faster than those rated higher but with less cache.


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

vlastan said:


> Thanks
> 
> What about this?
> 
> ...


I bought this a few months back as it seemed the best in terms of price/performance point of view.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

E6850 all the way. Can't think of anything I do that will make use of a Quad Core. It's not even a proper quad core setup (which is why the Q6600 is so cheap nowadays).

You can clock the E6850 up well beyond 4GHz if outright speed floats your boat. 8)


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

QuackingPlums said:


> E6850 all the way. Can't think of anything I do that will make use of a Quad Core. It's not even a proper quad core setup (which is why the Q6600 is so cheap nowadays).
> 
> You can clock the E6850 up well beyond 4GHz if outright speed floats your boat. 8)


Interesting reading.

The Q6600 may be cheap but there is a QX6600 out now and I think it is better. It alos come with double the cache at 8Mbytes.

I can get a very cheap PC with E6850 but the quad core is still pricey especially the QX6680.

I guess it is early days and in the future the quad core will be the future. Taking into account that I keep my PCs for 3 or 4 years then it must be faily good one, don't you think?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

The quad core will actually be short lived - it's replacement is already on the horizon!

Never plan to build a pc around future-proofing it - plan it around what you can afford and what you need it for!

TBH, esp if buying new, I'd be more worried about the graphics card. Card's can cost upto Â£500, run at ridiculous speeds, give you frame rates that are meaningless, need a small powerstation to run them all to them & support an api that's not even inductry standard yet!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

256MB nVidiaâ„¢ GeForce 8600GTS graphics card

SINGLE 768MB nVidiaÂ® GeForceÂ® 8800 GTX graphics card

So from the two cards above is the second card an overkill for today?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

vlastan said:


> 256MB nVidiaâ„¢ GeForce 8600GTS graphics card
> 
> SINGLE 768MB nVidiaÂ® GeForceÂ® 8800 GTX graphics card
> 
> So from the two cards above is the second card an overkill for today?


The 320mb 8800 GTS from BFG gets good write ups,I was planning on going for the BFG 8800 GTS 640mb


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> 256MB nVidiaâ„¢ GeForce 8600GTS graphics card
> 
> SINGLE 768MB nVidiaÂ® GeForceÂ® 8800 GTX graphics card
> 
> So from the two cards above is the second card an overkill for today?


768mb - That's soooooooooooooooo funny. Anyway, what resolution do you run your games at? Do you play C&C @ 1600x1200?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

saint said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > 256MB nVidiaâ„¢ GeForce 8600GTS graphics card
> ...


Why 768 is so funny. This is actually running in a single slot but they do another card that takes two slots in the motherboard.

I have no idea if 1600x1200 will be a good resolution to play as I am not able to run it now. But 1024x768 is not as good as I would like and I have most graphics at low or medium quality. But again my PC is four years old now, so I did not expect better.

So would a 256Mbytes card be good enough for me and C&C and the new Halo 3 and max quality settings?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Ok V - you're all over the place. One thing I should have asked..... Are you buying a complete new pc system?

1600x1200 will require a couple of things - a monitor that supports it, a video card able to pump out to that resolution & ofc a system able to support it.

Halo3 will only run on Microsoft Vista.

"DirectX10" is not supported by all cards and at the moment there are few and far between games actually using it.

If you are going for a new system take these options into consideration.(some you've already touched on)

Intel Core2 Quad or Duo CPU 
Microsoft Vista x64 (Home Premium or Ultimate - pointless having x64 bit cpu and keeping it to run x86 bit code)
If you must run Windows XP make it the x64 version (no Halo 3 or furture support for DX10)
Atleast 2gb of DDR3 Ram (CPU/Motherboard dependant) - prefer 4gb
PCI-e Video Card 512mb Ati Radeon X1950XTX or nVidia 8800GTS
500GB SATA2 HD (forget about raid configurations)
Sound - most decent level motherboards have very good sound support these days with plenty of options. Creative have let themselves down badly with very poor driver support of late - only consider a Creative X-FI based card is you really must & only if you you like to tell people you have one.... not much use otherwise.

PS - the reason I laugh at 768mb is - big number don't mean good numbers & memory on a video card is used to move/store textures - what really counts is the gpu core speed & memory speed & architecture


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Core 2 quad is a bit expensive still.

I thought Raid 0 is a good idea.

Memory comes at two speeds these days. 667 and 800. But 800 is so expensive. So it is better to have 2G at 800 or 4G at 667?

I agree with the rest.

BTW it is for a new PC.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Core2 Quad is still expensive - Core2 Duo excellent bang for buck! Any of the new Core2 Duo's will be a huge upgrade for a 4 yr old pc.

Forget raid unless you have a number of drives in your machine and can afford to mirror & stripe. SATA2 coupled with a good 7200rpm 16mb cache HD will give you excellent performance.

The memory you get is dictated by the CPU requirements - if you have a CPU that requires 800, 1066 or 1333 RAM you have to get that. You can, if a CPU requires 800, put in 1066 as it will be backwards compatible.

"So it is better to have 2G at 800 or 4G at 667? " <-- does not work that way


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

I have a BFG 8800 Ultra - it runs STALKER very smoothly with all settings turned up to max and the World In Conflict demo looks awesome. As far as I can tell the only thing that DX10/Vista gives me is clouds-with-shadows, so given that XP runs this at about 10 fps faster than Vista, I'm yet to be convinced of the whole DX10 thing. :?

As Saint says about quad cores - the current batch ("X" or otherwise) are a bit poor and about to be replaced. They aren't even really proper quad cores - they're two dual core dies set side by side. This has some pretty serious performance-degrading issues that I won't go into here, suffice to say that they're no better than dual-core in the majority of cases. I would venture to say that games make up most of those cases.

By the way, Core2 Duo chips run VERY cool - if you are planning on overclocking then spend the money on good memory/motherboard rather than the latest fancy coolers. My E6750 runs 6C @ 3.9GHz with one system fan. It wasn't after I built it that I realised that this could almost be passively cooled.

Oh, and unless you install 64 bit Windows (XP or Vista) and run 64 bit apps, you're limited to 2Gb per process. 4Gb is a waste of money unless you need to have lots of REALLY big documents open simultaneously!
I would go for 2Gb of good quality DDR2-800 ram. The OCZ Reaper pairs are good (and Aria were selling these for <Â£100 a few weeks ago) and are rated all the way up to 1.1GHz I think. DDR3 is a waste of money - if you're considering overclocking then memory speed isn't going to be your problem with these chips.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Watch the DDR Quakers - some of the newer Cores require 1066, JC has a 1066fsb cpu, and tbh 4gb in a Vista environment is not overkill.

DirectX does not exist any longer hence my "DX10" it's a term that's incorrectly used. There is no "DX10" for XP and never will be so taking XP and running a "DX10" card is pointless. It's also a whole new API quite removed from DX.


----------



## MonTheFish (Jul 6, 2005)

My ideal spec would be:

Core 2 Duo E6750 Dual Core Processor (2.66GHz, 2x2MB, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775 Socket T) 
Zalman CNPS9500 fan 
500 GB Western Digital WD5000YS SATA x2 
BFG 680i SLI nForce Intel socket 775 DDR2 ATX 
100Corsair 2GB Kit (2x1GB) DDR2 800MHz PC2 6400 XMS2 Memory Non ECC Unbuffered CL4(4 4 4 12) E.P.P.DHX Technology Lifetime x2 
EVGA 8800GTS 640MB DDR3 320bit Dual DVI PCI E 
Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series 
Samsung Lightscribe DVD Burner SH-S182M 
Antec Nine Hundred - Gaming Case 
OCZ GameXStream 1010W PSU.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

no x-fi


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

saint said:


> Watch the DDR Quakers - some of the newer Cores require 1066


Sorry, I did mean 1066. That's some typo - not sure you can get DDR-800 running at 1.1GHz! :lol:



saint said:


> and tbh 4gb in a Vista environment is not overkill.


I agree, especially with 64bit, but threads are still limited to 2gb each. :?

Having said that, since Vista has a 700mb footprint 2gb no longer looks as big as it once was...! 

My X-fi card is has a very nice looking "Fatal1ty" LED on it, but besides that it doesn't do a great deal. Creative have done an appalling job in getting drivers out for Vista so unless u want to install OpenAL then EAX effects won't work on it. Bah.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Monthefish, sorry m8 I've just knicked your ideal spec.... well some of it... I'll tell you how I get on :wink:

E6750, Crucial 4gb PC6400, Gigabyte P35 Express 775 (c/w DTS Audio), 2x 500gb WB RE2, ZEROtherm Low Porfile CF900. (Scared cos the first time in 3 years am moving away from water cooling)

Will retain X850XT for now with the possibility of removing my Audigy 2 ZS..... though I have just got the creative console to work on x64.


----------



## MonTheFish (Jul 6, 2005)

hoping to place an order in the next couple of days


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I decided to place my order with Mesh today. Here is what I went for.

System Price Qty Total 
Xtreme GTS Quad Pro 
System Base Price: Â£ 977.87
IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad Q6600 Quad Core Processor(2.4GHz,8MB Cache,1066MHz)
Genuine Windows Vistaâ„¢ Home Premium Edition
Digital & Analogue TV Tuner PCI Card
Aluminium ATX Midi Tower + 550W PSU - Black
PCI-Express Mainboard - SLI nForce 650i SLI(C55) - Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad-Core - ATX
4GB DDR2 667MHz Memory -( 4x 1GB )
1TB (2x 500GB) Serial ATA Hard Drive with 16MB Buffer [upg Â£ 30.00]
LightScribe Super Format 18x Dual Layer DVD Writer +R/-R/RW/RAM
320MB nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS - Dual DVI, HDTV, TV-Out
24" LCD Widescreen TFT Monitor + built in speakers Iiyama B2403WS [upg Â£ 125.00]
Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Sound Card (oem)
Creative Labs Inspire T7900 - 7.1 Surround with Subwoofer [upg Â£ 35.00]
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard + MX Revolution Cordless Rechargeable Laser Mouse [upg Â£ 79.00]
Fre! e MicrosoftÂ® WorksÂ® 8.5 + 60 Days Microsoft Office Trial
Free Cyberlink Video Editing Suite - 7 titles (oem)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
2x IEEE1394 Firewire (onboard)
1x Gigabit LAN (onboard)
Multi-format Memory Card Reader
Gold - 2 Years On Site Service - UK Mainland Only (Home Service)
Â£ 1191.49 1 Â£ 1191.49

Order Value Â£ 1246.87 
Discount Â£ 55.38 
Subtotal Â£ 1191.49 
VAT Â£ 208.51 
Total Â£ 1400.00


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Porsche drivers ,more money than sense ,build your own :wink:


----------



## MonTheFish (Jul 6, 2005)

if your hoping to play all the new games at top res you would be better with a gfx card with more memory...the sort of resolutions you'll be running for a 24" monitor will need a little more memory to run at full detail.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

The 320mb GTS is one step down from the TOP 640mb GTX - GTS will easily cope with any game DX9 or "DX10" in resolutions upto 1600x1200. They are the same card - the GTS being slightly crippled.

With a 24" WS he'll be using a max of 1920x1200 - there will prolly be a few games actually able to support that resolution therefore he won't be playing on it.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Am amazed to see no NORTON


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

saint said:


> With a 24" WS he'll be using a max of 1920x1200 - there will prolly be a few games actually able to support that resolution therefore he won't be playing on it.


NO games will play satisfactorily at that resolution even on an overclocked 8800 Ultra... not with all the settings turned up anyway, and why wouldn't you whack up all the settings if you've effectively just paid Â£400 just to have all those settings available?! That's like ordering magnetic ride and then never driving it hard enough to need it!

I downgraded to a 22" WS for that reason - at 1650x1050 native resolution (1 to 1 pixel mapping so no interpolation) I can run everything at maximum detail. Yes it has fewer pixels than my non-gaming rig, but it's worth it I can tell you. 8)


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> Porsche drivers ,more money than sense ,build your own :wink:


Actually I did look at this too. If I was to buy all this kit it would be cheaper. For example the monitor is about Â£320 and the processor around Â£200, the mouse is Â£70, the graphics card Â£250...the components are NOT cheap at all to buy individually. I just listed 5 components above and they cost already 60% of the cost of the PC.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

QuackingPlums said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > With a 24" WS he'll be using a max of 1920x1200 - there will prolly be a few games actually able to support that resolution therefore he won't be playing on it.
> ...


I didn't actually say that I want to run games at that resolution. I would probably use 1600x1200 or the equivalent in widescreen format.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

vlastan said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > Porsche drivers ,more money than sense ,build your own :wink:
> ...


You can get the next card up for Â£239 the 640mb version,not so much the price as being able to get exactly what you want .Obviously money to a man of your means... :wink: . There are a lot of differences between the same spec cards from different manufacturers


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > wallsendmag said:
> ...


You mean the 768mb version? Â£239 extra....this is a bit too much money actually just for a graphics upgrade. A graphics card that costs more than a complete low end computer system!!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

vlastan said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


No the bfg 8800 gts 640mb here 
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/125328


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Well, the addition of a 1333fsb Duo with the G0 stepping, 2gb Ram and AIR COOLING  .... Vista x64 kindly rates itself @ 5.9


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

vlastan said:


> I didn't actually say that I want to run games at that resolution. I would probably use 1600x1200 or the equivalent in widescreen format.


Yeah, I know you didn't, but for me, my gaming rig needs to give me the best performance that the components can give - if I can't run my games at the max resolution that the screen will support, then I'm not going to put up with up-scaling. It's 1-to-1 pixel mapping or nothing for me! 

I guess not many people have multiple PCs like I do so if the machine is going to be a general workhorse then you'll have to compromise. Not a bad compromise though!



saint said:


> Vista x64 kindly rates itself @ 5.9


Nice!!! I can only manage 5.9 in mine with Raptors, but one broke and now with Samsungs in Vista rates itself at a measly 5.8 

The latest NVidia beta drivers give me almost 500 extra 3DMarks though ('06) 8) - worth a punt if you haven't tried them yet!


----------

