Bottlenecking

[amplid]

Guys,
Another question here: You think I should go for a q6600 n(haven't budget for more..)? Because with the i7, the core 2 duo will be pretty dated in a couple of years and the pc is supposed to be a good performer for at least 2 years... If all the games go switching to the quads now...

Amplid

 

[Day24]

well, that's really up to you.
Keep in mind that the q6600 IS quad core, BUT it is a 65 nm part. Which means that it will be using up a lot more energy than the E8500 you selected first. And with the current energy prices (which will only go up) you will notice the difference.

Besides that, everyone keeps saying that you will thank them if you go quadcore....but to be honest...there's hardly anything out right now which a normal user needs quad or even dual core for. Though dual core is really nice because then one core handles most of the system tasks, and the other can concentrate on the games or the apps (at least, that's how I usually set my affinities).

Thing is, the q6600 is only a 2.4 GHz CPU.... so whenever you do not use the other cores, you will definitely notice the difference in speed between that and the E8500, which is at 3,16 Ghz. That is a huge jump in speed.

All in all, I would go for the E8500.
Actually...I made this same choice in may....except that I picked the E8400 cos the 8500 wasn't in stock.

 

[sygnus21]

Q6600 = 65nm = 2.4GHz = 1066MHZ = old technology
E8500 = 45nm = 3.16GHz = 1333MHz = newer technology
Even though the Q6600 is a quad, its FSB is 1066MHz, whereas the Duo Core E8500 is 1333MHz

A couple of discussion threads:

Q6600 Vs E8500 for OC & Games - HEXUS.community discussion forums
E8500 or Q6600 - XtremeSystems Forums

Looks like it comes down to Money vs Performance?

 

[amplid]

Hmm well I know about the difference in speed, but I guess I could OC the q6600 safely to 3.0 GHz... It's mostly for the future that the E8500 worries me...

Cheers,

Amplid

 

[Day24]

Depends on how long you see the future....
Think back about 3 or 4 years, when AMD brought out its first dual core. I HAD to get one, cos I didn't want to be left behind, and I thought that soon every single program could take advantage of multiple cores. Well, guess what, programs still can't take advantage of it.

When building a computer it is smart to look at the next 2 to 3 years. And to be honest, I think higher clockspeed will be more advantageous in 3 years time than the two extra cores will be. But that's just my take.
Also, if we look at 3 years from now, energy will be even more expensive.... the q6600 NON overclocked eats up more energy than the e8500 does. How do you think it's going to be when it's overclocked....that's going to cost a bundle in the energy bill.

Again though, that's just my opinion. Though if you had the budget for one of the 45 nm quadcores, I would advise you to go for it....

 

[sygnus21]

Hmmm...I haven't noticed any increase in my electric bill because of my overclocked Q6600 computer

For real though, I haven't.

 

[Day24]

I noticed a total saving of 30 euro's over the past 7 months of having an E8400 as opposed to my old AMD X2 3800+.
Of course, that may be because of my motherboard throttling the CPU automatically if I'm not using all of the CPU's power, but my total electricity bil per month has gone down.

I don't know how electricity bills are done in the US, but here in the Netherlands, we basically pay a set amount per month for a year, then someone comes by to check our meter, and we either have to pay extra according to our actual use, or we get a refund if we haven't used all of what we actually payed for.

I am quite neurotic, I note my electricity usage every week, and calculate how much it costs me per week. That way, I notice differences in usage. That's how I saw a dramatic decrease in my electricity bill when I switched from old fashioned light bulbs to energy saving light bulbs. In the end it saved me about 10 euro's per year per bulb I changed.... And with about 8 to 12 lamps I use regularly, you can imagine the savings on a yearly basis....especially with the electricity prices still going up quite fast where I live...they've doubled in the past few years....

 

[sygnus21]

Well, in case your forgot or didn't know, the Q6600 also throttles back during non-intensive use as well.

BTW I was stationed in the Netherlands between 1992-1994. I lived in Amersfoort. Absolutely love it there No... I didn't pick up the language

 

[Day24]

LOL... you loved Amersfoort or the Netherlands? Cos I definitely understand the latter, but I would NOT understand that you loved Amersfoort......
I live in Leiden, myself, which is basically at the other side of the country from Amersfoort. Lovely city though.

Anyways, back on topic. Actually, I didn't really know whether that was a CPU feature or a motherboard feature. In any case, the TDP of the q6600 is 95W, while that of the E8500 is 65W. Obviously that doesn't mean that much in real world usage, but it's an indication. (weird how intel can double the core while they do not even double the TDP...)
I have a realtime watt meter built into my power supply....My system usually idles (and here I mean idling as browsing the web and watching some media) at around 100 watts. You can't tell me that a full 65 watts of that is the CPU, and only 35 watts is the motherboard, the soundchip, the ethernet chip AND the graphicscard....and I'm not even talking about the 5 hard drives I have in there, and the dvd writer....
So the usage also depends on what you're doing with the computer.

However, having said that....a 65nm part uses more energy than a 45 nm part. AND the 45 nm part has a few improvements in the new stepping they used (as far as I know...correct me if I'm wrong)

again though...whether you go for dual or quad is entirely up to you.... with hindsight, I would have gone for a higer clocked single core back in the days when I bought my amd dual core.... cos the single core would have probably given me more bang for the buck....and would have been cheaper too....

By the way, amplid...I checked alternate for you....and going froma q6600 at 2.4 Ghz to a Q9300 at 2.5 Ghz would be only 60 euro's more. The 9300 IS a 45 nm part....and does have the benefits of the 45 nm parts, including the higher fsb, lower energy consumption, etc.... Oh, and I've found a Dutch webshop which sells the Q9300 for 213 euro's. You could contact them to ask how much they charge for shipping to Belgium.... it's sww.nl
For the cheapest places to buy stuff, amplid, go to tweakers.net and check their pricewatch. It can save you bundles.

 

[sygnus21]

The Netherlands, though Amersfoort wan't bad...i loved being near the Centrum

As to the CPU, maybe it is part of the MB as well. I have an D975XBX2 MB with this feature. Now you have me guessing as to whether it's MB or CPU feature as i'm too lazy to research it at the moment. But know that I will

However, the fact remains that the CPU does throttle down on low periods.

As to TDP, thermo energy and all that jazz, I leave that stuff for the "experts" as that stuff tends to hurt my head after awhile.

Sorry

 

[amplid]

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the 65 or 45 nm difference in quads... When I checked them, I just looked at the clock speeds and noticed that it was 60 euros more for a clock speed increase of 0.1 GHz.. That was silly, I see that now... Well, this may have convinced me, day24, I've got budget for 60 more euros

Thanks again, made up my mind!

Amplid

 

[sygnus21]

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the 65 or 45 nm difference in quads... When I checked them, I just looked at the clock speeds and noticed that it was 60 euros more for a clock speed increase of 0.1 GHz.. That was silly, I see that now... Well, this may have convinced me, day24, I've got budget for 60 more euros

Thanks again, made up my mind!

Amplid

Do tell. Which one are you gettnig?

 

[Day24]

sygnus, I'm thinking he's going for the q9300.
It's quad, 45nm, and only 60 euro's more expensive than the q6600.

And amplid, you are more than welcome!

 

[amplid]

Yah the q9300 indeed

Enjoy your holiday to come!!

Amplid

 

[sygnus21]

Good choice.

And happy holidays to you as well.

Good luck.

 

[kingcarcas]

E7300?????
Are you completely NUTS????
It has half a GHz lower speed, it has half the cache, it has a much lower FSB....
With a GTX260, the processor would then become the bottleneck!!!!!

Ehh, sorry i'm an overclocker, i just see all 45nm dual cores hitting 4ghz with ease. The cache isn't worth the money.