new cpu or stick with current?

Hello all,

I have an e6600 OCed to 3.38GHz on a P5W DH deluxe, I have the possibility to get a new CPU (I am not paying for it) and I have three choices...

a) E6850
b) Q6600
c) Stick with current CPU

I play games from time to time, but I am not a hardcore gamer, I use this PC mainly for work.

I use a lot of Apache, virtual machines(linux, XP), Delphi, PHPed, some GIS software, some photoshop, some flash, Winamp (all the time), divx player and lot of other appz.

sometimes I have several programs running at the same time: apache server, a virtual machine, winamp, thunderbird, multiple firefox windows, ftp client, etc etc...

No video editing, no video encoding, no 3D rendering.

So, having in mind that if I get a new CPU, I will OC it, my question are:

- Wich one of the listed processors is the best for my needs?
- Can I OC the Q6600 the same as the e6600?
- Can I OC the e6850 to more than 3.4GHz?, Notice that my mobo has a 975 chipset and Although it supports 1333 mhz with newer bios, it only has a 1066 bus
- The quadcore is supposed to perform better on multitasking or multithreaded software, is there a BIG impact on single thread software, is it noticeable?

I am very confused, some say that e6600 is better than the q6600, some benchmarks give the victory to the q6600 over the e6600 and even over the e8500. But in my case, I may be limited by the modo, wich I won't change it right now.

regards.

4core is that way 2 go buddy, and it will depend on the cpu, as always but you might reach even higher speed with a 4core.

 I think upgrading has steps: it isn't advantageous to jump on Industry units.

Industry works in very small units (E6600 -> E6850 -> Q6600) when launching new products, but buyer, once acquired one, must wait for several units, until the cost / benefit ratio goes to next stage. That is: If CPU is working well, advance with HD's, Gigabit, etc., wait a time for software adaptation (best kernel and applications multi-threading, etc.).

I have seen some benchmarks, but not statistically significant  cost / benefit ratio differences in series:  E6600 -> E6850 -> Q6600.

Regards.

I would have to agree, but you did say you're not paying for it... how's that?

I'd go with the Q6600....expecially if you aren't paying for it.  Single threaded apps will not see any benefit with an increase in core count.  The only benefit you will see is if you are running a number of single threaded apps at once.  The system will multitask with greater ease.  Given that you are running virtual servers, I would expect that a quad core processor will really help system performance. 

The only advantage of a dual core processor is they do tend to overclock better.  With only 2 cores (compared to 4) they have a lower thermal output.  This lower thermal output increases your chances of getting a higher overclock.  This isn't always guaranteed.  My highest clocking E6600 would run up to 3.8Ghz, while my current Q6600 isn't much further behind at 3.73Ghz.

Hello,

I followed some of the advices and finally I got a new Q6600, but I had to get a new MoBo also, a Gigabyte P35-DS4.

I have a couple of weeks with it and it's doing great, I also overclocked it to 3.6GHz, compared to the 3.38GHz that gave me the e6600.

regards.


 

Congratulations! 

  Why had you to get a new MoBo (a Gigabyte P35-DS4)?

What failed?

egonlucas:

  Why had you to get a new MoBo (a Gigabyte P35-DS4)?

What failed?

Nothing failed,in fact I was really happy with my Asus MoBo, but I wanted it to be fully compatible with quad core.