Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

[The_Eliminator]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I have an E8800 and with that and my 4870HD 1024mb i ran everything on all high with very smooth gameplay and a decent FPS to go with it.

[Blood Gunner]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I got a Q9550 from ebay for about $250 shipped. My E6400 was bottle necking my 9800 GTX+ . Made a huge difference as my GPU usage is now 99% as it was 30% before the upgrade. I'm overclocking it to 3400 @ 1.25v. CPU usage is about 75% during game play.

[Namakan]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

BC2 gives my OC'd Q9550 (3.4 Ghz) a work out

[Minmaster]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

whats the easiest way to check CPU usage?

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

whats the easiest way to check CPU usage?

ctrl alt delete bring up the task manager the click the performance tab and click resource monitor

[Vreki]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

ctrl alt delete bring up the task manager the click the performance tab and click resource monitor

It also helps if you have a secondary monitor so you can watch it during the game.
This screenshot is from the Beta, just after exiting the game:

[di di MAU]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Q6600, but overclock that baby to AT LEAST 3.05ghz. Aim for 3.2, but good luck, mine was way too unstable at first at 3.2. I had to mess with voltage and a bunch of other crap until I finally got it stable.

Sorry to go a bit off topic but I noticed your video card is similar to one I was considering purchasing. Was just wondering about how the card performs IG, cheers

btw the card in consideration:
GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked Edition

[The_Mad_MoShah]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

I have the gtx 260 ocx, works well on medium setting IG. Does not drop below 30 fps except on the large maps.

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Don't listen to all the n00bs on here telling you to go for the Q6600 just cos its a Quad and EA say Quad is recommended.

Here are my specs:
E8400 @ 3.84
HD4870 512MB
4GB Ram
Monitor = 16850*1080

Width=1680
Height=1050
Fullscreen=true
RefreshRate=59.883251
VSync=true
[Sound]
Quality=low
VoipEnable=true
SpeakerCount=0
[Graphics]
Effects=high
Soldiers=high
Vehicles=high
Overgrowth=high
Undergrowth=high
StaticObjects=high
Terrain=high
Shadows=high
Bloom=true
HSAO=false
MSAA=1
Water=high
MainQuality=custom
Texture=high
DxVersion=10
Aniso=4
Detail=high
RenderAheadLimit=2
Fov=55

Running Vista 64 in DX10 mode, in the multiplayer game with everything on HIGH and with 4FSAA + 16AA I am getting a solid 60FPS (V-Synch ON)...including times when buildings and trees are all crashing down around me.

I have HBAO turned off as I really dont see what difference it makes and it costs me around 10-15 Frames.

Regardless of the claimed quad core optimisation, the E8500 is better than a Q6600 as it runs a lot faster,cooler and can be overclocked much higher. If I can run the game maxed (as far as DX10 goes) with my setup, then you can surely do the same with your E8500.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Mat, youre a cat and dont know what you are talking about. Its already been proven all over the internet with various quad and dual cores that quad cores work much better than the duals with Bad Company 2. Even dual cores seriously overclocked.

Dont take my word for it, google it and let them umpteen million stats and reviews and tests speak for themselves.

Nice setup btw.

Crunch

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Yeah.....but the Q6600 isn't exactly an i7 or even a Yorkdale Core 2 Duo (Q9650 etc)....

I will bet you any (proverbial) money, that an E8500 would outperform a Q6600 in BF BC2!


EDIT: Haven't found the benches but have found this. The article points out just how insignificant the CPU is when compared to the GPU. Other pages in the same article state how a good dual core CPU is perfectly adequate of running the game (contrary to the advice of all you 'experts').....but I know this as I can see the evidence for myself.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

Yeah, those new processors are very nice.

Crunch

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

q6600 will do what Mat's does at stock settings.

[jake_]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

q6600 will do what Mat's does at stock settings.

A stock q6600 is clocked nearly one full Ghz slower than a stock e8500. A newer C2Q would outperform it, but not a q6600, I don't think. The game isn't so efficient to use all 4 cores or even need them.

[MatTheCat]

Re: Q6600 2.4Ghz Vs. E8500 3.16Ghz

A stock q6600 is clocked nearly one full Ghz slower than a stock e8500. A newer C2Q would outperform it, but not a q6600, I don't think. The game isn't so efficient to use all 4 cores or even need them.

Not to mention the Wolfdale Core 2 Duo's will clock waaayy higher than the hot 65nm Q6600. At the time the Q6600 was released, it was acknowledged that as far as gamers needs went, by the time games were truly utilising 4 cores the Q6600 would be obsolete as a CPU for gaming on. I done a lot of reading at the time and decided to buy the E8400 instead, despite having my heart set on the hotter, slower, more power consuming Q6600.

When EA state 'quad core' as being recommended, what they actually mean is I7. But you get all the kiddies reading this flat 2D information and coming to all kinds of conclusions and posting them as fact.