what processor is better? (1 Viewer)

[Gavvvvvin]

E6850 dual core or Q6600 quad core?

 

[mr_brightside]

depends what you're doing with them

 

[michael1990]

Q6600 quad core- I LIKE

 

[jonno92]

dfghgfhfghfgdhghgdhg

 

[Collin]

depends what you're doing with them

.

 

[Gavvvvvin]

Mainly for recording and audio/video editing.

 

[fiSHtITS]

Amd4lyfe

 

[zehurricane]

Quad is future proof

 

[aaaazzzz]

Q6600
you should compare with E8xxx series
E8xxx series has an advantage over Q6600 on non-multi task based programs

 

[TidyBoi]

Amd4lyfe

Lol no idea. AMD is struggling. They are on NO level with Intel. Absolute demolishment and MANY MANY benchmarks proove it. AMD's quad is a hunk of shit.

Gaming: E8400-E8500
Video rendering/editing/multi-tasking: Without a doubt the Q6600.

 

[Collin]

Lol no idea. AMD is struggling. They are on NO level with Intel. Absolute demolishment and MANY MANY benchmarks proove it. AMD's quad is a hunk of shit.

Gaming: E8400-E8500
Video rendering/editing/multi-tasking: Without a doubt the Q6600.

AMD by no means is competitive with Intel's current high-end offerings, but to dismiss them completely is unfair. Some of their current processors match up quite reasonably to Intel's mid-range Conroes. It depends on what you're after.

 

[TidyBoi]

Not true. Intel's entry-mid level conroe's have GREAT overclocking capability. My secondary e2140 hits stable 3ghz on air cooling.

 

[Collin]

Not true. Intel's entry-mid level conroe's have GREAT overclocking capability. My secondary e2140 hits stable 3ghz on air cooling.

Right, I forgot the well-known fact that everyone overclocks right?

First it was all about the 'MANY MANY benchmarks' which supposedly demonstrates 'absolute demolishment' and now that has reduced down to just OCing for the mid-range, which is so far beyond the point for an average consumer it's not funny.

Don't try to tell me you're not an Intel fanboy.

 

[TidyBoi]

Don't try to tell me you're not an Intel fanboy.

Lol I won't even bother trying to deny it.

I'm talking about win with intel cpu's based on pure grunt and performance you can get out of it.

Seeing both amd and intel at entry level with stock benchmarks, you say they compete fairly well, well I'll check it out.

Anyway, q6600 way to go.

 

[Collin]

Seeing both amd and intel at entry level with stock benchmarks, you say they compete fairly well, well I'll check it out.

Well for someone like yourself, a performance enthusiast (just like myself), Intel is certainly the way to go at the moment. I don't think anyone would deny that. I'm considering building another gaming rig soon, and honestly I'm not considering AMD at all.

My point simply was that being performance enthusiasts can often cause one to delude themselves from the bigger picture - that is it's not all about fancy OCing and the fastest chips. Some of AMD's chips are priced very reasonably at the moment. A friend recently built a new machine around a X2 6400+ ($220) and I found myself rather pleased with it. It stacked up pretty well against similar offerings from Intel, like the E6750. Of course OCing potential is worse, but the vast majority of consumers probably don't even know what OCing is.

 

[nubix]

E8400 ftw; if you can find one

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Some of AMD's chips are priced very reasonably at the moment. A friend recently built a new machine around a X2 6400+ ($220) and I found myself rather pleased with it. It stacked up pretty well against similar offerings from Intel, like the E6750. Of course OCing potential is worse, but the vast majority of consumers probably don't even know what OCing is.

oh my yes.

having said as much, despite only ever using amd chips, i probably wouldn't consider one at this time. give 'em a year or so and they'll be back on track though. i hope this combined graphics/processor thing works out well for them, but i have my doubts.