Which is better Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 or AMD Phenom 9850

[Zebra 9]

Ok I'm thinking of building myself a new gaming system. I'm trying to keep it under 600 bucks (or there abouts).
So far I've got:
Nvida GeForce 9800 512 MB Video Card $129.99
OCZ Platinum 4GB Memory $64.99
Black Raidmax Sagitta 2 Case $79.99

Now I'm stumped with the Processor. I want a quad core. So I narrowed it down to the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ($179.99) with the NVIDIA nForce 750i Intel Motherboard ($169.99). This would give me a total cost of $624.95, but with a special motherboard/memory combo deal it would only cost $574.95. I was all happy, a sweet system for under 600 bucks, but then I was looking at a comparison of this CPU with the AMD Phenom 9850 BLACK EDITION. Since they seemed to be fairly comparable in the comparison I decided to compare prices. The AMD processor is only $159.99 and I would probably get the ASUS M3A78 AMD Motherboard ($79.99). This would cost me a total of $514.95, a savings of $60!!! So what I want to know is which processor is better or is there a better one? Also since I listed everything I guess this would be a good time to ask if my selections are good, I believe they are compatible. Merry Christmas and thanks in advance.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

With that kind of budget, forget a quad core. Go for a faster Dual Core instead, it will serve you better for your needs.

 

[Zelig]

With that kind of budget, forget a quad core. Go for a faster Dual Core instead, it will serve you better for your needs.

I strongly disagree. A higher Ghz dual-core dual core is going to be negligibly faster at best, and significantly slower at worst, while not saving much money. To save much money you need to go with a dual-core that's slower Ghz-wise, which is simply going to be slower in all circumstances.

The Q6600 and Phenom 9850 are both pretty much worth what you pay for, the Q6600 is faster, but it's appropriately more expensive.

Check the specs on the motherboards to make sure about exactly what features you're getting with each, given such a price difference.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I strongly disagree. A higher Ghz dual-core dual core is going to be negligibly faster at best, and significantly slower at worst, while not saving much money. To save much money you need to go with a dual-core that's slower Ghz-wise, which is simply going to be slower in all circumstances.

The Q6600 and Phenom 9850 are both pretty much worth what you pay for, the Q6600 is faster, but it's appropriately more expensive.

Check the specs on the motherboards to make sure about exactly what features you're getting with each, given such a price difference.

For the same price as a Q6600 you can get a E8500 which, for the majority of applications, will beat the Q6600 simply due to a higher clock speed. Plus a E8500 can be pushed to 4ghz on air cooling, giving it a massive boost. The Q6600 is a good quad core, but only if you're looking for a quad core. On a 600$ budget, you probably want to get the most speed out of your processor.
With a 9800GT, you're not going to do any very high end gaming, so the GPu will probably bottleneck more often than the CPU. Therefore, having 4 cores wont really matter.

You can save a bit more money and get a E8400 and OC it to higher speeds. Then spend the extra money on a more powerful GPU.

 

[Jazzmail]

I strongly disagree. A higher Ghz dual-core dual core is going to be negligibly faster at best, and significantly slower at worst, while not saving much money.

Stickciv is right. This is coming from a gamer's perspective, but quad core barely makes any difference. Very little. The games industry has just recently started to make proper use of 2 cores.
You can upgrade to quad core for an apple and an egg, by the time games benefit from having more than 2 cores.

To save much money you need to go with a dual-core that's slower Ghz-wise, which is simply going to be slower in all circumstances.

No. Performance improvements are almost lineair with clock speed. This is good.

Don't get a slow one, but atleast get a core2 at 2.4ghz or higher.

 

[GVBN]

Buy a cheap dual core like E5200 ($82.99 on newegg), overclock it and spend the rest of the money on a better video card. Gives you a far better framerate than some expensive CPU + 9800GT

 

[Zelig]

For the same price as a Q6600 you can get a E8500 which, for the majority of applications, will beat the Q6600 simply due to a higher clock speed.

For a majority of single-appication tests, the dual will beat the quad by a small amount. For anything that loads more than 2 cores, the quad will beat the dual by a huge amount.

Plus a E8500 can be pushed to 4ghz on air cooling, giving it a massive boost.

The Q6600 can just as easily be pushed to 3GHz, giving it an even larger boost in anything loading more than 2 cores. I would never take a dual a 4GHz over a quad at 3Ghz.

The Q6600 is a good quad core, but only if you're looking for a quad core.

Which the OP said he was doing.

On a 600$ budget, you probably want to get the most speed out of your processor.

That's what you're doing on any budget. A Q6600 is going to result in better performance overall, for most people, than a similarly priced dual core.

With a 9800GT, you're not going to do any very high end gaming, so the GPu will probably bottleneck more often than the CPU. Therefore, having 4 cores wont really matter.

With a 9800GT and a quad, you can play GTA IV with high settings at 1920x1200. With a dual core, it's going to struggle at any settings, and any resolution.

You can save a bit more money and get a E8400 and OC it to higher speeds. Then spend the extra money on a more powerful GPU.

Not worth it for a slower processor compared to a quad, if you want to save money, you have to do like GVBN suggests, and get one that's significantly cheaper.

Stickciv is right. This is coming from a gamer's perspective, but quad core barely makes any difference. Very little. The games industry has just recently started to make proper use of 2 cores.
You can upgrade to quad core for an apple and an egg, by the time games benefit from having more than 2 cores.

Yes, the gaming industry has just recently started releasing games using more than 2 cores. So if you want to nicely play games that have been coming out just recently, you need a quad.

No. Performance improvements are almost lineair with clock speed. This is good.

Except in the many situations where more than 2 cores get used, in which case performance improvements are linear with the number of cores.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

For a majority of single-appication tests, the dual will beat the quad by a small amount. For anything that loads more than 2 cores, the quad will beat the dual by a huge amount.

Please, feel free to state your source.

The Q6600 can just as easily be pushed to 3GHz, giving it an even larger boost in anything loading more than 2 cores. I would never take a dual a 4GHz over a quad at 3Ghz.

You wouldnt, because you have the money and use for a quad core. Maybe the OP cannot utilize it as much.

Which the OP said he was doing.

OP, why do you want a quad core? Majority of your apps can utilize 4 cores?

That's what you're doing on any budget. A Q6600 is going to result in better performance overall, for most people, than a similarly priced dual core.

ONLY, and ONLY, if the majority of applications support more than 2 cores.

With a 9800GT and a quad, you can play GTA IV with high settings at 1920x1200. With a dual core, it's going to struggle at any settings, and any resolution.

Thats largely a problem of the GTA IV engine, not the processor. With a high-spec'd dual core and a 9800GTX+, you can probably run GTA IV at 1920x1200. Problem is, even GTX 280's struggle with GTA IV on high resolutions. Why would you want to run a game at such a high res with no graphical goodies?

Not worth it for a slower processor compared to a quad, if you want to save money, you have to do like GVBN suggests, and get one that's significantly cheaper.

Then you get something like the E8200 which is a chunk cheaper than a Q6600 but can still go a lot farther.

[/quote]
Yes, the gaming industry has just recently started releasing games using more than 2 cores. So if you want to nicely play games that have been coming out just recently, you need a quad.
[/quote] By the time those kinds of games become widespread and having a quad core ACTUALLY matters, the Q9xxx series will be at the same price point as the Q6600.

Except in the few situations where more than 2 cores get used, in which case performance improvements are linear with the number of cores.

There, I corrected that for you.

 

[Zelig]

Please, feel free to state your source.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/index.php
Not a single game runs below 60 fps on the Q6600, while the quads destroy the duals for non-gaming, processor intensive applications:

You wouldnt, because you have the money and use for a quad core. Maybe the OP cannot utilize it as much.

No, I wouldn't because quads are faster than dual cores. I don't, becuase I don't have the money, and my personal machine is still running a dual core from 2005. However, paying as much, or close to as much, for a dual core as a quad core now, would be a mistake.

ONLY, and ONLY, if the majority of applications support more than 2 cores.

Or if the person multitasks. Dual cores didn't ONLY increase performance when people ONLY used multithreaded applications.

Thats largely a problem of the GTA IV engine, not the processor. With a high-spec'd dual core and a 9800GTX+, you can probably run GTA IV at 1920x1200. Problem is, even GTX 280's struggle with GTA IV on high resolutions. Why would you want to run a game at such a high res with no graphical goodies?

Did you read what I posted? A high-spec'd dual core and a 9800GTX+ will NOT run GTA IV nicely at high settings at any resolutions. It's a CPU bottleneck. The 280 GTX doesn't struggle with GTA IV, slow processors struggle with GTA IV.

Q6600 + 9800GTX + GTA IV gets better performance than E8500 + GTX 280 + GTA IV.

There, I corrected that for you.

I could do the same thing to your post, but I won't.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/index.php
Not a single game runs below 60 fps on the Q6600, while the quads destroy the duals for non-gaming, processor intensive applications:
--picture--

Again, please state your source where is says that a E8400 would lose out to a Q6600 in the majority of tasks?
As far as I can tell, looking at THG charts, the E8400 and E8500 have an advantage over the Q6600 save for a few benchmarks. Same goes for the cheaper E8200.

No, I wouldn't because quads are faster than dual cores. I don't, becuase I don't have the money, and my personal machine is still running a dual core from 2005. However, paying as much, or close to as much, for a dual core as a quad core now, would be a mistake.

Again, please provide evidence that a Q6600 is faster than an E8200, 8400, or 8500 in the majority of applications.

I dont want some benchmarks from a year ago comparing the Q6600 to a QX6700 and E6700.

Or if the person multitasks. Dual cores didn't ONLY increase performance when people ONLY used multithreaded applications.

My single core P4 let me multitask fine. Apps nowadays are good about suspending operation when focus is away from them. And in any case, if you need to multitask, you can always hit suspend in process explorer to pause the app. Then, when you need to go back to it, you resume it and presto.

Did you read what I posted? A high-spec'd dual core and a 9800GTX+ will NOT run GTA IV nicely at high settings at any resolutions. It's a CPU bottleneck. The 280 GTX doesn't struggle with GTA IV, slow processors struggle with GTA IV.

Q6600 + 9800GTX + GTA IV gets better performance than E8500 + GTX 280 + GTA IV.

nonono, your first comment was that a Q6600 and a 9800GT would run GTA IV fine at 1920x1200. It doesnt
HardOCP recently had an article on GTA IV performance:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU5Niw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
If you look at the bottom, a HD4850 running on a quad Core i7 doesnt get very good frame rates. Therefore, your whole argument that a Q6600 + 9800GT can run it at 1920x1200 goes out the window. That game is bottlenecked by the GPu a lot more than the CPU.

 

[Zelig]

Again, please state your source where is says that a E8400 would lose out to a Q6600 in the majority of tasks?
As far as I can tell, looking at THG charts, the E8400 and E8500 have an advantage over the Q6600 save for a few benchmarks. Same goes for the cheaper E8200.

Well, the driverheaven review is valid for the most part, there isn't going to be much of a difference between the E8500 and the X6800.

In any case:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8500_wolfdale/page6.asp
Summary of results, gaming:
Crysis: Equal performance between the Q6600@2.4GHz and E8500@4.17GHz.
Lost Planet: Equal performance between the Q6600@2.4GHz and E8500@4.17GHz.
Half-Life 2 Episode 2: Equal performance between the Q6600@2.4GHz and E8500@4.17GHz.
Company of Heroes: Equal performance between the Q6600@2.4GHz and E8500@4.17GHz.
Call of Duty 4: Equal performance between the Q6600@2.4GHz and E8500@4.17GHz.
Windows Media Encoder 9: 22% faster on the E8500@4.17GHz.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/668/4/
Summary of results, non-gaming:
Photodex ProShow Gold 3.2: 30% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
Sony Vegas 8.0b: 20% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
Microsoft Excel 2007 test #1: 33% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
Microsoft Excel 2007 test #2: 25% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
Cinebench R9.5: 11% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
Cinebench R10: 22% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
POV-Ray 3.7 Beta 25: 33% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.
POV-Ray Real-Time Raytracing: 20% faster on the Q6600 vs. the E8500.

My single core P4 let me multitask fine. Apps nowadays are good about suspending operation when focus is away from them. And in any case, if you need to multitask, you can always hit suspend in process explorer to pause the app. Then, when you need to go back to it, you resume it and presto.

That's not multitasking, and it should be obvious how much slower doing one task at a time is going to be than doing them simultaneously.

I'm forced to use single core Pentium 4's on occasion, and their poor performance compared to modern processors is crippling to my regular efficiency.

nonono, your first comment was that a Q6600 and a 9800GT would run GTA IV fine at 1920x1200. It doesnt
HardOCP recently had an article on GTA IV performance:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU5Niw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
If you look at the bottom, a HD4850 running on a quad Core i7 doesnt get very good frame rates. Therefore, your whole argument that a Q6600 + 9800GT can run it at 1920x1200 goes out the window. That game is bottlenecked by the GPu a lot more than the CPU.

My mistake there, I read/typed quickly. A 9800GTX+ (as opposed to a 9800GT, $55 difference) outperforms the HD 4870 in GTA IV, and is able to play the game at 1920x1200, given a good processor.

I'm not going to waste my time googling GTA IV benchmarks for you, it's well known that the GTA IV is a CPU intensive game, and will have a CPU bottleneck on dual-core systems unless you've got a crap video card.

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=379334

 

[Zebra 9]

Ok, I want a quad because I DO multitask heavily (like 5-10 separate programs is normal). Also, I don't want to OC since its something I've never done before and don't want to learn how to do yet (call me lazy if you want). So my video card isn't that great. Is there a better one that is comparably priced or priced maybe like $50 more?
Thanks.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Ok, I want a quad because I DO multitask heavily (like 5-10 separate programs is normal). Also, I don't want to OC since its something I've never done before and don't want to learn how to do yet (call me lazy if you want). So my video card isn't that great. Is there a better one that is comparably priced or priced maybe like $50 more?
Thanks.

Now Im going to recommend the Q6600. And you really should OC it, at least a bit. Its a great way to get more performance out of your CPU. Both HardOCP and THG forums have a thread on how to OC C2D/Q processors

The 9800GT is a great card for the price category in which you will find it. As Zelig said, the 9800GTX+ is 55$ more and can compete with the HD 4870 1GB.
If you do go with an nVidia GPU, get a motherboard that supports SLi ( Like the 750i you had picked out) so in 6 months you can get a second 9800GT and boost your performance.

 

[Zelig]

Ok, I want a quad because I DO multitask heavily (like 5-10 separate programs is normal). Also, I don't want to OC since its something I've never done before and don't want to learn how to do yet (call me lazy if you want). So my video card isn't that great. Is there a better one that is comparably priced or priced maybe like $50 more?
Thanks.

A 9800GTX+ (as opposed to a 9800GT, $55 difference)

The 4850 is probably the best deal at a bit more than the 8800GT/9800GT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121272

The 9800GTX+ would be an easy choice if it were the same price as the 4850, but it isn't even faster than the 4850 in all games, so I'd be hard pressed to say it's a better deal:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143166

edit: As stickciv said, the 9800gt is a good card for the price. It's hard to go really wrong with video card purchases if you order off newegg, in any case, both AMD and Nvidia have quality cards all across the price spectrum.

 

[Zebra 9]

Would I be able to put a second 4850?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

If you get a motherboard that supports crossfire then yes. Motherboards with the P45 intel chipset will support it and are probably of the best quality/feature set for a midrange board ( save the lack of SLi support. Damn you nVidia)

 

[Zebra 9]

So if I wanted to have 2 video cards at some point would it be better (money wise) to (1) get a different mobo and get the 4850, (2) get the mobo I listed and the nVidia, (3) buy a more powerful video card that I would only need one of, or (4) only ever gona need one video card so just get the 4850.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Go with a different motherboard and the HD4850. nVidia's chipsets are sadly pretty lackluster and the only reason you would bbuy a mobo with one is if you're certain you want SLi. But in the end, at your budget, its cheaper to go with a crossfire solution.
And no, considering how resource intensive new games are, you're probably going to want to add a second GPU later on, especially since more and more games can make use of crossfire and SLi.

 

[Zebra 9]

Ok, I'll proly do that then.

 

[Zebra 9]

Ok, real quick, hows this mobo. Any problems with it? I'm just a bit paranoid about the fact that its only $100!