I decided to build a windows XP machine and I am look to double check my decisions and ask questions.
currently it has an E8400 with 4gb ram, integrated g33 graphics until I can free up my Radeon HD 6850 and is 32 bit win XP PRO.
Should I change the E8400 for a Q6600?
Are their any other add-in cards that I could try to find and add?
I have a Soundblaster Extreme X-FI in their already.
Thanks to everyone in advance
It is XP - wouldn’t be much had for a 4Core. +If anything, that E8400 would operate at higher freq., have better FSB dialogue and better L2Cache/Core ratio… What are was you doing for storage?
I’m currently just using a 1tb 7200RPM hard drive since I know their is problems with SSD’s and TRIM
Never tried an SSD, for XP Boot Drive.
Recently went with a high rpm HDD [74GB 10K], towards an XP-Box build.
You can get XP trim software from the vendor it’s from like Samsung or Intel, just make sure it’s a compatible drive
I’d stick with the e8400, overclocked you can get to 3Ghz or there abouts on the q6600, e8400 can get to 3.6-3.8
Games didn’t really use more than 2 cores until win7 era
just looked at benchmarks and the only processor that really beat the E8400 was the Core 2 EXTREME Q9770 which says alot.
3.8GHz is like EZ OC preset on a mid-range board. E8400 can do 4.5GHz+. 500FSB isn’t terribly difficult if you’ve got any of the higher quality boards (P45/X48/790i). In fact OP you can often times find really decent 775 boards online for like $50. I saw an ASUS P5N-T Deluxe (780i but not too low end) for exactly that price earlier today. The venerable EP45 series from Gigabyte are also sometimes down in that $45-$55 price range.
Because of the above, but also because Wolfdale was effectively half of Yorkfield. Those Q/QX9xxx chips are just two Wolfdale dies stuck together, so it makes sense that a 3GHz Wolfdale is not looking too bad compared to a 3.2GHz Yorkfield (outside of tests that actually use 4+ cores). The E8400/8500 and somewhat uncommon E8600 are the best balance for performance, thermals, and overclocking to the moon.
Looking at the motherboard (which i bought for €34 with the CPU, RAM and postage) I have a G31 chipset the base clocks seem pretty decent to me.
I also don’t like overclocking in the first place.
Q6600 was a great CPU and will help if you’re doing anything in the background like say… anti-malware, etc.
If its just for games though the dual core will clock higher.
That said if its a particular stepping q6600 from memory they overclock very well.
Yeah stick with the e8400 then
i know the q6600 was a good overclocker and would happily run at 3.6ghz.
the e8400 on the other hand can hit 4ghz+
performance wise its pretty close on lightly threaded gaming.(think starcraft 2) but you would get a bump on some games just for having the extra cores on the q6600.(battle field 3 +10 fps with the same gpu).
if its just a show and tell pc for keepsakes then it wont really matter which you choose although the q66 would be more representative of the core 2 era.
as that was pretty much the high watermark for gamers in cost to performance at the time.
anyways have fun with it…
yeah, my vote would be q6600 as per above.
it was the quintessential processor of the era. good clocks and the cores to handle random shit in the background that any windows box tends to have.
my q6600 on intel desktop board + nvidia 8800 GTS was the most stable, hassle free machine i ever had. it ran everything amazingly well too.
This topic was automatically closed 273 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
