Intel Q6600 Kentsfield or Intel E8400 Wolfdale??? Help me decide which one

[jagabo]

Out of the E8500, Q9550, and I7 920 the 920 wins almost everything:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/compare,830.html?prod[2271]=on&prod[2181]=on&prod[2184]=on

Even on the single threaded Xvid test the 920 matched the higher clocked E8500 and beat the Q9550. The motherboard and memory for the I7 will cost more too though.

[Bergen]

I would also go for the 920 if I were you. The other i7's are a little faster but the price is much higher. Not worth the extra investment and remember you can always upgrade when prices have dropped. For now, go for the i7 920!

Yep prices of the memory and mainboard are higher but you don't need a state-of-the-art monster board. A more expensive board does not mean it will give you advantages.

First of all, if you will not be using the pc for gaming, then don't look for an i7 mainboard with integrated video because I don't think they exist. Buy a 'normal' priced board with a cheap $20 videocard in that case.

I chose the ASUS P6T with a cheap ASUS EN6200 videocard. There is also the ASUS P6T Deluxe mainboard. For what we use the pc for, it does not have any advantages: 8 instead of 6 USB 2.0 ports, 2 instead of 1 ethernet ports and the cooling looks better. Not a reason to pay an extra 20 bucks.

If you still want the P6T Deluxe, then don't be tricked into buying the V2 version. The "V2" part makes you think it's a better version than the normale P6T Deluxe, but in fact the only difference is that ASUS removed the SAS controller because a lot of people asked them to remove it. That's the whole difference, nothing else. See these discussions for example, the last one even includes a confirmation from ASUS about this.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/showthread.php?t=212183
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212837
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/page-255854_12_0.html

And here comes the funny fact: a lot of stores sell the V2 version for a higher price because people think it's better. So make sure to look out for that, if you're going for the Deluxe version instead of the normal P6T.

Now about memory. Of course you need DDR3, but what speed? DDR3 comes in a lot of speeds, ranging from (correct me if I'm wrong) 1066 to 2000 MHz. Which one do you need? That depends on whether you are going to overclock the system or not. If you are not planning to do any overclocking then the memory will run at 6 x 200 = 1200 MHz on the i7 920. This means anything above 1333 MHz memory will not give you any advantages.

We bought Corsair XMS3 memory. Good price and it has heat spreaders which is probably a good thing when you are running long encoding jobs.

So, that's my advice.

[deadrats]

I am having similar dilemmas too -- looking for the best performance / price point. My go-to guy originally recommended E8500; but then suggested for future-proofing purposes I might want to consider Q9550, even though I will only be running 32 bit XP so the two extra processors probably won't be utilized much... But then I read that i7 is the the way to go for encoding HD content (though I can only afford the 920 at this point if I go with i7.) Each step up is roughly an $80 increment, though I'm really confused by the fact that each of the faster CPU has "slower" GHz (been away from computer hardware for a long while and it definitely shows...)

Suggestions?

suggestions? suggestions?!? i have your suggestions RIGHT HERE!!!

seriously though, i am facing a similar dilemma as i have been thinking about an upgrade for a while now and i have done quite a bit of research:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/phenom_ii_x4_810/8.html

tmpg, Q8200 > OC X4 810

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=5

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=7

DivX 6.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3, Q9400 > X4 810 > Q8200

Graysky's x264 HD test, 2nd pass, Q9400 > X4 810 > Q8200

Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation, X4 810 > Q9400

Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation, Q9400 > Q9550 (?!?) > X4 810 > X4 920 (?!?) > Q8200

http://techgage.com/article/amd_phenom_ii_x4_810_x3_720_black_edition/5

TMPGEnc Xpress 4.5, Q9400 > E8500 > Q8200 > X4 810

ProShow Gold, Q8200 > X4 810 > E8600

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/processors/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_810_X3_720_8.html

x264, pass 2, Q9450 > X4 810 > Q8200

Divx 6.8.5 codec 6.6.1 converter, Q9450 > X3 720 > X4 810 > Q8200

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-810_14.html#sect0

Divx 6.8.5, Q8300 > X4 810 > Q8200

x264, X4 810 > Q8300

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid...1&limitstart=9

mainconcept h264, QX6850 > X4 810 > i7 920

dvd shrink 3.2, Q6600 > X4 810

nero 9, Q6600 > X4 810

virtual dub with divx 6.8, sse4 disabled, i7 920 > X4 810 > QX6700

virtual dub with divx 6.8, sse4 enabled, i7 920 > X4 810 > QX6700

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_am3_phenom_2_performance/page5.asp

divx 6.8 with virtual dub 1.8.8, Q9400 > E8400 > X4 810 > Q6600

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3801711__8

TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress MPEG-2, Q9400 > X3 720 > X4 810

TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress DivX, Q9400 > X4 810 > Q6600

TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress High-Definition, Q9400 > X4 810 > Q6600
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-810-and-x3-720be-review-am3/16


H.264 (DD5.1) to x.264 AC3 5.1, X4 810 > Q6600

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyMSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

divx converter 6.6.1 codec 6.8.4, i7 920 > X4 810 > Q8200 (2.6ghz)

TMPGEnc 4.0 XPRESS v4.6.2.266, Q8200 (2.6ghz) > X4 810

after perusing the above links i have come to the following conclusions:

1) i hate benchmarks!!! depending on who is performing the benchmark and the settings used it seems just about any result can be arrived at, among the most outrageous:

the Q8200 being way faster than the X4 810 when both are at stock speeds and the Q8200 being faster even when the X4 810 is overclocked.

the X4 810 being faster than a i7 920 when encoding using main concept's h264.

a Q9400 being faster than a Q9550 under certain encoding tests.

2) under most circumstances an X4 810's performance falls right between the Q9300 and the Q9400.

3) the core i7 should never have been. intel purposely mis-markets (is that a word?) the cpu by claiming it runs at lower speeds than it actually does. for instance, when "turbo mode", i.e. dynamic overclocking, is enabled, the cpu runs at the rated speed only at idle, under any type of load, including applications that fully load all the cores, so long as it is operating under its max tdp, which has teh effect of giving the i7 920 a defacto clock speed of 2.93ghz instead of the rated clock speed of 2.66ghz, which it only has at idle. this has the effect of skewing the benchmarks by making it look better compared to the competition: a 2.93ghz new generation quad core beating a 2.83ghz last generation quad core by 10 percent doesn't look as good as a 2.66ghz new gen quad core beating a 2.83ghz last gen quad core.

using intel's marketing philosophy amd would be justified in marking the X4 810 as a 800mhz quad core since the 810 idles at 800mhz when "cool n quite" is enabled.

furthermore, it's obvious to me that both amd and intel need to stop with the bull shit (which i'm sure is a result of their marketing departments influence) and build the cpu's we know they can. in intel's case they should have taken the quad core penryn and given it the "conroe" treatment:

the original P4 dual cores where just 2 separate chips slapped on the same die, each with a separate L2 and each core communicated with the other via the fsb. with the conroe intel used a unified L2 that either core could fully use (and that they communicated through), they gave the conroe a single cycle SSE engine (SSE has always been a 128 bit instruction but before the conroe cpu's treated SSE instructions as 2 64 bit instructions, meaning it took 2 cycles to execute a single SSE) and the gave 32 bit macrofusion, i.e. the ability to fuse 2 similar 32 bit instructions and execute then as one under certain circumstances, effectively increasing the default 4 ipc capability to 5 ipc under the right conditions. the results were that a 2.13ghz conroe could beat a 3.4ghz P4 with ease.

the problem is that when intel decided to move to quad cores they followed the original dual core P4 formula. with the penryn they added SS4.1, some cache enhancements and some fp enhancements. what they should have done with the i7's is moved to a unified L2, extended the macrofusion capabilities to 64 bit instructions (which they did), increased the ipc capabilities to 6, given it a half cycle SSE engine and improved the fp capabilities as well.

imagine what a 9550 could do with a true unified 12mb L2 and the other enhancements i mentioned above.

instead they made the L2 smaller, added a slower L3, gave it an integrated memory controller (clearly as a marketing tool against amd) added hyperthreading and gave it "turbo". go figure.

amd is no better, with the phenom 2 line they made some odd decisions: the X4 810 is clocked at 2.6ghz, has 4mb L3 and uses a 2ghz (4ghz full duplex) HTT link while the 9xx series has 6mb L3 but makes due with only a 1.8ghz (3.6ghz full duplex) HTT link. WTF?!? why not just stick with one series of quad cores, use 10mb L3 and a 2ghz (4ghz full duplex)? as for the tri cores, why not add some sort of hyperthreading (yes, i know i look like a hypocrite for ripping intel for using HT but recommending it for the X3, but they are 2 very different cpu's).

as for being able to afford the i7 920, more than the $230 for the cpu is the at least $200 for the motherboard and the $100 or so for the DDR3, so you're really looking at over $500.

honestly, i would stick with a cpu in the $150 range and a sub-$100 motherboard, as a matter of fact i'll probably be picking up the X4 810 this weekend at the local computer show.

[Soopafresh]

deadrats, that's not reseach, that's a dissertation