|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 17th, 2007, 10:20 PM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 83
|
Intel Q6600 vs QX6700
the q6600 is $280 while the qx6700 is $900. the q6600 is 2.4 ghz compared to 2.66 for the qx.
My question is what are the advantages to invest 3x the money for the qx? Im looking to build my computer and don't know which processor to get. My budget is <$1500 and I will be using Adobe Premier Pro CS3 with Encore as well and edit in HD. Thank you |
|
|
|
December 17th, 2007, 11:10 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
Haven't checked the latest specs but the consensus this far has been that q6600 gives you most bang for the buck. The new AMD quad-cores may change this but the change may also be favorable to q6600 if Intel drops the price even more. With that budget I would invest to good mobo (like Intel BadAxe or such) and spend rest of the money to RAM and disks. With HD(V) you are going to need a substantial amount of disk especially if you are planning to use intermediate formats like Cineform. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 28th, 2007, 02:12 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 347
|
Quote:
You always pay through the nose for the top processor. The cost/benefit is just not there. It is as you see it, an extreme charge for a very small boost in performance - just so you can say your the fastest kid on the block. By next year these will both be old processors and the price difference will be something like $50 or so. As the other poster says, keep the money and use it else where. Good Luck - PK |
|
|
|
|
|
January 3rd, 2008, 01:27 PM
|
#4 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Glasgow. Scotland
Posts: 79
|
I got a Q6600 and clocked it on the stock HSF to 3GHz per core. Lovely machine!
|
|
|
|
|
January 4th, 2008, 10:40 PM
|
#5 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 48
|
I think you would be better off with a ntel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache. Its about the same price as the Q6600 and you get the bigger front side bus (1333) and 3.0 Ghz. Or you could overclock the the Q6600 as was mentioned. Just get a motherboard with a BIOS that supports it. A motherboard with support for 800Mhz memory would help too.
I have a quad core (two dual core) Mac Pro and when I monitor my proc activity I noticed that you never really use more than two cores at a time unless your rendering your footage. So the only advantage to the quad core is its going to cut down on render times, and probably not that much. I think you would benifit with the Duo 3.0, unless you overclock the Q6600. |
|
|
|
|
January 5th, 2008, 11:49 AM
|
#6 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 398
|
You could OC the Q6600 to 3.0ghz without even trying. Stock Cooler, Stock Voltages, very slight increase in temperature.
Just change the FSB from 266 to 333 and keep the multiplier at 9... To Jimmy... The Q6600 benchmarks almost equal to the E6850, but when programs can take advantage of all 4 cores it's nearly twice as fast... At this point in time there's no reason to go dual-core over quad... unless money is a big issue (AKA you have to spend under $100) especially with Phenom's under $300 and the Q6600 @ $250 |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
