Core 2 extreme or Core 2 quad Q6600?

so im gonna buy a desktop replacement, im deff gonna get a laptop with a 8800m Gtx,

i know the Core 2 extreme is really fast, and has really good performance

but how does it compare to a quad core? expecially the Q6600?

with games and all that
i know the newer gams dont support quad core

so which one is faster?

 

the quad core will desimate it and cost less, never buy any of the extreme chips they are so overpriced.

Most games will utilize more power from the extreme because its just 2 cores and most games that support multi core only use 2 at this point, and beyond that the vast majority of games only use 1 core, still the the overall power of the quad core is better, and its more future proof and still cheaper.

 

The Extreme chips as noted are not worth it, even in a desktop. The only reason to get an Extreme edition is for the unlocked multipliers (makes overclocking ridiculously easy), and you can't overclock the CPU with a laptop so it makes no sense to get it. Get the quad-core.

 

yeah i was thinking how the extreme chips are a little pricy just for a few mhz,

 

Its an enthusiast chip so it comes with an enthusiast price, its not so much the few mhz you pay for as the ability to change the cpu multi, the extremes are the only ones with that option unlocked. However I think any real enthusiast will stay away from them regardless because for the most part you want to overclock your ram in conjunction with your cpu so having a locked multi is fine.

I dont want to get too off topic about how overclocking works and why the fsb:ram ratio are important tho, Chaz pretty much said what you would need to know about it already.

 

so chaz said it was not possible to over clock notebook cpu's, is it because of heat issues?

 

Since it appears you're looking at desktop processors, and are primarily concerned with how current games perform (as opposed to eventual quad-threaded ones), how about the E6850? It's 3.00 GHz dual-core, considerably cheaper than the X6800 (2.93 GHz overclockable) and about the same as the Q6600 (2.40 GHz quad), and not only is faster for most games today but uses half the power of the Q6600. Not that I expect power to be a major consideration, but 65W is still a large difference that could prove quite useful if you ever do want to use the battery. Plus it's one less lightbulb on your electricity bill .

 

i see well i mean battery life isnt all that much of an issue, ill be plugged in most of the time, the reasonim thinking about a quad core, is not only about the gaming performance, but also im going to be doing alot of Music editing (i.e Protools) so i could use the extra performance of a quad core

another question should i get it pre installed with Xp sp2 or Vista 64bit home?

 

my vote is xp, as always.

 

Go Vista 64-bit if you're going to go to 4GB of RAM. I personally use Vista 64-bit on my desktop and I'm very happy with it.

 

Get the quads even if the extreme performs better now.

Speaking from experience here. Bought a single core CPU when I had the chance of buying a dual core for less than the single cores price. Now I regret it.

 

The quad-core CPU will serve you better now and in the future.

 

Well, I'm presuming whichever Laviathon of a notebook you're planning on getting that offers these chips is going to have to have some pretty serious cooling, so far a T7700 seems to give some nasty heat issues on a lot of laptops so I can only imagine what the desktop chips are like.

Point is, yes you might be able to overclock these desktop chips but even having them in there in the first place is going to be pretty taxing for laptop cooling even if the thing is 2.5" thick.

I'd say Core 2 Quad over Core 2 Extreme, but then I'd say regular decently clocked Core 2 Duo would be more than adequate, unless of course your heating is broken and you need to heat your house. My desktop only has an Athlon X2 4000+ in it which idles around 40 degrees C and leaving that on all day heats the room up a few degrees!

 

I have Quad Q6600. I love it. It run nicely and quietly. I have no complaints on playing games with it. It runs smoothly and runs quietly. I play emulators alot and i see how the quad core uses one core only for playing the games i play. I will recommend it. Gophn Recommended quadcore to me i do like.

 

I think software overclocking is possible, but overclocking done via the BIOS, which is the only real way to overclock the CPU and RAM as far as I am concerned, is not possible. Laptops have the multiplier, FSB, and RAM settings disabled.
Also, the quad-core processors are pushing the limit of the D901C's/NP9262's thermal capabilities. They cannot take the Extreme Edition quads because they require too much power. When you overclock you increase the amount of power required to run the chip.

 

thanks guys u guys are all very helpful, im deff gonna get a quad core soon with a 8800M Gtx, talk about monster huh?
next step in the future will be upgrading to dual sli 8800M, at least when they cheapen up

but yeah keep this thread guying id like to hear what the rest of u guys say about quad cores

 

Masterbassist I would hold off till after February. We should have an update on the Penryns soon. Would save you having to get a new mobo later.

 

what update on the penryns going to be? is it going to have faster clock speeds? or what

 

Right now the D901C does not support Penryns. There is a rumored update coming in Feb that will allow Penryn support. If you can hold off that long. The Penryns will be cheaper i.e. 265 for a 2.66Ghz vs the 500+ for the Q6700. If you can't wait then go ahead and get a quad you wont regret it.

 

so the penryns will make the price cheaper and thats all?

hmm i dunno if i can wiat that long