Which CPU for HTPC: Intel E8500 or Q6600 (1 Viewer)

[Lupismaximus]

I am having a hard time choosing amongst these two processors.

The reasons the E8500 is compelling are Cost, Power (65w), Individual core speed, and Heat dissipation

The reasons the Q6600 is compelling are multi-threading via 4 cores and it is much faster when encoding MKV/H.264/AC3-DTS, overclocking headroom

I currently own the Q6600 in my main computer/ gaming rig, and if I choose to use that CPU in my HTPC, then I will upgrade my main rig with a Q9550 or Q9650.

I also want this processor to hold me over for a 3-5 year period. I know this is crazy with the rapid changes that will occur between now and then, but the only thing that I believe will really change is the efficiency of programs using all 4 cores. With this said, the Q6600 will definitely have the advantage, when running a multi-threaded applications (Ripbot264 or what every comes out between now and then).

Just as an FYI, the HTPC CPU will go into a GIGABYTE GA-E7AUM-DS2H

I am not comparing Quads but rather the dual core with a Quad core.

 

[joz]

wow, you are talking about this from a completely different viewpoint then normal. Most people want their HTPC to run as low cost as possible. What you're talking about is putting a high end system to the works.

I ask myself, why? Do you encode videos a lot on your HTPC and you really mind waiting another x minutes for it to complete? Whenever I do that an I use mediaslayer plugin for that I tend to keep MP just doing it's thing. I tend to do that when leaving the HTPC alone for a while too since doing anything else while mediaslayer's running results in bad rips for me most of the time.

If I were to built a new HTPC it would be either AMD X-2 5050e or X-3 8xxx series based. I believe I've read somewhere the X-3 phenom 2 AMDs are really more power efficient then the one that had the crown before when looking @ performance per watt (5050e). Phenom 2 also has a 45nm architecture like your intel 8xxx and 9xxx series.

AMD solutions will always be less power hungry, at least currently speaking. Why's that? Because of the integrated memory controller. The Core I-7 intel series have the same thing going but these are, really, really high end machines and definitely not worth the money for HTPC usage.

p.s.
I run a E6750 as my HTPC CPU but that's because of 2 reasons:

- I had the CPU lying around eating dust, so I'd better put it to some use
- I rent a room which has electric bill included with the rent. I pay too much rent anyways so I leave the HTPC running 24/7 just too annoy my landlord (and also because my HTPC is a server too).

My system eats ~100 watt full load (I think it was 105 with orthos running and hdtune so both CPU and HD were stressed) and about 55 to 60 watt @ idle

-----EDIT-----

Just so you know;
Overclocking tends to increase the powerusage quadratically. In my opinion just a no-go with HTPC usage, just pick the right CPU in the first place
Of course undervolting is a different deal and maybe worth it depending on your system and usage. From personal experience I know Core2Duo and Core2Quads do not really cope that well with undervolting. At least they can be undervolted but you always lose the SpeedStepping functionality.
There's a tool for AMD CPUs, I think made by RightMark (some corp.), which is able to also provide AMDs Cool & Quiet (the AMD varient of SpeedStep) when undervolting. It is an awesome tool, really powerful. It's possible because of the extra driver that's required by AMD CPUs (integrated within vista not xp I think)

So all in all I guess you should be looking at a AMD based system, because of the following reason; Low cost, both in purchase and in maintenance.
Try looking for a board with a GeForce 8200 or higher onboard. It will support DXVA and stuff = graphic accelerated video decoding

 

[schan]

I don't think you will gain much in performance when upgrading from Q6600 to Q96xx. The Q6600 can be overclocked to reach or surpass the Q96xx performance level with little effort.

I think your decision should base on how much encoding your are doing with your rig. Lots of encoding get the quad else E8500 is fine.

For most people low cost, low noise, low power consumption and low heat are more important factors and AMD have the upper hand.

 

[joz]

I don't think you will gain much in performance when upgrading from Q6600 to Q96xx. The Q6600 can be overclocked to reach or surpass the Q96xx performance level with little effort.

This is no comparission becuase you're comparing a non overclocked Q96xx to a overclocked Q6600. The 96xx can also be overclocked.... which then surpasses your overclocked q6600
Besides that the q6600 is 65nm based, the Q9xxx series is 45nm based, for the last one compared to the first, this means more overclocking headroom, less heat output and less power usage.