best CPU ?!?!

[AnubanUT2]

Ive checked alot of benchmarks / performance tests between the two... Heres the lowdown..

E8400 is dual core using the 45nm technology. This allows it to use less energy / heat which also allows it to be overclocked higher

Q6600 is quad core using 65nm technology.

Both are very good processors BUT most current tests
(especially with games) are showing that the E8400 outperforms the Q6600.
Reason: The E8400 has a higher clock speed

Why?: Most applications released right now efficiently use both cores, but are not programmed to take advantage of the extra 2 (on the Quad). This means that the extra two cores are mostly idle while gaming.

RIGHT NOW if you want the best performance you should get a E8400 (which is mostly sold out), its also more friendly to overclocking to get extra power

In the future, when/if games start taking advantage of quad core then you would get better performance/futureability out of the Q6600

The real question is.... Will applications/games start using quad cores anytime soon? Will you end up building a new computer by then?

If you want to build a machine that will last the longest then maybe a Q6600 is the right choice..... It all depends on how people start programming their games

[RPGWiZaRD]

Ive checked alot of benchmarks / performance tests between the two... Heres the lowdown..

E8400 is dual core using the 45nm technology. This allows it to use less energy / heat which also allows it to be overclocked higher

Q6600 is quad core using 65nm technology.

Both are very good processors BUT most current tests
(especially with games) are showing that the E8400 outperforms the Q6600.
Reason: The E8400 has a higher clock speed

Why?: Most applications released right now efficiently use both cores, but are not programmed to take advantage of the extra 2 (on the Quad). This means that the extra two cores are mostly idle while gaming.

RIGHT NOW if you want the best performance you should get a E8400 (which is mostly sold out), its also more friendly to overclocking to get extra power

In the future, when/if games start taking advantage of quad core then you would get better performance/futureability out of the Q6600

The real question is.... Will applications/games start using quad cores anytime soon? Will you end up building a new computer by then?

If you want to build a machine that will last the longest then maybe a Q6600 is the right choice..... It all depends on how people start programming their games

QFT

I choosed E8400 since I upgrade frequently and right now as you said there's no apps I use that make a good use of those extra 2 cores so the higher clock speed and cheaper price is more welcomed to me. Also should be remembered the E8xxx / Q9xxx 45nm chips have some 7~15% clock for clock performance advantage depending on application over the old 65nm chips E6xxx / Q6xxx and draws less power and therefore less heat output. By the time applications will effectively use quad cores then there's a lot better ones out there (Nehalem etc) and as quads become more and more common the prices will go down as well. So for me, it's not the time to go quad yet. Multitaskers always will find a use of a quad but I'm the simpleton doing only one thing at a time so I only care about application performance.

However the E8400 seems to have gone up a bit in price due to popularity (glad I grabbed one immediatly at launch when they were really cheap).

[Metal_Militia]

Hmmm. Apparently I'm the only one who hasn't got a clue what a CPU is?

In case you were serious, here's a few definitions: (clicky).
Examples:
Intel CPU's @ Newegg
AMD CPU's at Newegg


Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz FTW!

[champdee]

E8400 the best right now..

[Skill]

q6600 can handle any game and runs about 240-260, but a dual core is cheaper and should still get the job done. Budget motherboard EVGA 680i LT for 99 bucks, 780i for 250-270 for a great gaming pc, 790i for a beast. u should get 2+gb of ram which is dirt cheap (4gb will run u 60-80 bucks for 800mhz). an 8800 gt or gts will be fine for ut3, or even a 9600 will be able to handle ut3. Hope this helps a bit, feel free to pm with any questions

[pimpuk]

if your mb can take it dude go intel c2d

[HEYMAN]

I thinks it is using all 4 cpu's. :P

http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?i...threadspq8.jpg

[oldkawman1]

QFT

I choosed E8400 since I upgrade frequently and right now as you said there's no apps I use that make a good use of those extra 2 cores so the higher clock speed and cheaper price is more welcomed to me. Also should be remembered the E8xxx / Q9xxx 45nm chips have some 7~15% clock for clock performance advantage depending on application over the old 65nm chips E6xxx / Q6xxx and draws less power and therefore less heat output. By the time applications will effectively use quad cores then there's a lot better ones out there (Nehalem etc) and as quads become more and more common the prices will go down as well. So for me, it's not the time to go quad yet. Multitaskers always will find a use of a quad but I'm the simpleton doing only one thing at a time so I only care about application performance.

However the E8400 seems to have gone up a bit in price due to popularity (glad I grabbed one immediatly at launch when they were really cheap).

You have it exactly right!

[oldkawman1]

Ive checked alot of benchmarks / performance tests between the two... Heres the lowdown..

E8400 is dual core using the 45nm technology. This allows it to use less energy / heat which also allows it to be overclocked higher

Q6600 is quad core using 65nm technology.

Both are very good processors BUT most current tests
(especially with games) are showing that the E8400 outperforms the Q6600.
Reason: The E8400 has a higher clock speed

Why?: Most applications released right now efficiently use both cores, but are not programmed to take advantage of the extra 2 (on the Quad). This means that the extra two cores are mostly idle while gaming.

RIGHT NOW if you want the best performance you should get a E8400 (which is mostly sold out), its also more friendly to overclocking to get extra power

In the future, when/if games start taking advantage of quad core then you would get better performance/futureability out of the Q6600

The real question is.... Will applications/games start using quad cores anytime soon? Will you end up building a new computer by then?

If you want to build a machine that will last the longest then maybe a Q6600 is the right choice..... It all depends on how people start programming their games

Your exactly right in your analysis.The BIG negative with a 3.0GHz Q6600 is the 200 watts of heat that goto go out. As your only using a bit more than 2 of the cores in UT3, it's a real waste. It's only just within the last 6 months that dual cores are actually being used in home computers, even by games. Quads, well, that's several years out even for high end games. They actually may be going backwards in order to increase sales in the fubar PC gaming world .

[13th_Disciple]

the q6600 may not be fully used right now.. but here is a helluva deal on one..

http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0257938

$199 online..

[13th_Disciple]

double post

[OblivionLord]

Ive checked alot of benchmarks / performance tests between the two... Heres the lowdown..

E8400 is dual core using the 45nm technology. This allows it to use less energy / heat which also allows it to be overclocked higher

Q6600 is quad core using 65nm technology.

Both are very good processors BUT most current tests
(especially with games) are showing that the E8400 outperforms the Q6600.
Reason: The E8400 has a higher clock speed

Why?: Most applications released right now efficiently use both cores, but are not programmed to take advantage of the extra 2 (on the Quad). This means that the extra two cores are mostly idle while gaming.

RIGHT NOW if you want the best performance you should get a E8400 (which is mostly sold out), its also more friendly to overclocking to get extra power

In the future, when/if games start taking advantage of quad core then you would get better performance/futureability out of the Q6600

The real question is.... Will applications/games start using quad cores anytime soon? Will you end up building a new computer by then?

If you want to build a machine that will last the longest then maybe a Q6600 is the right choice..... It all depends on how people start programming their games

I don't agree with this. I will say the E8400 is a better gamers choice however you are absolutely wrong with your assumption of no quad core games.

The majority of games don't require alot of cpu power but, are built around 2 main threads. Some games do in fact have the ability to use more than 2 threads. These threads are slightly active at times but, certainly not idle. Majority of games are gpu dependent unless you run things at low grafic/res then it starts to become cpu bound.

There most certainly are a few games that take advantage of 4 threads such as Crysis, Supreme Commander, UT3. This list may be small but, they do exist.

For the record.. One of the first Dual thread games out was Rainbow 6 Vegas which came out late 06 and during 07 just about every game released was dual core capable. Dual core did not just start off 6 months ago... try a good year now.

[|BWR|Teddek]

this is just stupid.

try to fix his problem instead off discussing and recomending a CPU that he cant use to its full potential and probably won't even run in his sytem atm.

[PeterS_01]

Your best bet is to just get an E6750, a GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L, and a 8800GT 512MB. along with 2 GB of good memory.

I'm running this too, but with a 8800 GTS

[D-Hunter]

If you want to go for a cheap quad core, there is a Xeon that's about the same speed as a Q6600 with a lower clock.