Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 in PC gaming Tech

Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 in PC gaming Tech http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21245239 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:50:28 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:50:28 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463607 Somnambul33t : i7 requires 3-4x more expensive memory, a 2-4x more expensive motherboard, and the chepaest CPU is still $300.

still more posts of people claiming CPU speed increases game FPS. do your own research and you'll find this to be very false for most games when played at or above 1680x1050 resolution.

you can get a Q6600 or dual-core penryn system for $385. includes $200 CPU, 4GB ram, and adequate motherboard. you cant get the RAM and CPU alone for an i7 system at that price and gain close to 0 FPS in games.

buy what you want but games these days don't care about CPU once you have a core2duo E6000 or higher or faster AMD phenom. GFX card does much much much more work the higher the resolution, which is why sites wanting to benchmark a CPU by itself will run game benchmarks at 640x480 to eliminate as much of the gfx card as possible.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r

The Stolen Eye TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21463607 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:38:42 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21454508 Mchart :

said by BlackXTalon

:

How about the core I7?

In terms of quad core procs, didn't or isn't microsoft releasing a service pack for Microsoft Flight Sim X that will utilize all the cores?

I am like the person who started this thread. I will be building a gaming box from scratch, and there is a lot of conflicting information out there. I am leaning towards the I7 core but it is getting some bad reviews on anandtech, tomshardware etc etc.

Nehalem is quite fast, and if you have the money I reccomend it over any LGA775 right now. You are paying more money for stuff that will last much longer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21454508 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:27:49 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21452474 BlackXTalon : How about the core I7?

In terms of quad core procs, didn't or isn't microsoft releasing a service pack for Microsoft Flight Sim X that will utilize all the cores?

I am like the person who started this thread. I will be building a gaming box from scratch, and there is a lot of conflicting information out there. I am leaning towards the I7 core but it is getting some bad reviews on anandtech, tomshardware etc etc. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21452474 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:02:23 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21337060 Margolis :

said by A4L :

That's some interesting information there. I'm starting to be confused to be honest. 60% of the people say to me that go for the E8400, 40% tell me to go for the Q6600. I really don't know what to go for. I'm looking at both perspectives and I feel I should go for the E8400 but then I see the Q6600 being more useful in the future. I really don't know what to do.

get the 8400, then in the far future when game will actually make use of more cores just buy a cheap quad core and plop into your motherboard.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21337060 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:22:46 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21333864 Mchart : You don't have to do anything. Look at any number of reviews at sites like guru3d, hardocp, or anandtech. All show the E8400 outperforms the Q6600 in every single gaming benchmark. This should be a no-brainer. The fairly large increase in FSB alone allows it to do this. Not to mention the fact that it's 600mhz faster on each core, and each core has a much larger L2 cache to work with.

We aren't comparing E6600 to Q6600. We are comparing a newer technology, to a quite old quad-core CPU. Now, if you can afford the E8400 quad-core equivelant - Go for it. However, considering it's $530 - It isn't.

You say that WoW supports quad-core. I beg to differ. If you look at your task-manager while running WoW on a quad-core CPU, only two out of four of the cores are being touched. (All four are being touched because Windows shuffles around the threads, you only see 50% usage total on all 4 cores. Which means only 2 cores would be working just as good alone.) Even a game like Supreme Commander, which we know for a fact uses all four cores, shows higher benchmarks on the E8400 then on the Q6600. Just because an app can use all four cores, doesn't mean it's literally offloading all 100% of the workload to each core. Not to mention we have games like STALKER, which claim to support multi-core, but still only show to be using 1 at most if you look at the task manager. The bottom line is that we aren't there yet. Nor will we be at least until Alan Wake comes out.

The OP asked what CPU was better for gaming. This thread was started in gaming tech. The undeniably correct answer is the E8400. There is absolutely no room for debate. So unless you can pickup the Q9550 for $180 - You are absolutely wrong in suggesting any quad core is better for a gaming rig. (Unless you have a very large budget.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21333864 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:44:07 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21333215 longstreet :

quote:
Multi-core support for WoW was built in with the release of the Burning crusade in the beginning of 2007 so it wasn't capable of it when it was released back in 2004.

That wasn't my point. My point was it supports multiple cores and it's an older game

If developers are updating older games to take advantage of multiple cores and proper use of threading, it doesn't seem so apparent to me that games aren't coded for it. Some idiot editor of a web-zine says 'games aren't threaded' and the whole lot of people lap it up. Simply not true.

WoW is a huge game. Most gamers have played it at one point or another. It's a great example because it's a popular game that many people play.

It goes directly against Mchart's argument, this is why I mentioned it. I suppose this wasn't as obvious as I had hoped, so i've cleared this up for those that missed it.

One could sit here and have a back and forth about what is faster versus what is threaded correctly, I'm not so interested in that, but I'll entertain it. It depends if you multitask or not.

Load up the e8400 with other tasks and the quad beats it soundly, so the e8400 is preferable to a person who performs only a single gaming task on their computer and does nothing else. (i'll mention that the e8400 has very few other advantages outside single process gaming, just in case their might be a gamer here that does other things besides gaming :uhh:)

Just because a forum is about games, doesn't mean that all gaming forum visitors are only running a single task and all posts are constrained by that.

What I am interested in is comparable comparisions and the debunking of rumors and buzz word hearsay, which happens alot here.

When you have someone saying that threaded games are dual core limited, it simply sets off my BS meter. I have to call those out spreading false information.

I mean, I could write a column, do some reviewing, pick of bunch of properly threaded games, show the performance increases of a quad over the dual core and declare that all gamers should buy quads because most games benefit from it.

Not hard to do, however oh so easy to dis-prove.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21333215 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:02:08 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21328521 The Flash :

said by jouno53

:

It's probably already been said, but unless you'll be doing heavy, heavy multi-tasking, number crunching, and say... a TON of video compression than I'd go for the Core 2 Duo.

By then, you'll be looking at octo-core...lol]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21328521 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:06:21 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21327184 Vathral : Multi-core support for WoW was built in with the release of the Burning crusade in the beginning of 2007 so it wasn't capable of it when it was released back in 2004. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21327184 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:53:42 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21323840 jouno53 : It's probably already been said, but unless you'll be doing heavy, heavy multi-tasking, number crunching, and say... a TON of video compression than I'd go for the Core 2 Duo.
--
My Site - My PC]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21323840 Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:29:37 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21323380 anon : That's some interesting information there. I'm starting to be confused to be honest. 60% of the people say to me that go for the E8400, 40% tell me to go for the Q6600. I really don't know what to go for. I'm looking at both perspectives and I feel I should go for the E8400 but then I see the Q6600 being more useful in the future. I really don't know what to do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21323380 Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:15:04 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21321684 Mchart : I'm well aware what a thread is. The fact of the matter is that currently, most software is not designed for anything more then a single processor to begin with. Some software works better with a dual-core. Little to nothing is designed to even benefit from a quad core.

However, even the Q9300 is still slower then the E8400. So unless you can afford the QX9650, the E8400 is the best choice as of right now. Then a year down the road when the equivelant QX9650 product becomes dirt cheap - Pick it up.

The 'More cores = faster' mantra only works for maybe 5% of the applications out there. Obviously, it will help in situations of extreme multi-tasking. However, your average user isn't running a million things at once. Nor are they doing number crunching. Since this thread was started in the PC GAMING TECH forum, lets keep focus on PC Gaming - Not SETI@Home number crunching or processing large photoshop batches. For a gaming system the E8400 is the best choice as of right now. There isn't any debate on this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21321684 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:49:53 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21321052 psitool :

said by longstreet

:

I'm in the more cores is better squad. Course, I had the quad extreme, so i've been quite tainted by it.

I agree with you that it wouldn't hurt to go with a "Q9" series quad (faster, more cache, newer technology, etc.). This would be much better than the q6600.
--
The cake is a lie.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21321052 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:38:08 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21320381 longstreet : WoW takes advantage of multiple cores, and when was that game developed?

If you are running windows (at least back to windows 95) then you are running a multi-threaded operating system.

I'd say it's more common for any application today to be threaded, than not threaded, especially any commercial, off-the-shelf product.

Unfortunatly, there's alot of misconception that games and applications are not threaded. They are, the question is whether it was threaded correctly.

quote:
stuff that is multi-threaded tends to be dual-core only

Do you even know what a thread is?

Threading has been around in software for decades . .where are you getting your information? Multi-threading has no tendancy to dual core, single core, quad-core or otherwise. It's like asking the marital status of the number 5, it doesn't make sense.

Adding cores gives the CPU the ability to complete more instructions quicker when executing some code that's been threaded correctly. Simply having hardware doesn't enable threading. Threading still occurs on single core CPU's.

Secondly, the Q6600 has been around longer.

The Q6600 in fact came out an entire year before the E8400, that's light years in terms of microarchitecture and technology.

Compare apples to apples!

Try the Q9300 to the E8400 for a more realistic comparison.

The E8400 wins alot of real world tests and it's a great CPU to pick, it just depends how you compute!

People who multitask while gaming are better with the quad . . .if you're not really keen on doing more at once, then the dual is better.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21320381 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:24:03 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21316302 Mchart :

said by longstreet

:

I'm in the more cores is better squad. Course, I had the quad extreme, so i've been quite tainted by it.

That would be true if we actually had, on average, software that was multi-threaded by nature. Unfortunatly, most stuff still is designed for a single-processor enviroment; stuff that is multi-threaded tends to be dual-core only anyways. We just aren't there yet. So, IMO, it's best to buy something like the E8400. Then a year from now get the E8400 quad-core equivelant for dirt cheap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21316302 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:47:06 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21316016 longstreet : I'm in the more cores is better squad. Course, I had the quad extreme, so i've been quite tainted by it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21316016 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:50:46 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21305708 anon : I get the point, mate. Thanks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21305708 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:32:07 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21292039 psitool : Have you even looked at the specs of the two processors? The Q6600 is slower and has less cache. It is inferior unless you do video editing for a living or something. The extra 2 cores of the Q6600 don't add any extra value at this point in time unless you actually use programs that take advantage of the extra cores. You might see some benefit in the next couple of years or so, but by then 2.4ghz will be slow compared to everything else available.
--
The cake is a lie.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21292039 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:08:48 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21291271 anon : I've noticed that most people who recommend the E8400 are extreme overclockers and that let me get this straight: I'm not going to overclock any part of my PC at all. So without overclocking anything, is the Q6600 still inferior to the E8400 or not?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21291271 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:25:15 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277627 Ender3rd : Heh, you are correct. It will do 3.6 GHz without breaking a sweat simply by bumping it to the 9x multiplier. No problem with the memory, it runs right at spec (1066) with the 400 MHz FSB. To be honest, I don't have any software (errr... games) that require me to OC at all! Everything I play runs beautifully at max settings even when it's set completely stock. I do like the feeling of getting something for nothing though! I'm sure I will move to 3.6 GHz for 24/7 use at some point.

Getting something for nothing is rare these days! :)
--
My Jeep is not an SUV. Your SUV is not a Jeep.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277627 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:22:19 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277561 Vathral :

said by Ender3rd

:

I pondered the same question and then went with the E8400 (C0 stepping) and don't regret it. I run it @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400 MHz) with air cooling 24/7 with no issues at all.

That's all? ;)

You can easily do 3.6 GHz with not a single voltage change unless it's memory settings you touched as well. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277561 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:10:38 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277427 anon : I just can't agree with that statement. The Q6600 is not as good in games as the E8400. This will be even more noticeable as more next-gen games in 2009 come out. Not to mention current benchmarks show that the E8400 is at least slightly faster in current games.

The Q6600 is nice - But for gaming and most daily tasks the extra cores aren't needed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21277427 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:46:22 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21276167 The Flash : I would just get the E8400 and OC it to 4 ghz and call it a day.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21276167 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:19:33 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21275252 Somnambul33t : »www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scali···essors/9

E8400 vs Q6600 in Crysis
16x12 = E8400 wins by 3 fps or ~6.5%
19x12 = tie
25x16 = E8400 wins by 1 fps or ~3.5%.

look at all the games they tested, these results are across the board. All the games are modern, all the CPUs are 1 previous or current generation. For reference they used an 8800 Ultra (their AMD motherboard had issues disabling one of the 9800GX2's cores during some games)

i didnt pull my previous statement out of my ass and i didnt read that article and join some bandwagon of anti-CPU gaming. [H]ardOCP's been saying this for a year and the article i linked i actually found to back up my points.

if you game at a medium or higher resolution, your GFX card matters much much much more than your CPU. if you game at a low res like 1280x1024, then you'll be getting more than playable FPS regardless of the E8400 or Q6600 so the added FPS from a high clocked dual core is moot.

the Q6600 is the better buy hands down.
-just as fast in games as the E8400
-better multi-tasking
-many video and audio creation programs fully support 4+ cores (hell the xvid codec itself is very multi-threaded meaning ANY program encoding with the latest xvid codec is now encoding across all 4 cores)
-priced the same
no reason not to get it

when the E6700 was $220 and the Q6600 was still 280, i told people to buy the E6700. it's all relative to price. for the same price, quad is a huge no brainer over dual, even a previous gen vs current.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r

SEyE TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21275252 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:06:55 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21272648 Mchart :

said by Somnambul33t

said by Mchart

said by A4L :

Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?

somewhat correct. if he games at 1680x1050 or higher, however, CPU means jack shit. higher clock speed does nothing as almost all current games are GPU-limited at this rez and higher.

all the CPU comparisons ive seen show games getting within 1-2 FPS at 16x10 and higher resolutions as long as they have a Phenom X4 or C2D E6300 or C2Q Q6600 and higher. basically if you have ANY decent CPU you wont notice better FPS in games!

that being the case, go quad core because it definitely has better multi-tasking!

both CPUs are great and this is a case of no wrong choice, but dont believe that any of the CPUs will get you better FPS because thats completely untrue if you play modern games.

It is a correct statement. The E8400, even at high resolutions in a game like crysis, shows around a 15% lead over the Q6600.

As for 'quad core is better because it is better at multi-tasking'. That means little right now. For most users a dual-core is just fine. Not to mention there are very little apps that can even take advantadge of quad-core.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21272648 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:22:18 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21270487 Somnambul33t :

said by Mchart

said by A4L :

Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?

said by A4L :

Hmm, motherboards are something I don't know much about. Can you recommend me some good motherboards (socket 775) with good onboard sound card?

I got an EVGA 780i MB , but I wanted SLI.....I also have the Q6600 slacr chip. Neither were too bad in price , probably even cheaper now.
Ive no complaints. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21251278 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:23:37 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21250645 anon : My current system is using the EVGA 750i SLI FTW. If you aren't planning on SLI, the P45 chipset is a good choice for right now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21250645 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:32:10 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21250456 Ender3rd : My latest build uses an ASUS Maximus II Formula which comes with a Creative Supreme FX PCIEX card. It all works great and has made me a fan of the P45 chipset boards.
--
My Jeep is not an SUV. Your SUV is not a Jeep.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21250456 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:38:56 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249902 anon : Hmm, motherboards are something I don't know much about. Can you recommend me some good motherboards (socket 775) with good onboard sound card?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249902 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:40:49 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249806 Mchart :

said by A4L :

Another thing I was wondering. How much difference does it make to get a sound card? I was initially thinking not to get one and just use an onboard. But does getting a sound card make a difference? I mean I don't give a fuck about the sound I get in games, I mean does it improve the FPS or does it make the songs sound better? Or does that have nothing to do with a sound card and only with speaker?

Onboard sound on quality motherboards these days is very good. There is absolutely no reason to get a sound card unless you want high-quality inputs, or need a plethora of output options. At this point it really is all about the quality of your speakers. People will claim sound cards somehow allow better sounding audio; But on-board HD Audio codec's are capable of floating point operations, and while they may be vulnerable to noise from other circuitry on the motherboard - This is a non-issue if you have a decent motherboard.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249806 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:07:42 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249794 anon : Another thing I was wondering. How much difference does it make to get a sound card? I was initially thinking not to get one and just use an onboard. But does getting a sound card make a difference? I mean I don't give a fuck about the sound I get in games, I mean does it improve the FPS or does it make the songs sound better? Or does that have nothing to do with a sound card and only with speaker?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249794 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:00:04 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249791 anon : That's really interesting. So let's see about Nehalem. I'll check out it if it releases here in Bangkok by December. And if I can't afford that or it doesn't come out here by then, I'll probably just get the E8400.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249791 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:57:19 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249570 Mchart :

said by A4L :

Yep, you've told me about that. So basically the Nehalem is going to be like 8 cores thing, like a step up from C2Q or is it a new line of microprocessors? Kinda like how Core 2 was the new line a year back?

And how much would it be? If it's less than $250 then I'm in.

And what's the difference between E8400 and E8500? I see E8400 to be more "popular" among people... And if I get the E8400, will I be fine in games like Crysis, FarCry 2, and the games in 2009-10?

It's a new microarchitecture. It should be quite a leap in performance for Intel, as they have finally moved the memory controller on-die with Nehalem - Not to mention they have a triple channel memory bus as well. It will be just as expensive as any new CPU line is when it is first released. This means however, that the current line of socket 775 based products will be cheaper.

The only difference between the E8400 and E8500 is that the E8500 has an amazing 160mhz additional clock speed, and a different multiplier. If you aren't overclocking, the E8500 is a complete waste of money.

Yes, the E8400 will be way more then enough for any game coming out in the foreseable future.

The reason I reccomend getting a Nehalem system in November is because it will last longer. Once Nehalem comes out - Socket 775 is done. Intel will still sell 775 products for at least 2 more years after the fact - But they won't be releasing anything new. Where as if you buy Nehalem - You'll be able to drop in a Westmere CPU when those come out.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249570 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:54:05 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249538 anon : Yep, you've told me about that. So basically the Nehalem is going to be like 8 cores thing, like a step up from C2Q or is it a new line of microprocessors? Kinda like how Core 2 was the new line a year back?

And how much would it be? If it's less than $250 then I'm in.

And what's the difference between E8400 and E8500? I see E8400 to be more "popular" among people... And if I get the E8400, will I be fine in games like Crysis, FarCry 2, and the games in 2009-10?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249538 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:43:30 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249320 Mchart :

said by A4L :

What about the future? Say 1-2 years? Would then the C2Q be better for gaming? I'm asking because I want it to game well for at least 2-3 years.

The future is great, but I don't expect any games coming out in 2009 to be quad-core capable. Even games that use dual-core right now don't do so very efficiently. The best bet if buying a system right now is the E8400.

Besides, if you need to, you can always buy a quad-core down the road if you need to.

However, i'd reccomend waiting until Novemeber. As this is when Nehalem comes out, and the prices on socket 775 products will come down substantially - And you can purchase a Nehalem product if you have the money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249320 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:35:00 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21248841 anon : BTW, I'm not going to OC it for two reason:

1.) I do not know how to.
2.) I do not want to take a risk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21248841 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:59:49 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21248833 anon : What about the future? Say 1-2 years? Would then the C2Q be better for gaming? I'm asking because I want it to game well for at least 2-3 years.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21248833 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:58:39 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247607 psitool : Go with the E8400. They are overclocking beasts. I've been running mine at 4.3ghz (8.5 x 506) on air for months. :)
--
The cake is a lie.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247607 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:38:59 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247567 Ender3rd : I pondered the same question and then went with the E8400 (C0 stepping) and don't regret it. I run it @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400 MHz) with air cooling 24/7 with no issues at all. The cores idle at 32c and don't rise much above 38c during gaming. The C2D's will run cooler than the quads and tend to be easier to overclock if you plan to do that. The newer E0 stepping 8400's are even better. If you are mainly interested in gaming, I would jump on the 8400. If you plan to do a lot of number crunching and have apps that will take advantage of 4 cores, go with the quad.
--
My Jeep is not an SUV. Your SUV is not a Jeep.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247567 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:31:11 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247199 Mchart :

said by A4L :

Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?

Because it has a higher clock-speed, a faster front side bus, and more L2 Cache. There are currently no games that utilize more then two cores, otherwise, the quad-core would technically be better for gaming. Currently however, it is not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21247199 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:24:03 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245837 The Flash : More cores does not mean it's better, right now core speed is better for gaming.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245837 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:19:57 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245724 anon : Interesting. I actually find it weird since that's got 4 cores and this has got 2 but you still say this is better. Why?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245724 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:02:11 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245239 The Flash : For gaming it has to be the E8400.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245239 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:36:27 EDT Re: Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245218 Cabal : E8500 for $180 retail, watch the Newegg promos.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21245218 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:32:14 EDT Core 2 Duo E8400 vs. Core 2 Quad Q6600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21244983 anon : So which one is better? I was thinking of C2Q, but since the price is the same and I've read that C2D one would be better for the price as have 4 cores is essentially useless in gaming. I'd like to know what you guys think.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21244983 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:48:42 EDT