CPU choice hell...

[mart981]

Yes I agree, I'm still happy with my E2160, keep getting tempted by the newer cpu's, but I'm saving up for a decent 24" monitor which is more important to me at the moment. Some people just can't seem to understand that because it's so cheap it can be any good

 

[p4radox]

wiith each new gen of intel processors the clock speed is going nowhere, instead they feed us with this energy efficiant bull****.

You obviously don't overclock then...

 

[miceormen]

at last someone with some sense,totally agree janesy.there is not much between the new generation of processors today.

I do love the way you went from dissing matt's comp to licking our collective arses with your idealistic post there mate.

My vote will still go for the q6600, on the basis of value for money

- the performance increase in the e8400 is naff all
- given that the prices are similar, i'd rather have 4 cores than 2.

 

[GunRunner]

My vote will still go for the q6600, on the basis of value for money

- the performance increase in the e8400 is naff all
- given that the prices are similar, i'd rather have 4 cores than 2.

It all depends on how YOU judge value for money. I am a big Flight Sim fanatic (IL2) and I can assure you that I would not keep a Q6600 in my system in preference to an E8400. I know the difference, because I had an E6600 (just sold it) and I tried Q6600 and both of these CPU's although good value, just do not compete with the E8400. The fastest I managed to clock the E6600 was 3.4ghz and the fastest we managed the q6600 was 3.2ghz. In my system running the same bench mark (IL2 Forgotten Battlles-The Black Death track), the E8400 is 15 to 20 fps faster, and this is a large difference. So from my point of view just because you are getting 4 cores instead of 2 is not a valid argument. So from where I am standing, an overclocked E8400 is far better value. Anyway, you just need to buy for your needs now, as in a years time you will be playing on a different playing field.

 

[EffBee]

Treat information provided by forums such as this with a large dose of scepticism. In many cases people simply peddle old ideas they've read elsewhere as gospel.

You must make your own decision based on your own needs. Use forums like this to identify issues to consider - then research and consider them yourself.

When you arrive at your own conclusions you will often find they fly in the face of popular opinion. Be brave enough to go with your own results.

In particular the 2 cores vs 4 cores arguments for a CURRENT primarily games based machine has been raging for ages. When you weigh up cost effectiveness, core speed, overclocking ability, current game usage of multiple cores, the future proofing fantasy, and remove the egos from the arguments, you can come to a clear conclusion of your own.

 

[GunRunner]

When you arrive at your own conclusions you will often find they fly in the face of popular opinion. Be brave enough to go with your own results.

In particular the 2 cores vs 4 cores arguments for a CURRENT primarily games based machine has been raging for ages. When you weigh up cost effectiveness, core speed, overclocking ability, current game usage of multiple cores, the future proofing fantasy, and remove the egos from the arguments, you can come to a clear conclusion of your own.

Agreed entirely. The problem is when people buy a system and then say on the forum "What do you think of this?". When the response is not what they expect because they didn't research for their needs, they really seem to get frustrated by the confusing statements such as " for the same money you could have got a quad" or " for games you should have got a dual core".

 

[EDC]

Brilliant - so now I am back to the old connundrum - I think I am going to go for a Q6600 because i do a lot of Graphics and Design work as well as gaming and I feel it's probably going to give me a better balance...

your choices are simple mate if your priorities are for gaming get the E8400. most will hit the magic 4GHz for 1.4vCore or less.

If your priorities are for graphics work, do the programs you use support multi-threading? If yes get the Q6600.

 

[3t3P]

Surely by the time a current quad-core such as the Q6600 is utilised properly by most games, it will be considered an old CPU?
I.e. when our games are looking seriously uber, will we not have really different CPU's?

 

[EDC]

yup your correct in that ... even now 65nm is old technology which is why the prices on the Q6600 have dropped rapidly. Come December 2008 everyone will be talking Nehalem, and so it goes on and on. And please can we have some affordable DDR3 memory come Dec 2008 to compliment the Nehalem CPU's.