Shall I get duo or quad? - confusing

[stephentw]

I need to decide on a CPU for my setup which will accept any core 2 processor so I'm inclined to go for as good a processor as I can get for about £150 ish.

I've seen the Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz Socket 775 1333FSB 4MB Cache retail boxed for £137.

I've also seen a q6600 energy efficient at £152 which confuses me because it's OEM and lower bus speed. But is this because it's more energy efficient as this quite appeals to me also.

On top of that I've seen Core 2 Duo E8400 Socket 775 3.0GHz 1333FSB 6MB L2 Cache which is a faster speed than the quad but less cores (so surely overall slower but I'm not sure on this) this one is about £140.

It's for general use, then possibly the odd game and some HD content but like I say I'd like to get the best I can afford to avoid the annoying upgrade bug.

 

[silvercut]

I think the Q6700 are reasonably priced now and would would perform the Q8200 as well as overclock well too.

 

[Corasik]

If your gaming the faster dual, will give a better performance in most current games, but the quad may will overtake it in the future, as both Intel and AMD are still pushing quad+ designs.

For media encoding etc, the quad will win already.

My old system wont take 45nm Core2 processors, only the 65nm's, I recently swapped out an early E6700 dual, for a Q6700 (G0), and it overclocks better than the old E6700, and its a nice upgrade for a 3 year old system

Overclockers have got the Q6700 (its an energy efficient G0 core, as they didnt make a B3 Q6700) and its £143 inc VAT (and free postage to forum account users) not a bad buy.

Quad really comes into its own when playing 2 copies of World of Warcraft on a dual screen system

 

[stephentw]

So if I'm more interested in the media side of things over games with the odd game thrown in quad is the way to go and I should look at the q6700?

What is the Core 2 Quad Q8200 like compared to the above?

 

[redballoon]

I've also seen a q6600 energy efficient at £152 which confuses me because it's OEM and lower bus speed. But is this because it's more energy efficient as this quite appeals to me also.

All the other newer 775 quads will use less power though. It's more energy efficient than the older B3 Q6600.

 

[stephentw]

Oh right, so of the following which are the newer ones? I've not been keeping up to date with any of this stuff sorry for my clumsiness. But these are the ones in my price range:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 LGA775 'Yorkfield' 2.5GHz 4MB-cache (1333FSB) Processor - Retail

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 LGA775 'Yorkfield' 2.33GHz 4MB-cache (1333FSB) Processor - Retail

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - Retail

Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6700 "LGA775 Kentsfield" 2.66GHz (1066FSB) - OEM

 

[redballoon]

Well, the current Q6600 is almost exactly two years old now. Still a great chip of course.

The Q8 and Q9 quads are all newer.

 

[Trunks9486]

is this a new build? with new mobo? you have that already? AMD route may be a good alternative if you dont have a mobo yet.

 

[stephentw]

It's a new build yeah but don't want amd sorry

I've got the rest specced up already but not totally sure on the memory though, just picked from the qvl

OCZ 4GB Kit (2x2GB) 800MHz/PC2-6400 Memory Platinum Performance CL5 (5-4-4-18)

For the mobo I want which is ASUS P5N7A-VM (and I'm not keen on budging from that) but wasn't sure how far to stray from the qvl cos I'm a bit out of touch with everything.

 

[Trunks9486]

OCZ and Asus mobos have been known to have problems in a some cases, check for compatibility.

Other than that, i can tsay i would do the same as you.

My reasoning is the following, of the models that you have listed the better parts are Q6600 and Q6700. Lately though, there have been many users that were unable to overclock these to the levels that they used to achieve. They are based on 65nm and are pretty old really. Socket 775 is at the end of the road too, making and potential future upgrade a rather unlikely event.

Dual core i would avoid, but many disagree, especially as E8400 and above can usually achieve up to 4GHz with a good mobo. (No idea about your mobo though).

AMDs offering offer the advantage of having the Tri-Core option, its cheap, and overclocks a lot. A good mix in my opinion. Mobos tend to be cheaper as well.

Anyway, god luck with whatever you choose to buy

 

[stephentw]

So would the Q8's be better than the Q6's? The 8's are 45nm right?

Future upgrades I don't really care, I hardly ever upgrade and when I do it's that long after the last time that I have to replace the whole lot generally haha.

I presume my combination should work as it's on the motherboards qvl so I just need to pick a processor I guess.

 

[JeremyW]

The Q6's are 65nm and so run hotter but have have higher multipliers available if you want to overclock i.e. with poorer RAM and motherboard you can still have a fairly high CPU clock rate. The Q8's are as you say are 45nm parts and so are more power efficient but as they have lower fixed multipliers when overclocking you may not get more overall clock speed out of a Q8 CPU than a Q6 depending on the RAM and motherboard.

 

[Dakotacs]

Definitely go for a quad since you hardly ever upgrade. It'll provide better future-proofing and will show it's strengths when you run multiple applications at once.

 

[stephentw]

I don't overclock either so I think a 45nm is in order since I'd prefer less power consumption so I think that leaves Q8300 or 8200. Might as well get the higher one I guess but I'll see what offers are on when I get the money!

 

[antran]

go the quad, never looked back again.

 

[Jabbs]

I recently sold my q6600 and have a 6320 which has 2 meg per core same as the q6600 and now clocked at 2.4 gig the same as the quad and the difference in windows speed is very very noticeable, my pc feels so laggy compared to how it did on the quad and obviously when doing lots of things its so slow, anyone that says you don't need a quad in windows for everyday use is talking rubbish.