• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

which is the better CPU?

adam1v

adam1v

adam1v

Associate
Joined
31 May 2006
Posts
253
Intel® Processor Q6600 Quad Core™ 2.40GHz

or

E8500 Core 2 Duo Processor (3.16GHz, 6MB, 1333MH

Im just considering possibilities at the moment. I know one processor is slightly quicker than the other, but its a dual core and not quad core, so im unsure.
 
The e8500 is actually quicker clock for clock as well. If it was me i'd get the e8500 but that's because i game. Having said that they are both great for gaming, its just my preference would be for the e8500. However I would go for the e8400 and save some cash.
 
Both CPUs will be great for gaming the quad may be a bit more future proof , but if you do go for the dual core id save some cash and get the 8400 :)
 
i say quad.

after 3+ghz on a C2D, from what i've heard, the GPU becomes the limit, so you won't really be able to use some of that 8400's power. Not to mention the stock issues for the 8400 are still going on.

the quad will last longer, come into it's own when multithreaded games become more dominant, and clocks like a dream, so you can recoup most of the 8400's OCing back... and if you encode video, there is no question that the quad will be better.

what do you want to do with the chip; you haven't said.
 
Last edited:
I dont plan to do anything too demanding, mainly gaming, but a reasonable amount of photoshop/dreamweaver.

There wont be any video editing. I was thinking the Quad core more for future proofing (as mentioned above), but then I thought i was futureproofing 2 years ago when i bought the x2 739 pin; things just dont stand still long enough to ever get the future proofing.
 
Ive just got E8400 and clocked it to 3.6, cos when games need quad core like in 1 - 2yrs time they will be real cheap, and I should be able to drop 1 in my current motherboard. Or thats the plan anyway.
 
Quad. At the risk of another quad v dual thread, unless you're after bragging rights a 3Ghz+ quad (i.e. a mild overclock on the Q6600) seems to be a more sensible medium term choice for a gamer IMO. As some games are already using >2 cores, it won't be long before it becomes more of an advantage to have 4

Unless you're benchmarking, when gaming at a decent resolution you'll be waiting for the graphics card... ;)
 
I'd take the quad.

In single-threaded benchmarks the dual core will win, but in multi-threaded ones the Quad will win by a very large margin.

The point is that the Q6600 is still fast enough, no matter what you do on it.
 
for your purposes i'd take the 8500, because you won't use the extra cores for what you're doing, and because it's newer tech, runs cooler etc. but be careful how many volts you put through it.
 
See my sig ;)

But you really need to look at what software you use most and see if it supports quad cores or not.......
 
Last edited:
If you must have clocks >4GHz, then E8400
If your going to get it from OcUK then the Q6600 oem is now £35 cheaper than the E8400 and if your using a P35 or X38 mobo the Quad would seem a better choice.

I know I have a E8400, but I got it when it was £40 cheaper than the quad:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom