Is the E8400 the best processor?

[carnageX]

He clearly said "or" between those applications. Implying one and another. Maybe three at once.

Thanks, thats exactly what I was going to say xD.
But actually, I do do quite a few of those things at once. I'll sometimes have a game, WMP playing, a few browser windows open on my other monitor, and will also have XFire running on occasins.

I some what agree but at the same time don't agree. Remember I have both of these processors and I don't see q6600 to justify the price or the notability of increased performance. Referring to the thread, I am going to still stand to e8400 being the best processor.

That's because you're not running multi-thread programs. As more apps (including games) become multi-threaded, the more cores will benefit you.

 

[Luke]

The extra cores just won't be used. Doesn't make dual core better.

yeah, and the e8400 is 3.0ghz so it will be faster,

 

[Ste]

yeah, and the e8400 is 3.0ghz so it will be faster,

And my Q6600 is 3.6 Ghz.
So mine is better..

But we aren't talking about clock speed, we are talking about which is better and bottom line is.

Q6600 Long Term. For those that do not plan to upgrade to a newer processor for a very long time.
E8400 Short Term. For those that will upgrade to a newer processor, in less than a 6 to 12 month span.

 

[Poizen22]

The extra cores just won't be used. Doesn't make dual core better.

a ur right call of duty 4 uses 2 cores while one core runs back round aps , so if you have a duel core itl be slower then a quad is in that game, and there is suposed to be a patch released to eventualy to quad core crysis, and alan wake has been guaranteed to be quad core effective games are coming sooner then u think the new splinter cell is rumord to be quad core effective it might run on the same engine as alan wake as rumored. i run lots of apps at once to so i like my q6600. quad core effective games are just around the corner.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

and once we see quad-core optimized games, the q6600 will crush the e8400, at this point of time, the q6600 is only slightly better (for gaming)

I'm quite happy with my Q6600, and I do multi-task quite a bit

 

[veedubfreak]

Oddly enough, world of warcraft actually uses quad core if you set the affinity. But running 2 monitors, and a q6600 i tend to have Trillian running, warcraft (or any other number of games), ventrillo, firefox, streaming music, etc etc. If you have ADD when using the computer and have lots of applications open, the quadcore rocks.

 

[nOcLuE98]

but you can clock the e8400 to over 4ghz easy, so in games that dont support quad, I think the dual beats out the quad. But really short term. I got one because I plan on getting one of the new quads...

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

but you can clock the e8400 to over 4ghz easy, so in games that dont support quad, I think the dual beats out the quad. But really short term. I got one because I plan on getting one of the new quads...

it doesn't really work that way though, when I observe my Q6600 running older games, it splits the tasks across all four cores... I don't understand where people are getting this "games that don't support quad-cores" I don't see it... anything I run is split evenly across all four cores, so it's always an advantage over dual unless the architecture is substantially better..

I don't understand why we don't just look up some benchmarks rather than give speculative arguments, but the dumb thing is these dumb benchmarks are run at low resolutions... wth?

 

[Rawmaterial]

By the time my C2D or my Quad get outdated for more multi-thread applications I will most likely be buying a new processor by that time anyway.

 

[nOcLuE98]

By the time my C2D or my Quad get outdated for more multi-thread applications I will most likely be buying a new processor by that time anyway.

yeah, i am so getting a quad nehalem when they come out.