"Core 2 Duo e8400" vs. "Quad Core Q6600"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beckman44

In Runtime
Messages
105
I posted this question on another thread but decided to open it up to the other people for the quick reference.


Whats your opinion?
 
If your multitasking a lot or using cpu intensive things I would go with the q6600.
 
The newest batches of Q6600s can't overclock well, needing a lot of voltage juice to get decent clocks, I hear.. I would choose a Q6600 over an E8400 if it were a matter of clock for clock and the Q6600 can hit 3.6GHz stable. But now I dunno

Many people argue that games don't utilize quad-core tech, but I don't think that's the point really.. Most games I've played have never been limited by my Q6600 (overclocked to 3.2 for daily use) what I have found is that alt-tabbing something like Crysis to a 10+ tab session in Firefox and listening to a massive music playlist on winamp, while unpacking a large .rar file, whilst encoding a bunch of videos to play on my mp3 player is much more manageable on a q6600 than on my friends' E8500 rig running @ 4.0GHz
 
alt-tabbing with 10+ tabs in firefox and listening to music doesn't have much to do with the CPU, that's all about memory. And unpacking rars doesn't have much to do with the cpu either, that's all about hd speed. Encoding rars and videos will no doubt be much faster on the quad though.
 
Okay they even now.

Alot of people say the e8400 is good for a smaller amount of multitasking.
They say its alot faster then the q6600 also.
I will probably go with that because of what people have been saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom