e8400 vs. q6600

[graw2]

I am trying to decide which processor to get for my new build. I have heard that the e8400 is better for games, which is what I will probably be doing more of, and the q6600 is better for multitasking. About the only thing I use my computer for is internet, downloading stuff, burning cd's with nero, watching movies, listening to music, and playing games.

Also I want something that will last me a while without having to upgrade(if I can hold myself back ). I heard that the q6600 is more of a future proof processor since more programs and games will begin to utilize all four cores.

If Newegg had them in stock, I would have already bought the e8400 but nobody has them in stock and if they do, they are way overpriced. Tigerdirect has the oem version for $230. I thought about buying that and buying an aftermarket cooler like the arctic cooling freezer 7. That will still be higher than what I can buy the q6600 for.

Do you think it is worth it to spend more on the e8400 rather than buying the q6600?

 

[lhuser]

Well, the Q6600 has four cores, which makes multitasking much better than th E8400. However, the E8400 has higher FSB and it is on a 45nm architecture, so it's lower power and heat. But I do believe the Q6600 will have better suit for you.

 

[worshipme]

For what you're going to ba doing with your PC, the E8400 is the best choice. These are the new 45nm Wolfdales. The Q6600 is about to be replaced by the 45nm quads and no computer is future-proof. You will always have to upgrade if you want good performance in the latest apps. Currently almost all games are single threaded. Even games that have been released recently like Crysis don't perform any better with a quad because games nowadays are much more dependant on the GPU. Even in the few games that exist that are multi-threaded, quads don't show big improvements over a good dual core (UT3). As for the prices, because the availablility of the E8400 is low, the prices are higher. Wait maybe two weeks for them to come back in stock and the prices will have settled. Of course, you could also try to get one off Ebay. If you are overclocking I would definitely recommend the E8400 still. They can reach 4.2Ghz on air cooling. 3.6GHz is the max for the Q6600. Here are some benchmarks for the E8xxx, Q6600, and the new base model Q9300 45nm quad: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0.
These are some benchmark quotes from the article:

HL2: Episode 2:
E8500 @ 4.3GHz- 240FPS
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz- 206FPS
E8500 @ stock- 185FPS
Q6600 @ stock- 144FPS

Crysis:
E8500 @ 4.3GHz- 83FPS
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz- 78FPS
E8500 @ stock- 72FPS
Q6600 @ stock- 55FPS

UT3:
E8500 @ 4.3GHz-186FPS
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz-189FPS
E8500 @ stock- 157FPS
Q6600 @ stock-153FPS
(I remind you that the Unreal 3 engine is multi-threaded)

 

[superman22x]

That compares the E8500 though. I dont that is even out yet. I think they both use the 1333FSB though dont they?

 

[worshipme]

The E8400 can easily reach E8500 speeds and has the same overclocking potential. The E8200 can't seem to reach the speeds that the E8400/500 can though.

 

[Xion901]

q6600 is better

 

[worshipme]

q6600 is better

Quad cores are better for some things, not everything. I have already proven the E8xxx series is better for gaming. Quads are for video editors and encoding big files.

 

[Xion901]

quad cores are good for gaming aswell...unless you are a porfessional gamer and want everything at its peak then thats a different case

 

[graw2]

I made my decision and went with a q6600 mainly because I didn't want to wait for the e8400 to come back in stock. I don't like to wait, I don't even like to order stuff online. I really wanted that e8400, oh well. I hope I made a good choice.

Maybe a year or two down the road, I may upgrade to the 45nm quad cores when they are cheaper.

 

[worshipme]

The Nehalems and 45nm Phenoms will be out by then and the 45nm Yorkfields will be long outdated.