e8400 vs q6600

[crazlunatic]

Which one is better? I heard the e8400 could OC better, but I noticed that the e8400 actually rose in price while the q6600 has dropped.

What's better?

 

[Markfw]

One is a dual-core, the other is quad, its apples and oranges.

Do you need a quad ? if s, then get the Q6600, otherwise, get the E8400

 

[M1A]

The quad group like to think it apples and oranges but they are not that different for 95% of users. Just different in a few programs getting max performance. If you are not doing video stuff or heavy apps and using it for gaming and programs that were not wrote for quads get a dual core. If you plan to keep it a long time and think in the future the apps will be using the quad better that might me ok.

 

[Davegod]

I'm in similar boat. It's not about needing the 4 vs 2 cores now but say 2 years down the line.

FWIW my reading had suggested that under normal usage (i.e. not playing games while encoding a bunch of videos) the E8400 is faster (stock speeds) than the Q6600 at just about anything, since not that much can take good advantage of 2 cores, never mind 4. Further, the E8400 overclocks better. For now, the E8400 is the obvious choice for most people.

But, whether that's true when you're halfway through the period until your next upgrade, that's the trouble. The Q6600 isnt all that much slower and if your uses do become good with multicore the Q6600 should beat the crap out of the E8400.

 

[M1A]

You have to weigh out, what the new chips out then will be and what you can get one of these chips for then. I would never buy for that far in the future you never know what will happen. Real world I think all this is splitting hairs but I am very happy with my 8400.

 

[Twista]

Im not sure which is better. i own the e8400. I use my computer for browsing the web and mainly gaming so the e8400 is the best for me.

 

[Tempered81]

I went with the E8400 for its overclocking. I agree with this statement 100% because I plan to upgrade to the latest tech when it becomes useful (multi-core next-gen).

Originally posted by: m1a
never buy for that far in the future you never know what will happen.

I think this is one reason why the q6600 went from $850 to $189

 

[boomhower]

What do you use your computer for? If you use programs that can take advantage of the quad go for it. If you just game and surf the net get the E8400. Other than games there isn't much that is going to change in the next year or two. I don't think games will even really take advantage of them in that time frame unless there are some major changes in the GPU landscape due to games being GPU limited. Unless your encode, crunch, or are a massive multi-tasker there really isn't a need to go quad.

 

[TigerMonsoonDragon]

personally i do a lot of multitasking and gaming so a quad would fit the bill nicely

 

[v8envy]

Hi, broken record here. Just what is it you plan on doing in the next 6-12 months that can't be done on an E2XXX chip at 3 ghz or so? And in 6 months, what will you be doing that the E7400 won't hack? etc, etc.

I run a 3.2 ghz quad (as of last friday =) ) on my house server and a 2.66 to 3.33 ghz E2180 on my main desktop. No doubt about it, the quad kicks major butt in every direction. OTOH, the cheapie 2 series does everything I ask it to just fine. If you have to ask quad vs dual, you're probably just fine with a dual.

 

[Skott]

Another thing to consider is time. We often say quad could be better plan 2 years down the line. If you are the type that upgrades every two years or maybe even more often, like myself, that two year down the line notion sorta goes out the window because you'll be buying a new cpu amd mobo anyway.

I would say look at what you are going to do with said pc. Net surfing and games only, dual core. If you plan to run alot of apps all at once or something to do with photo editing, burning ripping music and etc., get quad core.

This is just my opinion though.