Get Q6600 with Quadcore, or E8400 with SSE4? What's more future proof?

[GundamF91]

I'm thinking of Q6600 or E8400. I think in gaming, E8400 will hit higher clock speed. Also clock for clock, the 45nm technology should be faster than Q6600. On the other hand Q6600 has 4 cores, and is definitely better if application would support and utilize quadcore technology. So down the road it may last longer and be future proof.

On the other hand, for the computing stuff that takes the biggest advantage of quadcore, such as video work, the SSE4 in the E8400 is suppose to provide nearly 50-100% in speed boost over non-SSE4. So this may mitigate the advantage of quadcore.

So with all those considered, which is better between Q6600 and E8400?

 

[AshPhoenix]

I'd choose the E8400.

 

[GundamF91]

So would the SSE4 be that crucial to have? I was thinking if the SSE4 is an important thing, it may make dual core to run nearly as well as a nonSSE quad core.

 

[AlgaeEater]

Gaming? Faster clocked Dual Core. If you're like me, you'll be itching for a major overhaul / upgrade about every 18 months on average. I use to try and future proof things, but I realized it was a loosing battle since when I needed to do a minor upgrade of something, I would end up just building an entirely new setup from scratch.

Mind you, this is speaking from the eyes of a gamer. We always go faster (like car enthusiasts) and its hard to go back.

 

[Gillbot]

8400

 

[zsdersw]

1. Depends how long before you upgrade again ("future proof" is a highly variable term)

2. Depends what you primarily use the computer for

3. The motherboard or chipset you pick is often as important if not more than which CPU you pick in terms of how long you'll be satisfied with it

 

[GundamF91]

I want to keep this system running as long as possible before upgrading to the next, since I think most applications are not keeping up with the multicore technology. I'll be using Asus P5Q board with P45 chipset, so hopefully that'll last a while. Also will use PCIe 2.0 card, probably HD4850.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I'd go with a quad

 

[geoffry]

If you want to be more "future proof" why not wait for Nehalam?

Your e4500 at 3.2 ghz isn't exactly a terrible CPU. And your mobo will take a 4850 as well. You probably will see little to zero difference in gaming between your current CPU or an e8400 or Q6600, the vid card is much more important.

 

[EarthwormJim]

The quad in my view is more future proof.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater

Mind you, this is speaking from the eyes of a gamer. We always go faster (like car enthusiasts) and its hard to go back.

this is such a bad analogy.

Cuz in that respect i'll get a quad which would be a V8 compared to a V4. And my Yorkfield would be a V12.
You wanna jump HyperTransport and jump into high Ghz?
Cuz i'll take a C2D over a Hypertransport machine anyday.

I Personally cant go back to dualcores.
Being serious, i hate dualcores with passions now that i use more stuff which is quad optimized.

Quads are more future proof. There is no debate. Why? cuz 4 is always greater then 2.

And the 2 can never be 2x faster then the 4, so the 2 wont stack up.


Its true we dont have many quadcore optimized programs, but if were talking future proof, that shoul be added into the equation.

Originally posted by: geoffry
If you want to be more "future proof" why not wait for Nehalam?

You wanna drop 4-7G's? or Wait 1-1.5yrs? The choice is yours.

 

[GundamF91]

Ah, good question on the upgrade from E4500 to Q6600/E8400. Actually I'm my current rig to a relative, so I'm doing a new build, and that's why I am looking to find something with more legs.

 

[Donts00tmesanta]

Quad but i'd wait for a better quad

 

[Cogman]

So far SSE4 has been a complete disappointment. nothing is guaranteed future proof, but a quad wouldn't be a bad choice.

 

[spdfreak]

Just for gaming, there isn't any real need to change what you have. I am upgrading from a E4500 (OCed to 2.93) to a Q6600 (OCed to 3.0) because I transcode a lot of HDTV shows to x264. The quad really shines doing things like video encoding, but makes no real difference in games except maybe some flight sims that need the extra cores like flight sim X. Spend your money on a faster video card and wait until there is something out that will really make a difference.

 

[Acanthus]

Q9400

 

[ultra laser]

From reading all the threads on quadcores, it seems like most people are avid video editors. Is this accurate?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
From reading all the threads on quadcores, it seems like most people are avid video editors. Is this accurate?

I do quite a bit with pinnacle studio and nero vision.

 

[spdfreak]

I think audio and video encoding are about the only widely used apps that support more than 2 cores. So if you don't do any of this, a dual core cpu is fine.

 

[wongnog]

I am having this exact same debate as I try and figure out my build. I do some gaming but mostly video/audio encoding using DivX (which supports SSE4) and Cinemecraft Encoder. I cannot determine what would be better for my applications as I do plan on overclocking. So an OC'd E8400 w/ SSE4 or an OC'd Q6600? I'm thinking of going for the Q6600 because it should mean I can encode video AND play games in the background at the same time without noticing a tick, is that right? Then maybe 18 months down the road perhaps some newer 45nm quad core will come down when the Nehalams are introduced? What do you guys think.

 

[GundamF91]

It's been a while since I originally asked the question, and I finally settled on getting the Q9450. It's just that much better than Q6600, and also Quad core is more future proof than dual core. Unless future applications demand much more power, I plan to skip the Nehalem generation and wait it out.

 

[spinejam]

you made a wise decision! enjoy your quad!

 

[wongnog]

The Q9450 is a $150 more than the Q6600, so maybe I'll upgrade to that (or similar) in the future but right now I just can't justify the price difference.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Quad is by far going to be more future resistant than dual. People went through the same thing back when we were moving from single to dual. The choice was often between going with a single core A64 that could hit the then coveted 3GHz mark or settle for a newer X2 (or equivalent Opty 1xx) which would most likely top out @ 2.6-2.7GHz. Back then a lot of people chose the 3GHz single core route if only because it sounded so good for the time, but fast forward to today and those with the dual core still have a decently potent machine whereas the singlecore guys (assuming they haven't upgraded yet) will admit they probably should have gone dual...

 

[NFSPD]

I am one of those guys went single but I am proud to say I am doing a new build and going q9450


Go quad