Quad Core vs. Dual Core

[Sectick]

I am about ready to pull the trigger on the system I got advice on a few days ago.

I am still really up in the air on what to do about the CPU. This computer will deffinatley be used 75% of the time for gaming and browsing the web. The rest of the time I will be using it for photoshop and video editing work (not professionally).

How much of a performance increase will I see with a E8400 vs. a Q6600 stock for gaming?

I usually build computers that I want to last for more than 2 years with only minor upgrades (RAM & GPU)

Any suggestions on which processor or other processor I should look at?

 

[chinaman1472]

E8400 stock > Q6600 stock for gaming.

But I think Q6600 stock > E8400 stock for photoshop/video editing.

 

[imported_nightfox]

Personally I'd go with the quad as it is easily OCed and will probably perform better in future games than the dual core.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Do you tend to have much running in the background while you game? If so, the quad will stop the game process from getting context switched much.

I think future games will be more likely to take advantage of the extra cores, so looking ahead the quad may perform better in games even if it gets beat out by the dual right now.

 

[Blain]

The E8400 is higher clocked, both FSB and rated speed.
I'd say it would be rare for you to "notice" any performance increase (any applications), by going with a quad core over the dual core.

 

[Skraeling]

Just like i doubt you would notice 105fps vs 95fps in a game either... dual/quad.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Read the AMD tri-core article on the AT main page to see why a fast intel dual core is much better for gaming than 3-4 slower cores.

A faster dual-core is usually going to be better than a slow quad-core even for PhotoShop and video editing.

 

[Sectick]

Well I've decided to go with a Quad-Core that I can overclock to 3.0 Ghz . What are your thoughts on the Q6600 vs. the Q9300 ? I was leading towards the Q9300 for the 45nm technology and cooler running speeds.

Any reason why I wouldn't want to get the Q9300 over the Q6600 other than the price?

 

[Roguestar]

Aside from the $65 difference, the Q9300 has less cache, is more power-efficient, overclocks higher, has SSE4.1 support. It's up to you.

 

[Jax Omen]

the Q9300 overclocks LOWER, though. Lower multiplier.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
the Q9300 overclocks LOWER, though. Lower multiplier.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Q9300 overclocks lower, just that it requires a higher frontside bus to run at a given speed.

 

[Jax Omen]

Given the difficulty most people seem to continue to have keeping stable above 400FSB with any CPU/mobo on air, I'd say it clocks lower for anyone who's using air cooling.

 

[Roguestar]

Tell that to the people in the CPU/OC forum. Hell, I've been doing 425MHz FSB on air for months.