# Q6600 or E8400



## ZeroWing

Which one would you guys choose? They are almost same in price except the Q6600 is $20 more. I was wondering which one would run games better, are there even games that utilize 4 cores? By the time they release the Q6600 will probably be outdated am I right?


----------



## TrainTrackHack

Bioshock already utilizes at least 8 threads, I'm almost certain  it's not the only game that utilizes more than 2 cores out there though they are scarce. Since games are more GPU than CPU bound, the E8400 won't offer any massive frame advantages if you just OC your Q6600 to 3GHz (even a noob can do that, they're just that good OCers), for only $20 more I'd definitely go Quad.


----------



## ScOuT

$20 extra = future proof

There is no reason not to get the quad, just like what hackapelite kinda said, they can hit 3GHz without a problem. You never know what a year can do for the software industry....all games could use all 4 cores this time next year


----------



## Ramodkk

^ It's not like ALL games are gonna use 4 cores within a year.

I guess I'm the "different" guy. I'd say you get the E8400 since it can overclock better/further. I don't know how many times I'll have to say this but anyways:

If you are going to be playing games mainly, get a Wolfdale because you can overclock the heck our of them and they would give you better FPS in games. If you are going to use Photoshop, video editing or video/animation rendering or you're just one of those people who like to have 5 applications open while they are burning a disc and playing a game, then it'd be a good idea to get a Quad. 

Quad cores are not yet the standard for processors. By the time they are, by the time all/most games use 4 cores and most apps use all 4 cores, there are gonna be cheaper/better quad processors.

But I know, that's *only* my opinion...


----------



## Roncharlespatton

Quad I MEAN ITS 4 CORES


----------



## scooter

e8400...for sure.

q6600 is an ok cpu but its a 'budget quad'...

Get the dual core 8400 and u can always consider a real quad in a year or whatever.

Sorry to those running a q6600 but it is bottom of barrel, lets be honest.


----------



## Roncharlespatton

Actully scooter you are kinda right, obviously the quads are better the more money they cost. 

I dream about you:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115051


----------



## scooter

Roncharlespatton said:


> Actully scooter you are kinda right, obviously the quads are better the more money they cost.
> 
> I dream about you:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115051



Well, to an extent..

Just because one cpu is more money than another doesnt always make it better but there are multiple reasons why I know the e8400 is better than the Q6600.

For the purposes of this thread and the choice between the 2 cpus---there isnt even a second I would think of choosing the quad.


----------



## Ramodkk

scooter said:


> e8400...for sure.
> 
> q6600 is an ok cpu but its a 'budget quad'...
> 
> Get the dual core 8400 and u can always consider a real quad in a year or whatever.
> 
> Sorry to those running a q6600 but it is bottom of barrel, lets be honest.



Thank you! Finally someone understands...


----------



## scooter

ramodkk said:


> Thank you! Finally someone understands...



Da da da daaa....captain obvious to the rescue, dropping knowledge on all ya'll!!


----------



## Droogie

Well, I got the Q6700 but If I to pick over I probably would have gotten the E8400.  There both great CPU's and you probably won't notice that big of a difference between the two.  Sure the Q6600 is a lower end quad-core, but that certainly doesn't make it a bad CPU.


----------



## scooter

tknick90 said:


> ..Sure the Q6600 is a lower end quad-core, but that certainly doesn't make it a bad CPU.



Yes, I agree with that!

I still say e8400 hands down but the q6600 is certainly not garbage.,,


----------



## DirtyD86

my view on the situation is that buying an E8400 is sort of like buying a really nice analog TV set. if you want performance in games only, then buy it. but a year from now whenever it is needing to be replaced you will regret it. 

if you are a multitasker and are looking more towards the future you will do the smart thing and buy a quad. the Q6600 may be the budget intel quad but it can easily be overclocked to 3.0.... even if software and games currently only use two of the four cores, 3ghz is no slouch, it can handle anything out currently at maximum settings or close to it. saying a Q6600 is a cheap CPU because it is one of intels lower costing quads is sort of like saying an E class mercedes is a cheap car. 

in a nutshell, 4 > 2.


----------



## scooter

DirtyD86 said:


> my view on the situation is that buying an E8400 is sort of like buying a really nice analog TV set. if you want performance in games only, then buy it. but a year from now whenever it is needing to be replaced you will regret it.
> 
> if you are a multitasker and are looking more towards the future you will do the smart thing and buy a quad. the Q6600 may be the budget intel quad but it can easily be overclocked to 3.0.... even if software and games currently only use two of the four cores, 3ghz is no slouch, it can handle anything out currently at maximum settings or close to it. saying a Q6600 is a cheap CPU because it is one of intels lower costing quads is sort of like saying an E class mercedes is a cheap car.
> 
> in a nutshell, 4 > 2.



Performance in games only?!?! Obviously you havent used an e8400...so thats just a silly comment.

And comparing a bottom-end quad cpu to a higher-end mercedes is also silly..

I would have said the q6600 is like the C-class..


----------



## Interested

hell no. a q6600 is a clk 55, but now they have the clk 63 (q9450). a c-class would be a e2160. and a e8400 would be a clk 550 or such . mercedes is a bad example, how about this:

BMW 335i = e8400 (335i has twin turbo 3 liter inline 6, newer, and faster in a straight line and on a track, and cheaper, and lighter, so it handles better, like a cheap sports car.)
BMW 650i = Q6600 (650i is an older model, has a V8 making more power, but its heavier, slower, but more luxorious than the 335i and also more expensive, and still has a naturally aspirated V8.)

so u choose, a cheaper, quicker sports coupe, with a twin-turbo I-6 or a more expensive slower yet more prestige grand tourer with a V8.

lol. 

idk about u guys, but i dont consider a e-class high end, not even a clk.


----------



## scooter

Interested said:


> hell no. a q6600 is a clk 55, but now they have the clk 63 (q9450). a c-class would be a e2160. and a e8400 would be a clk 550 or such . mercedes is a bad example, how about this:
> 
> BMW 335i = e8400 (335i has twin turbo 3 liter inline 6, newer, and faster in a straight line and on a track, and cheaper, and lighter, so it handles better, like a cheap sports car.)
> BMW 650i = Q6600 (650i is an older model, has a V8 making more power, but its heavier, slower, but more luxorious than the 335i and also more expensive, and still has a naturally aspirated V8.)
> 
> so u choose, a cheaper, quicker sports coupe, with a twin-turbo I-6 or a more expensive slower yet more prestige grand tourer with a V8.
> 
> lol.




Where is KRS-ONE! you just dropped some serious science!

LOL..

we are both making horrible comparisons but I love cars so I find it highly amusing!

God I hate BMW's though..


----------



## Interested

scooter said:


> Where is KRS-ONE! you just dropped some serious science!
> 
> LOL..
> 
> we are both making horrible comparisons but I love cars so I find it highly amusing!
> 
> God I hate BMW's though..



why?

if u call me a BMW fanboi, i must admit i am.


----------



## Jerrick

I went Q6600.

4 cores running at 3ghz each doesnt sound bad to me at all, specially when the stock quad-core is $1,000+ and clocked at 3.2ghz. Im sure that one stock is going to perform better than a Q6600 OCed to 3.2ghz, but still. 

Im not much of a gamer, but for me, 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores getting used at 3ghz each is going to be good for me now, and good for me for quite a few years. And I know that is going to perform very well with all the recording I do, with multiple VSTs open and running, recording/multi-track.

For me, the quad is just more efficient right now.


----------



## scooter

Interested said:


> why?
> 
> if u call me a BMW fanboi, i must admit i am.



No, no...no disrespect

I'm just not bmw guy.

Even if I told you what I drive , you wouldnt believe me.

..


----------



## Intel_man

Screw BMW. MB/Mclaren ftw.


----------



## scooter

Intel_man said:


> Screw BMW. MB/Mclaren ftw.



Thank you!


----------



## ScOuT

BMW 335i = e8400 (335i has twin turbo 3 liter inline 6, newer, and faster in a straight line and on a track, and cheaper, and lighter, so it handles better, like a cheap sports car.)
BMW 650i = Q6600 (650i is an older model, has a V8 making more power, but its heavier, slower, but more luxorious than the 335i and also more expensive, and still has a naturally aspirated V8.)

Now it all makes sense!  That was good, I like that

My pick would be the Q6600, it might be the "bottom" of the quads....but it is an absolute performer. OC it a bit and you'll be happy with it for a while. Software is slowly migrating towards the quads. Software developers are starting to make one program run on many threads. Can't go wrong with it.


----------



## scooter

I feel like I shouldnt have said 'bottom-end' but...I stand by my comments...


----------



## ScOuT

It's all just personal choice.....This thread was to help a guy choose what processor to buy and look where it ended

ZeroWing....it's really up to you, there is a split decision on this one. Both are great products.

By the way....scooter....what do you drive?


----------



## scooter

ScOuT said:


> It's all just personal choice.....This thread was to help a guy choose what processor to buy and look where it ended
> 
> ZeroWing....it's really up to you, there is a split decision on this one. Both are great products.
> 
> By the way....scooter....what do you drive?



I have an 08 ford escape...lol...

but..

the ride I refer to is a silver 1960 356B Porsche

just under 31,000 built...nothing legendary but my little toy.


----------



## lovely?

q6600... its futile to say that the e8400 is faster in the end. run 4 instances of super-pi at the same time and you will see. and to say that by the time quad cores will be utilized, it will be too late, well thats pretty ridiculous.


----------



## scooter

lovely? said:


> run 4 instances of super-pi at the same time and you will see...



Completely pointless...


----------



## DirtyD86

scooter said:


> Performance in games only?!?! Obviously you havent used an e8400...so thats just a silly comment.



a faster dual core is where a CPU has the biggest advantage over a slower quad at the moment.

but that is all going to change soon


----------



## ZeroWing

so, E8500 or E8400? Im not sure if I want to OC just yet but what could each CPU easily go up to?


----------



## fade2green514

in my opinion, get the Q6600. im sure i'm not the only gamer that likes to do other things while im gaming... i.e. play music with iTunes, browse the internet (alt+tab), and whatever other processes need processing. this way, even if you're games dont use 4 cores at least they will get an entire core to itself, or 2 entire cores.

in any case, neither of them will bottleneck your games. they will both handle games nowadays without any problem at all. as for next year, well the quad will be around 1.75x as good if not more.

oh, and if a game is not split up into multiple threads then it generally doesnt require a lot of processing power, am i right? they make the games the way they ought to be made they dont just split up a game into multiple threads if a 2ghz celeron could easily process it.

anyways, when it comes to gaming the graphics card matters more so spend some time picking one of those out. i suggest the radeon HD 4850 or for a bit higher end the HD 4870


----------



## ZeroWing

ok so im gonna go for the quad just to say that I have one lol . I can OC to 3ghz and I will definetly be satisfied going from a 2.4ghz AMD processor anyways . What is the highest that someone has OC'd the Q6600? If I buy a crazy fan for it I mgiht try to go higher if I want more performance. GFX card wise, I have a 9600gt right now. When it drops in price again ill grab the 4870 since I can max all my games with the 9600gt @ this time. THanks for all the help, I am surprised it went up to 3 pages and got side tracked into cars .


----------



## scooter

ZeroWing said:


> so, E8500 or E8400? Im not sure if I want to OC just yet but what could each CPU easily go up to?



e8400 will do 4.0ghz without even breakin a sweat...

I think the highest on here is 4.7ghz.


----------



## Ramodkk

ZeroWing said:


> What is the highest that someone has OC'd the Q6600?



The highest I've seen in here for the Q6600 is 3.85GHz by [-0MEGA-] and the highest E8400 I've seen is 4.7GHz by ThatGuy16  but both with water cooling...


----------



## Interested

Intel_man said:


> Screw BMW. MB/Mclaren ftw.



lol. why does everyone hate on BMW's?

IMHO, (not to be rude or anything), mb's are shit unless you are talking about a cls 500 or better, and those can break down too. maybe a cls would be as low as good. but what good is mclaren? and u know the mclaren F1 was powered by a BMW engine?

sry for going OT


----------



## fade2green514

ZeroWing said:


> ok so im gonna go for the quad just to say that I have one lol . I can OC to 3ghz and I will definetly be satisfied going from a 2.4ghz AMD processor anyways . What is the highest that someone has OC'd the Q6600? If I buy a crazy fan for it I mgiht try to go higher if I want more performance. GFX card wise, I have a 9600gt right now. When it drops in price again ill grab the 4870 since I can max all my games with the 9600gt @ this time. THanks for all the help, I am surprised it went up to 3 pages and got side tracked into cars .



if you get a really stable one and your motherboard is really good then you'll probably get around 3.6ghz.


----------



## scooter

ZeroWing said:


> ok so im gonna go for the quad just to say that I have one lol . ...


----------



## fade2green514

scooter said:


> e8400 will do 4.0ghz without even breakin a sweat...
> 
> I think the highest on here is 4.7ghz.



yea but a Q6600 can process multi-threaded apps more than 1.7x as fast at its average overclock... around 3.4ghz. even my crappy motherboard will overclock that much lol


----------



## DirtyD86

ZeroWing said:


> ok so im gonna go for the quad just to say that I have one lol . I can OC to 3ghz and I will definetly be satisfied going from a 2.4ghz AMD processor anyways . What is the highest that someone has OC'd the Q6600? If I buy a crazy fan for it I mgiht try to go higher if I want more performance. GFX card wise, I have a 9600gt right now. When it drops in price again ill grab the 4870 since I can max all my games with the 9600gt @ this time. THanks for all the help, I am surprised it went up to 3 pages and got side tracked into cars .





good decision. a Q6600 and a 4870 will handle games without breaking a sweat for a long time to come


----------



## ZeroWing

Ok so here are the parts im ordering tonight, please let me know if theres a problem before I order. Ill order around 10PM. The mobo was suggested by someone on the forum so Im hoping its good . Will it be able to support the CPU OC'ing to 3.4? If I hit 3.4Ghz will I need to replace the stock cooler on the CPU?

Q6600:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

Mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128336

The mobo had some reviews where it crapped out, I am really sick of sending stuff back to newegg and all the S/H. If anyone knows of a mobo around the same price that has a better review, better OC capable please let me know. Thanks.


----------



## Ramodkk

This would be a better mobo for cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131297

- or -

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136053


----------



## ZeroWing

ramodkk said:


> This would be a better mobo for cheaper:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131297
> 
> - or -
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136053



Is the black PCI-E 8x or 16x? Cz the one I linked is 16x/16x so I cud get the most out of SLI/Xfire. What about the second mobo? I cant find anything on the page for speed.


----------



## Ramodkk

Do you have in mind going with a dual-card setup?


----------



## ZeroWing

ramodkk said:


> Do you have in mind going with a dual-card setup?



yesir


----------



## vix

From someone who owns both CPU's, for gaming, I'd _*definitely*_ recommend the E8400.

My E8400 at an easy 4.2 GHz OC beats my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz, no doubt about it.  (E8400 OC was easy... the Q6600 OC was a bit of a challenge)  

There are many here who can speculate which would be better for gaming, but I've compared both CPU's firsthand, both with the same video card, OS and settings.  If you need a gaming rig NOW, get the E8400.  If you can wait a little longer, wait for Nehalem/i7.


----------



## ZeroWing

vix said:


> From someone who owns both CPU's, for gaming, I'd _*definitely*_ recommend the E8400.
> 
> My E8400 at an easy 4.2 GHz OC beats my Q6600 at 3.6 GHz, no doubt about it.  (E8400 OC was easy... the Q6600 OC was a bit of a challenge)
> 
> There are many here who can speculate which would be better for gaming, but I've compared both CPU's firsthand, both with the same video card, OS and settings.  If you need a gaming rig NOW, get the E8400.  If you can wait a little longer, wait for Nehalem/i7.



im guessing when the i7 releases its going to be a lot of money ($200+). Since I dont want to spend that much on a CPU should I just buy the E8400 now? Im kinda anxious for a new CPU.


----------



## Ambushed

I would choose the e8400


----------



## scooter

e8400!!!


----------



## ZeroWing

How do I know if a mobo is any good at OCing or not? Do I look @ the FSB?

CHeck this out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included

Seems like the Q6600 beats the E8400 :/.


----------



## red onion

I just bought an E8400 retail off ebay ($185 CAN, delivered)

I wanted the low power consumption of the 45nm, and the speed of the dual core will handle any current game with ease. Later on when prices drop, I may upgrade to a Q9*** series if games start performing better with quads.


----------



## Calibretto

ZeroWing said:


> How do I know if a mobo is any good at OCing or not? Do I look @ the FSB?
> 
> CHeck this out:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248327-28-overclocked-q6600-e8400-compared-benchmarks-included
> 
> Seems like the Q6600 beats the E8400 :/.



Just read reviews of different mobos to see which ones are better OCers.

I had the same question that you're having. Q6600 or E8400. I went with the Q6600 because I could easily OC it to 3.0GHz to match the E8400 and then some. Right now I have it at stock speeds and that is fine for me. My games still play as good as when I had it OCed to 3.0GHz. Plus multi-tasking is way better with a quad. Programs run a lot faster.


----------



## funkysnair

q6600 hands down for me!!! ive had mine at 3.6ghz stable but didnt need it so i dropped it back down to 2.4ghz-!

i am considering moving up the quad range so i guess you guys can over clock your E**** and ill over clock my quad and you can play your games really better than i can on my q6600 lol!!!

can anybody answer me-

if games are more graphics intensive than cpu why the hell do people need a high clocking dual core rather than a standard quad at 2.4ghz????

atleast with the quad you have future proofing?


----------



## Kornowski

I'd go Q6600! There isn't really any actually "future proofing" with PC's... But the Quad is going to last longer in terms of it being a "top line" CPU when things start to utilize the 4 Cores of a Quad.


----------



## Calibretto

funkysnair said:


> can anybody answer me-
> 
> if games are more graphics intensive than cpu why the hell do people need a high clocking dual core rather than a standard quad at 2.4ghz????
> 
> atleast with the quad you have future proofing?



Well you need a decent CPU if you're going to have a great GPU or else bottlenecking will occur. But in this case, as long as you have a good GPU, than the Q6600 is great for gaming IMO. Plus, you have _great_ multi-tasking abilities when the E8400 only has _good_ multi-tasking abilities. Plus with a quad core, future proofing is guaranteed.


----------



## vix

Calibretto said:


> Well you need a decent CPU if you're going to have a great GPU or else bottlenecking will occur. But in this case, as long as you have a good GPU, than the Q6600 is great for gaming IMO. Plus, you have _great_ multi-tasking abilities when the E8400 only has _good_ multi-tasking abilities. Plus with a quad core, future proofing is guaranteed.


The E8400 only has "good" multitasking ability?  Where did you come up with that?  I can be encoding video, editing pics, playing music, searching for something on the internet and still not even come close to tapping out the processor...  I'd recommend listening to less hype and looking at more facts.  

As far as "future proofing," that's one of the most ridiculous generic excuses I know of.  Futureproofing may be a valid point if you plan on still running that rig 3 or 4 years from now, but for many/most here, that system will be long gone before futureproofing ever really applies.

Quads are great, but their potential is very limited when used for gaming or for desktop applications.  They work well for server duty, but for gaming, a fast E8400 outperforms a fast Q6600.


----------



## ThatGuy16

Alot claim the E8400 is faster, and "snappier" than the Q6600. Thats coming from people that dumped the quad for the E8400. It can all be due to the core architecture. For example, the Q9450 at 2.6Ghz could outperform the Q6600 at 3.6Ghz. Of course those are just exaggeration examples.

Benchmarks are fun, but can and do not compare "real world" performance.

Both are fantastic CPUs for the price. It just depends on what your looking for.


----------



## bullzi

I dumped my E8400 for a Q6600 and couldn't be happier. I'm at 3Ghz but I see no need to go any higher as Crysis uses only 30% of my processor total. 

Might as well go quad..


----------



## Intel_man

vix said:


> *The E8400 only has "good" multitasking ability?  Where did you come up with that?*  I can be encoding video, editing pics, playing music, searching for something on the internet and still not even come close to tapping out the processor...  I'd recommend listening to less hype and looking at more facts.
> 
> As far as "future proofing," that's one of the most ridiculous generic excuses I know of.  Futureproofing may be a valid point if you plan on still running that rig 3 or 4 years from now, but for many/most here, that system will be long gone before futureproofing ever really applies.
> 
> Quads are great, but their potential is very limited when used for gaming or for desktop applications.  They work well for server duty, but for gaming, a fast E8400 outperforms a fast Q6600.


Read his entire post before commenting. That is a must.

He just stated that so other people can understand the main difference between the E8400 and the Q6600.

Just because you SPECULATE that many of us won't still will sell their slower quads for better ones, it does not mean that everyone will and can. Some of them are on tight budgets and cannot have the financial capabilities of doing so.


----------



## bullzi

vix said:


> The E8400 only has "good" multitasking ability?  Where did you come up with that?  I can be encoding video, editing pics, playing music, searching for something on the internet and still not even come close to tapping out the processor...  I'd recommend listening to less hype and looking at more facts.
> 
> As far as "future proofing," that's one of the most ridiculous generic excuses I know of.  Futureproofing may be a valid point if you plan on still running that rig 3 or 4 years from now, but for many/most here, that system will be long gone before futureproofing ever really applies.
> 
> Quads are great, but their potential is very limited when used for gaming or for desktop applications.  They work well for server duty, but for gaming, a fast E8400 outperforms a fast Q6600.



I fail to see how the E8400 out-performs the quad when gaming since no game that I'm aware of uses either of those to 100%. Even two of the Q6600 cores don't max out on any game I currently play. Future proofing is a valid excuse, games are already out that support quad core architecture and use all 4 cores. I know this because when I play games I watch the core activity graphs, not all games use 4 cores but for games that use 2 there really isn't a difference. Unless you have graphs that for a wide margin of games proves the E8400 is faster for gaming (which might be true for a handfull of titles) its a blatant falsehood.


----------



## scooter

ThatGuy16 said:


> ...Benchmarks are fun, but can and do not compare "real world" performance...



You shut your damn mouth...RIGHT NOW

BENCHMARKS ARE EVERYTHING...IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS B.S. I'LL TAKE 3RD SPOT..

..ungratefull....@#$%


----------



## vix

Intel_man said:


> Read his entire post before commenting. That is a must.
> 
> He just stated that so other people can understand the main difference between the E8400 and the Q6600.
> 
> Just because you SPECULATE that many of us won't still will sell their slower quads for better ones, it does not mean that everyone will and can. Some of them are on tight budgets and cannot have the financial capabilities of doing so.



My point is that it's a bogus excuse used by the quad core fanboys to justify having an extra two cores.  They never do anything that'll really utilize the extra cores, but they use it as a justification anyway.

THE ORIGINAL POSTER WANTED TO KNOW WHICH IS BETTER FOR GAMING.  My response remains the same:  My Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz gets beat by my E8400 @ 4.2 GHz.  That's not speculation...  that's tried and tested FACT.  Same motherboard, same video card, same RAM and same hard drives.  

I may seem like a rabid E8400 fan, but the fact remains that I have one E8400 and two Q6600's.  I like both processors, but for gaming, the E8400 comes out ahead.


----------



## DirtyD86

Allow me to summarize this thread:

If you want a slightly slower future proof CPU that is more suited towards multitasking than gaming, go with a Q6600. 

If you want balls to the wall blazing gameplay, get the E8400. 

Either way, both are great processors that are well worth the money.


Thread complete !


----------



## Jerrick

DirtyD86 said:


> Allow me to summarize this thread:
> 
> If you want a slightly slower future proof CPU that is more suited towards multitasking than gaming, go with a Q6600.
> 
> If you want balls to the wall blazing gameplay, get the E8400.
> 
> Either way, both are great processors that are well worth the money.
> 
> 
> Thread complete !


 

Is the difference from slow to ball-to-the-wall only 0-2fps in gaming? Cause that's what im seeing from benchmarks and reviews. 

Like I said earlier, I do a lot of work with audio and video, so lots of rendering, multiple programs, soft synths, vsts, extra input devices, multi-track, mastering and the list goes on, specially when adding the processes of video editing. 

So thats why I choose Q6600. And I like to know that I can pop in any game and still play it perfectly, with only the smallest difference compared to another chip.

But, if you arent doing much besides gaming and general comp use, I dont see why the E8400 wouldnt be good for you. You may not even fully use both cores for quite some time if you are only gaming and doing general tasks. Internet, solitaire, etc...


----------



## Motoxrdude

Just from my personal experience, don't decide what processor to buy for gaming according to whether it is a quad or dual core. About a year and a half ago I upgraded from a Athlon 3500+ to a X2 3800+ and it didn't make a difference. It took almost a complete year for games to actually utilize the second core. As far as gaming goes I would say that it will take another year and a half for games to considerably start utilizing all 4 cores. By that time your current video card will be the bottleneck anyways. I would base your decision on whether you would need the extra two cores for running desktop applications.


----------



## ThatGuy16

scooter said:


> You shut your damn mouth...RIGHT NOW
> 
> BENCHMARKS ARE EVERYTHING...IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS B.S. I'LL TAKE 3RD SPOT..
> 
> ..ungratefull....@#$%



haha, i love benchmarks. To me... its like gaming


----------



## bullzi

ThatGuy16 said:


> haha, i love benchmarks. To me... its like gaming



Yep, I'm all about benchmarks 

EDIT: Found an interesting review for those still standing behind C2D instead of C2Q. 
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=0


----------

