Which CPU would you pick

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Hey,

Just like the title suggests which cpu's would you ladies and gents pick at the moment.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad (2.4Ghz)

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Intel Xeon E3110 Dual Core (3.0Ghz)

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual Core (3.0Ghz)


The Quad core has a bigger cache (8mb) and the other cpu's have only 6mb cache. However the Xeon E3110 and E8400 have a faster FSB which is at 1333Mhz where the Quad core only has a 1066Mhz.

The price is pretty much the same, the quad is about 10-15$ more expensive plus all cpu's can be easily overclocked.
[/FONT]

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

The Q6600 is a tried and tested beast, loves to be overclocked, but 65nm is old hat these days
I would get the Xeon, did a quick Google. Seems to be the exact same CPU as the E8400, just re-packaged for the server market. Check your chipset will support the Xeon, but its where my money would go.

 

Intrestingly enough I was reading an article in custom PC today in WH Smith which said the QX6600 is still better than newer quad cores even though its 65nm architecture due to its overclockability, power consumption and its cache. Although the QX9500 is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

 

My gut instinct is pulling me towards the E8400. I'd have to do research to find out which is a better gaming proc.

 

It all depends on price. I tend to go for the best that i can afford.

In the above case, i have the Q6600 which is very overclockable, and its supposedly the low power version. If i'm right its also available in both 65nm and 45nm versions (45nm being the low power one). I'm happy with it.

however i suppose unless your using a 64bit OS and apps that would use all 4 cores it could be overkill.

 

I was kind leaning towards the Q6600, but then the dual core 8400 tempts me too. The way I am looking at it now is will the CPU that I pick be good enough for the latest games, etc for at least one year or will I have to do an upgrade to support games down the line before even owning the cpu for a year. I know that there are people who upgrade every 6 months which for me I find that kind of unnecessary. I just want to get something good that will last me for some time before another upgrade.

 

Is that a hint at me? lol...only kidding

To be honest I would have also chosen the Q6600...purely cos of the overclocking...and yes that kind of CPU will last a while and certainly play games with ease...its the CPU I plan on getting when I build my next gaming machine towards the end of the year...unless something better comes along by then

 

Personally I'd go for the 8400 - it's the one I've picked when I was pricing up a system this weekend!
I can see your point about future-proofing with the quad core, but I guess that depends on how soon you think properly parallel programs are going to become the norm!

Given the price of the parts (~£150) it wouldn't be too expensive to get the dual core now then buy a quad when you feel your apps will get the best out of it.

If you fancy the two stage way & want to save a bit of cash, you could always get the E8200, which I've heard can overclock something crazy, even with the stock cooler.

Oh, and congrats on reaching 2k posts

 

LOL no no I wasn't hinting at you, I've been to these other forums where people said that a lot of gaming enthusiasts tend to upgrade their pc's often to support the latest games. Which does make sense.

So far I've narrowed it down to 8400 or Q6600, I know for a fact that both overclock well. I am just trying to determine the best return on investment.

I've always gotten the average affordable cpu, which is why I went with the AMD since they are less expensive but still provide good performance for an average gamer. This time I would like to build something strong and right now Intel is superior to AMD. I know that unless I do a lot of multi tasking, etc I wont really notice the difference of a quad core compared to the dual core. That's why I am just curious to see which one would benefit me the most. If I build something now it will be a powerful system.

Also just an example, at work I've built three quad core systems for the developers who use applications such as SQL server 2005, Visual Studio's, etc running at the same time and that's when you really notice the difference compared to a dual core.

Oh and thanks for the congrats

 

I guess it depends what you're using it for then. Apps such as the above will love the quad core, but for games, most benchmarks I've seen have the 8400 outperforming the Q6600.

Link below has a pretty exhaustive benchmark suite on a variety of Intel CPU's:
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_duo_e7200_-_the_new_budget_superstar/1

The same site has a review of the 8400 too, they manage to clock it to 3.8GHz on stock voltage. Not bad!

Oh, and to further muddy the waters, the QX9540 looks like a better bet if you're going quad core, it costs a bit more though

Cheers