E8500 vs Q6600

[dmoseder]

Hello I am building a gaming computer for my brother, but i do not know much on the performance gaming wise on the quad cores. The two processors i am looking at are below. I know the Q6600 can be overclocked to 3ghz on stock cooling and default voltages. Thanks for your guys help! The graphics card will be the Radeon HD 4870.


E8500:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115036

Q6600:

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

 

[OCGuy]

Id get this badboy for $10 more..although its OEM.

http://www.microcenter.com/sin...tml?product_id=0286543

 

[RussianSensation]

I'd go for either of the quads. Overclocked, they'll leave the E8500 in the dust. There is no reason to spend $270 on a dual-core processor in 2008.

Quad vs. Dual core gaming

 

[The Odorous One]

I don't know how the newer Q6600's clock, but I certainly like my Q6600 G0 @ 3.6 better than my E6750 @ 3.6.

The E6750 is the last dual core I will ever own.

 

[nanaki333]

if you want a dual, get an 8400 and save yourself money

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

There really is no reason to spend that kind of money on the 8500 when an 8400 will clock to atleast 3.6Ghz with DDR2 800...

Right now, the 45nm quads have really low multi's which push the other components faster to failure or instability. This is all if you are thinking of overclocking. Duals are easier to overclock than quads. If you do go with a quad, get a 12mb L2 cache quad.

Either way, your vid card will rock!

 

[imported_Woody]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
There is no reason to spend $270 on a dual-core processor in 2008.

Originally posted by: nanaki333
if you want a dual, get an 8400 and save yourself money

Yes what they said!


Nothing wrong with buying a dual core CPU though. For gaming it will be just as good with current games. But I must agree that if you plan on spending the money that the E8500 costs you may as well go with the quad. If budget is a consideration, the E8400 is a better choice as long as you spend the price difference on a faster video card.

 

[jamesvtm]

I had exactly the same question earlier today - I found this review on hothardware.com:
http://hothardware.com/Article...9300_Processor/?page=1
the Q9300 seems to have the edge

 

[jamesvtm]

Note: Ocguy31's link to MicroCenter Q9450 is for in-store purchase only (subject to availability of course).

 

[boomhower]

I would take a Q6600 over a Q9300 and a Q9450 over a Q6600 if money isn't a problem. If the system is just for gaiming I would stick with a dual. I quad really isn't going to get you much except in a couple games that take advantage of the quad and even in those the difference really isn't dramatic. Quads have there place in the world but at this point gaming isn't one of them. I love my quad for churning though movie encodes but if I was just gaming I would skip the heat output and additional power use and stick with a dual core.

 

[dmoseder]

Seems to go both ways here. Looks like more favor the quads though. Thanks for the help guys. Hopefully we can work something out and get the Q9450 i didn't even see that one and it looks awesome. Thanks again!!

 

[imported_Woody]

Enjoy the quad. Just don't skimp on the vid card to pay for the more expensive CPU. The vid card is much more important for gaming performance since the extra two CPU cores will do little or nothing for gaming performance.

 

[OatMan]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I'd go for either of the quads. Overclocked, they'll leave the E8500 in the dust. There is no reason to spend $270 on a dual-core processor in 2008.

Quad vs. Dual core gaming

Am I missing something? I'm not seeing the evidence here that quad has a substantial real world advantage over dual. Especially $ for $.