Core2 duo E's against Intel Core2 Q's

[LoneWolf_Spike]

Ok so I am in the market for a new CPU and the rest.
I have a choice between a few products ~ AUD $

$239 - Intel Core2 Duo E8400 ~ 3.0GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache
$249 - Intel Core2 Duo E8500 ~ 3.16GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache
$339 - Intel Core2 Duo E8600 ~ 3.33GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache

$255 - Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 ~ 2.4GHz ' FSB 1066MHz ' 2x4MB Cache
$289 - Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 ~ 2.33GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 4MB Cache
$355 - Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 ~ 2.66GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache
$439 - Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 ~ 2.83GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 12MB Cache


I was wondering if the Duo E8500 was worth it over the E8600?
Like the only difference you can actually see in the specs is a .17 GHz clock speed. Is that extra worth another $100 or are there other things that make the E8600 better?

I was also thinking about what would be better, the Duo E8600 or the Quad Q9400? How much better is a quad simply because it has 4 cores?

Also I was wondering about the (possibly called bit depth) the amount of information sent per clock cycle. How can you tell this in the specs or is it
Core2 duo = 4 per cycle and Core2 quad = 8 per cycle?

Thank you for reading this and I hope someone will have some suggestions or helpful info

[mijaba]

Get Core 2 Duo but get the e8400 or the e8500. The e8400 and e8500 can overclock to 4ghz no problem with normal air cooling. I would go with the E8400. It is really good and priced very well.
Unless & untill you really need core 2 quad?

$355 - Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 ~ 2.66GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache

This is a good choice!

[Sebastian.j]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf_Spike

I was also thinking about what would be better, the Duo E8600 or the Quad Q9400? How much better is a quad simply because it has 4 cores?

Almost everyone on the internet will push you buying the Core 2 Quad processor, be forewarned, nothing is wrong with the Core 2 Duo or any other suggested processor, the Quad is just the "hot" item of today

[Mutilda]

What do you usually do on your computer? If you only use it primarily for gaming, I would say E8400 is enough. But again, if you want future proof, you might want to wait a bit for the Nehalem (which LGA775 is being discontinued).

Personally I favor quad cores over dual cores, but it really depends on your applications.

[Halloween]

welcome to teh futur - dual core cpus' are over its QUAD CORE TIME, fcuk this backward thinking dual core crap

doomturkey is on the money - Q6600, THEN OVERCLOCK IT TO 3GHZ (stock cooling and everything)

and btw this multitasking - quads are great for keeping those heavy ass antivirus apps busy while you game or surf etc

[Joshua]

While it may look like a 400% performance increase with new technology and what not, the Q6600 is essentially two Core 2 Duos bolted together, its a multi-core module, which means its tech is IDENTICAL to the Core 2 Duo.

Furthermore, as defined by scalability of an application mathematically, it shows that 4 cores WILL NEVER realistically = a 4x performance increase.

With that said, the Core 2 Duo is just as good for gaming if money is an issue, although the quad core isn't a bad buy, i just wanted to put some facts straight in the thread if you were using it as a reference.

[LoneWolf_Spike]

I guesBut if your going to overclock a Q6600 up to 3GHz you could overclock the E8500 up to 4GHz (there is less heat on a duo because there is only two cores).
I guess the real question here is.
would an "Intel Core2 duo E8500 ' 4GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache
be better than a Intel Core2 duo Q6600 ' 3GHz ' FSB 1033MHz ' 2x4MB Cache
Well I'm not particulary sure but i'm edging towards the quad core. Mainly because I will be multi-tasking so much so that I think I am going to get multiple processors.
Well thanks for your input and I think I might look up this "Nehalem", I'm not particularly happy about the thought of LGA775 being discontinued but that has edged me away from getting an expensive processor as that would be a major loss if I wanted to upgrade.

[Sebastian.j]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf_Spike

I guess the real question here is.
would an "Intel Core2 duo E8500 ' 4GHz ' FSB 1333MHz ' 6MB Cache
be better than a Intel Core2 duo Q6600 ' 3GHz ' FSB 1033MHz ' 2x4MB Cache

Toss-up. Quad might be more future proof. Until applications arrive that utilize multi-cores, a fast dual core will perform best. Today you still see a lot of people buy the E8500 and overclock it to play demanding games.

[Amd Athlon]

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 would be better for games due to its higher clockspeed.

The Quad Core would be better for multitasking, media encoding, folding, ETC.

[LoneWolf_Spike]

Well I will be multi-tasking as my main goal and games seconds so I guess I will have to go for the quad.
Note: before I said I wanted multiple processors lol. I meant monitors

[Amd Athlon]

Note: before I said I wanted multiple processors lol. I meant monitors

I have seen this happening with people when they think a lot at the same time with multitasking! lol

I think your decision is correct go with the quads!