Quad vs dual core

[mrapoc]

Hey guys

Im looking at my next temporary upgrade to carry me over until nehalem is released and at decent prices

This means im looking at either a Q6600 Quad (G0 SLACR stepping - meaning cooler than normal q6600, same speed but easier to overclock, most go to 3.6ghz at least, not uncommon to go to 4ghz)

e8400 - newer chip on a smaller nm die, meaning cooler and uses less power (pretty much like the G0 stepping only more effective) - very common and easy to go over 4ghz...but only dual core

So from what iv gathered is they are both quite similiar but the dual core will perform better on current games (as most are only dual core) - but my thinking is the quad will last longer, making it a good candidate for a secondary pc once released.

Your thoughts? Both are pretty much exactly £115

[scook94]

Can't really comment on the comparison but I'm more that happy with my Q6600. Lapped and overclocked to 3.42 Ghz on air cooling, very stable under full load.

[Gary]

If you game something like the E8500 or E8400 is more than sufficient, but if you want to future proof I would go for a quad, due to a bad build I am having a new box built and that will be quad core. check out reviews around the net and get a feel of what you really need and the life you want to squeeze out of your pc with the £ you have, my idea is always buy more than you need if you can know rather than updating later, you can never keep up with technology anyway.

[vitriol]

MY Q6600 is clocked to 3.2Ghz runs nice and cool too.  I have an Antec 900 case which has great airflow.  Like you say most games won't take advantage of a quad, but they will in the not so distant future. 

Future proof yourself and get the quad imo.

[mrapoc]

yes thats what i was thinking - sure now it may be a slight hit but most games use the gpu anyway

it will come in handy 2009 i feel and definately once it subsides to become a secondary machine (long term)