Hey all, I'm building my next big gaming machine in about a month, but I'm having a hard time deciding between a Core 2 Duo extreme or the Quadro.
The PC will be mostly for gaming, but also audio/video encoding and such. I know most games don't take full benefit's of multi-cores, but I'm sure they soon will be, and i'll be having this PC for quite a while. So would the Quadro be the better option, when the future is taken into the equation?
The processor will be OC'd on a water cooled system.
There have been various threads that have analyzed this within an inch of its life, but IMHO:
a) If you plan to keep your system for 18 months or more, go with the C2Q. If you're a rabid constant upgrader (like most enthusiasts) you might be better off with the C2D. The performance advantage of the C2Q doesn't really justify the extra cost in most user's cases. However, the C2Q is plummeting in price and it's much more attractive now than it was even just a week ago.
b) If you are running sw that will take advantage of the multiple cores, then go for the C2Q. I'm a Pr0noshop addict, so I wanna toss as many cores and RAM at that hungry mutha as I can.
nobody knows for sure
but the mobo from DFI will be IMO better than 680i
and when r600 comes out (late january) there will be a price drop
Don't take this the wrong way, but one mobo from all the makers does not inspire confidense to buy it. I know is because ATI pull the license for RD600 for Intel, but still. Is not like it did that much for AMD, why would it make such a difference for intel.
You'll see that quad core doesn't offer much benefit over the Core 2 Due.
In Photoshop and Xvid, the X6800 dual core is faster. It's the same story in audio encoding, file compression/decompression and gaming. Only with multitasking do you see a real benefit (which is hardly surprising).
Don't expect software to appear any time soon that uses quad core - until the market is there to justify the expense of recoding the software, it ain't going to happen. I reckon for the next 12-24 months, the quad core will only be of use to people who multitask and need to run three or four programs at the same time.
Get an E6600 and spend the money you save on an 8800GTX - that'll improve your gaming performance a helll of a lot more than quad core will.
680i Motherboard(dont waste your money on the stryker i have an eVGA board and it works fine, eVGA also just released a BIOS update that improves ALOT of things from overclocking to Sound issues to overall system performance i was having issues at first, low frames with an 8800GTX i flashed and now im right where i should be the board also has more options in BIOS then you honestly really need)
2 8800GTX graphics cards
now, my reasoning for a Core 2 E6600. Technology is ALWAYS improving the core 2 duo is more processor then you should need and Quadro at the moment is excessive unless you do ALOT of video stuff by purchasing a Core 2 E6600 now, you save that 800 bucks for 6 months or so down the line, where Quad core becomes the "in" and Core 2 Is on its way out by that time to chances are the Quad core CPU will be much faster, in its processing speeds, somewhat like the difference of P4 and C2D clear as mud?
But the quad should last longer - before you need to upgrade
My next system as per my sig is designed to last a bare minimum of 3 years without upgrading, fiddling, adding, etc. That's why I'm gonna hold out until C2Q and DX10 prices have stabilized, hopefully by around June, and then get the best system I can afford.