Dual core might be slightly faster now (or at least about the same).
Both of the processors you mentioned are way beyond reason in terms of price, though. As a practical person, I've never understood why people would want to spend the price of an entire, solid PC on a single component... Maximum performance stuff has terrible price/performance tradeoff and really won't last you that much longer than stuff that costs half the money.
But then, I never understood spending $100,000 on a sports car either
5-7 years 8O .... in 5-7 months, there will be plenty of new AMD and Intel chips performing at least 30% faster than actual dual cores. If Intel keeps playing the dual die package game, they'll be able to rush an octo core in early 2008 and that will mean about 80% more over your quad. AMD has already demonstrated a teraflop solution with their R600 chipsets and hell knows what you can do with such solutions in your hands.
Just think that the last 7 years, we went from Pentium3s/Athlons to the XQ6700/QFX. The next 2-3 years will probably bring more new performance levels than the past 7 years did so just forget about a CPU that does not need to be upgraded in 5-7years.
which one :? i don't want to upgrade like in 5 -7 years
I don't like over clocking , thats why i am not going for a e6300 etc
Money is not the problem , its just i dont know which way to go dual core or quad core .
I dont care even if i cant take advantage of the quad cores right now.
As i want to make a future Rig .
So which one guys :?: Dual core or Quad core :idea: :arrow:
I'm getting mixed thoughts on this.
"Want the fastest cpu":
Between the 2 your choosing both are quite fast
"Quad or Dual; As I want to make a future Rig."
One thing I'd like to say, hardware is only going to be as good as the software that runs it. There is really no 64bit apps out there to really take advantage of Vista at this time, not to mention reg apps and drivers. Making a rig future proof, is actually somewhat not an easy task, and sometimes can become a liability rather then guarantee of something to be future proof.
As your getting out of college, you should think about what your going to use your PC for, rather then making it future proof. I say that only, since dual core just came out, and getting a quad core would be nice, though, what exactly would a home user benefit from it? It basically will not make the machine faster, but perhaps run more programs at once smoother then single or dual core.
Getting the right MB would be important to look at perhaps. You could just work off a dual core, then upgrade to quad, if you really feel the need to.
Hmm so even if i buy top of the line it wont give me competitive results over a period of 2 years :?:
I was like thinking of the people who bought a Fx series AMD cpu , i am sure there systems are still competitive .
I see your point though a 6400 can out perform a FX series cpu today .
Hmm i am confused . Also guys i am out of law college working now so thats how i have the money . Plus i come from a decent financial background , but i just dont like borrowing from my parents , self respect and stuff you know
So what should i do then ; The computer is basically for gaming . I already have bought a 8800 gts 320 mb cause i dont game beyond 1600 x 1200 . Its the EVGA superclocked version .
I am definitely getting a new computer. I thought one of these processors would easily last me 2 - 4 years .
Of course i upgrade my video card every say 18 months or so as i want to be able to game on the best settings .
Your 8800gts-320 should serve you well for a few years. It is the critical component for gaming. Anything faster than an E6600 to go with it is probably overkill, as far as gaming is concerned. When it comes time to increase your performance, adding another 8800gts-320 in SLI will probably not be an attractive option compared to the then newest high end single vga card.
Buy what suits you now, invest the difference, and plan on upgrading in two years.