Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache L

wow.. thats a significant improvement over a core 2 duo.. In terms of pricing today, it's almost a no brainer why one wouldnt go and extra 250 and use a quad over a dual core... I was all ready to buy an iMac and use iMovie, so I really havent explored consumer level video editing software for windows. I appreciate your suggestions and will look into each one.. Not looking for a porofessional grade video editing suite.. just looking to use it for home video and converting my box of hi-8 onto dvd's. thanks

Thanks for your insight Jack.. Might you have a suggestion as to a good video editing program for a home user.. something that might emulate iMovie that would allow simple editing, adding a music track, and burning DVD's.. thanks!

yes thats what its best at!

Alternatively, an even faster (but slightly more expensive) option would be to get a pair of 1.6 GHz Xeon E5310 quad-cores. The chips are a little over $700 for the pair and the memory and mobo will cost about $300 more than something for the Q6600. But it will be significantly faster as video rendering will use all 8 cores and the 150% clock speed advantage the Q6600 has over the E5310 is more than wiped out as there are 200% more cores. Alternatively, you could get 1.86 GHz E5320s or go faster, on up to the massively-expensive and generally unavailable 3.00 GHz X5360 quads. I'd stick with the 1.6s as they are not terribly expensive, the low clock rate doesn't stress the FSB as badly, and they will run about the same temp as an average dual-core chip, unlike the Q6600.

Also, you can wait and plop some of the very fast 53xx duals in there once they become less expensive or maybe even the server version of the 45 nm quad-core Yorkfield chip to get some very serious encoding power in the future. Dual-CPU workstations are extremely powerful, but they're not cheap. My next machine will be such a monster, but it will have to wait until I have sufficient funds to upgrade. Just like encoding, the GNU compiler (GCC) *loves* cores and two are a lot better than one, but eight is a lot better than two. I'd love to be able to do a full install on Gentoo in less than a day  

Now I think I know why Apple went with two Xeon's rather than two quads. Unfortutaely that means having to wait longer for the prices to fall on the Xeon's.. which might not happen as quickly as the Xeons are often used in servers which isnt propbably as large a market, thus a smaller demand... then again, just speculating.. could be all wrong. Yeah, pretty much I would be building a new Apple MacPro but on a windows platform... I'll have to check into it.. not in any big rush, but was getting kind of excited with the recent price drop on the Q6600... ah, nothing is easy.

I just priced out the 2 chips and MB and were looking at $352 + $352 ($704 for the chips alone) + the mother board to accomodate the two chips is $439 which comes to a total of about $1150 vs. $550 for the Q6600 and figure $250 for the MB.. so about a difference of what.. $350.. yeah, just what you said. BUT.. one downside is that the 775 socket does allow future expandability when I could afford a 45nm chips in a year or two.. with the Xeon socket, I might be stuck.. Decisions.. decisions..

You mean 100% more cores?

The 775 socket itself will allow for an upgrade to the Wolfdale and Yorkdale chips, but what *won't* allow a drop-in upgrade on most boards is the voltage regulator or possible chipset There have been six official Intel chipsets for socket 775 already, as well as a few "unofficial" 865 units.

915
925X/XE
945/945G
955X
975X
P965/G965

1. The 915 supports single-core Prescotts and Prescott Celerons of 533 and 800 MHz FSBs. Most boards will not accept 65 nm Cedar Mill chips.

2. The 925X supports single-core Prescotts and Celerons of 533 and 800 MHz FSBs, and the XE supports 1066 MHz FSBs on Prescott Extreme Edition chips. Some of these boards will take Cedar Mills, some will not.

3. The 945 will support Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds of 533 and 800 FSBs. All support 90 nm Prescotts and Smithfields, most 945 boards support Cedar Mills and 65 nm Presler Pentium D 900s. A few 945 boards support Core 2 Duos, but this is a distinct minority.

4. The 955X supports all Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors on FSBs up to 1066 MHz. No 955X motherboards support Core 2 chips AFAIK.

5. The 975X is capable of supporting all Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Core 2 chips. However, early boards can't support Core 2 Duos because of the VRMs, and present 975X boards cannot support the 45 nm chips due to VRM issues again.

6. The 965 boards support all P4s and PDs, as well as Core 2 Chips. Current 965 boards likely won't support 45 nm chips due to VRM issues.

So the socket is the same, but the VRM or chipset spin isn't, making the board and chip incompatible. I'd actually give the 771 greater odds of using newer chips as enterprises want *guaranteed* upgradeability and a stable platform for 4 years or so.

lol - server chips are for servers!

i lov that line!

q6600 will run 3.2-3.4ghz with out any problems with a good heat pipe cooler

forget the server chips they are for servers and IT pros!

Nothing is stopping a person to build a double Xeon workstation rig for themselves.

If the guys wants to do video editing then two quad core Xeons will be the way to go--with lots of RAM.  

In fact, I've done just that for people. Once Intel killed using normal PIIs and PIIIs in dual-slot/socket motherboards, the only way to get a dual-CPU workstation was to use Xeons (Or Athlon MPs, but they're still server chips.)

Xeon 3220 is basically a higher binned Q6600; same price.