Hello everyone,
 
                    I have 3 questions which I hope no-one minds me asking here.
 
I honestly dont see what the difference between AMD and Intel, I mean say you have a CPU which have the same specs which is better? the AMD or the Intel?
 
Also what is the difference between quad and dual core in terms of performace, because you can have a quad core with 2.4 GHZ or a dual core with 3.0GHZ. Surely until games and apps start using all cores rather than 1 the dual core is better.
 
And lastly what is the cache? how much difference daos cache make etc. In the end I really want to see which of 4 cpus are better, the 1st two are AMD the other intel
 
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Pro [...] tID=532106
 
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Pro [...] tID=657891
 
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Pro [...] tID=643237
 
this one is actually 2 but I have no idea why they cost the sam so I put both
 
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Pro [...] tID=632056
 
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Pro [...] tID=430634
 
 
Thanks everyone

Question 1: Most people would agree that Intel holds the advantage now in terms of performance and value (this is especially true if you overclock)

Question 2: You're right. If an application isn't setup to utilize multiple cores, then the higher clocked dual core would outperform the quad core. However, a lot of people are buying the Intel Q6600 as a means of future-proofing... something tells me that Supreme Commander (forget where I heard/read this) will take advantage of a quad core rig.  A Q6600 will set you back less than $300 (in the US) and has decent overclocking potential.

Question 3: That first processor you listed is AMD's initial attempt at offering a quad core system. Two of those processors and a special motherboard and you'd have an AMD quad core rig... virtually everyone agrees that processor/system was a joke. I have friends that are pretty hard core gamers and I don't know a one that even considered that CPU. Cache is just extremely fast memory that (in this case) is contained within the processor. In simple terms (because that's all I can provide) the system attempts to put commonly used data in the cache so when it needs to be recalled the system doesn't have to go to the system memory (slower) or to the hard drive/optical drive (MUCH slower) Just having more cache doesn't always equal a faster processor. I believe there are some benchmarks on Tom's that'll show the impact on performance that cache has... if I recall, it's really small for most tasks. Among the CPUs you listed, I'd go with the Q6600 if you're willing to do a little bit of overclocking... nothing excessive. If not, then the E6850. If you're firmly in the AMD camp, I'd suggest waiting a bit longer to see what Phenom looks like.

None of the processors you picked are of really great value. The E6850 is way overpriced because you can easily overclock an E6550. The Q6600 is a waste because nothing uses all 4 cores. If you go check the benches for even a game like supreme commander, you are looking at negligable improvements over an E6750. I can encode a dvd (to DivX, max quality settings), listen to music, and play bioshock on max settings, and my Q6600 never goes above 60%. That means that a higher clocked dualcore would have been better for me. And who is realistically going to be doing more than what I was doing all at once, within the next two years. (By then quads will be dirt cheap.)

 
how difficult/ dangerous is overclocking, I know more than most about computers and can get support when needed but I really want to be able to do this myself.  
 
By the way thanks you two for your great answers

The Q6600 is a waste because nothing uses all 4 cores
 
this is not true - it would appear so - but get on 2 computers each with multiple drives and raid and you will notice the difference with the quad.
 
real life can not be duplicated on paper

Arnold please do not listen to some of the folks on here.
 
You are somewhat being misled with statements like "The Q6600 is a waste because nothing uses all 4 cores."
 
This person does not understand fully the ramifications of a quad vs a dual.  Ownership of said product does not qualify you as an expert.
 
If he is truly getting 60% across his four procs then he is doing very well and would likely see a much better return over the dual.
 
Now here is the difference between my post and the above.
 
I ask that you DO NOT BELIEVE ME EITHER.
 
I will come back shortly with several links that will counter the statement above.  Beware it will be pretty intense reading if you are not already familiar with a what a cache does.  However if you go through most of what I give you, you will be much better informed that most here on the diff between Dual and Quad.
 
BRB

K,
 
As promised linkage:
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] -quad-core
 
and  
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] -core-quad
 
Now the two above threads are started by me but please read these and the links within them.  They are not specific to Intel or AMD (in some cases Intel info is linked though but with good reason/data which applies to both.)
 
Happy reading..

I have a q6600 and believe me, it's real good, especially in supreme commander Overclocking it a bit allowed my system to handle 5000 units in supreme commander.
 
obtw ches111, I read your sig about HardOCP. I've been there multiple times and I feel like it's credible. What makes you say otherwise?

Evilonigiri,
 
That was the reason for SOMETIMES in my sig before HardOCP...
 
They at times do get some scoops...  However there have been several times that their scoop has been spoon fed to them .
 
HOCP has at times have touted products as being better, in accordance with a vendor sale for that product paritcular line on their site.  Later to somewhat retract/soften the comments.  This does not happen often and it even may sometimes be pure coincidence.

Arnold,
 
Be advised that OCing an Intel based processor as of late is actually quite simple.  Many of the tools provided will do an auto OC for you if you do not want to manually.  The auto OC can be a little too much at times so many back it off a little.  The auto OC may also not be the preferred method overall but it works.

Oh I see, well I noticed the "sometimes" part, I was just curious. Of course THG is my number one site in getting info ~Thanks

Thanks everyone for the help, grealty appreciated.

All the new games are taking advantage of the multiple cores. And games already released like FSX run much better in a quad core than in a C2D. So yes, Q6600 is the best option if you overclock, even more if is a G0, that CPU looks really brutal. I expect mine to arrive on tuesday.

Here is a recent review, where comparisons are made (dated 08/31):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] q6600.html

I remember a time when AMD was the only one with X2 and 64 bit - how all the articles on the web said it was pointless to buy as no software would utilise these features for years to come!!!
 
Once Intel also started doing 64bit and X2, multitudes of software and started popping up. The people that already had AMD were ready.
 
That said - it seems that within the next 12 months both AMD and Intel are pushing Quad. That represents 99% of the processor marketshare right there. So if they are both talking Quad and pushing software vendors to do Quad, you should expect more apps in the nest 12 months that DO utilise these cores properly.
 
Supposedly only 2% of the market has Quads, albeit Intel Quads. I suspect a few people were waiting to see what the AMD quads (Phenoms) would look like, pricing etc. before going Intel.
 
Once companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. start selling Quads as standard PCs expect to see more apps to support 4 cores. It is true, 4 threads running at sametime does take a little extra work - think of it like this. You want to paint your house and you and 3 buddies decide to get to it.
 
One goes to buy paint brushes, the other goes to get the paint, you go get covers and the last dude goes to get tape - and you all agree to meet at the house. Until all of you have arrived home you can't start painting.
 
That is the current issue with threaded apps. Cores waiting for threads to finish executing especially if it required for a process to continue processing.
 
THAT SAID - with OS made the way they are - they are all capable of running multiple programs at the same time. You do not need 10 cores to run 10 programs. A single core CPU can do that - slowly - but it can do it.
 
So the trick is finding a balance in all this madness - and it all boils down to preference.