Hello!

I am planning to build a new system. I usually upgrade every 3 to 4 years.

I already read tons of information about the latest CPUs. Based on the feedbacks, Intel Q6600 is the way to go. But I am having 2nd thoughts on spending additional money for that processor since most games that would be coming out in 2008 would still not take advantage of quad cores. By the time 2009 games would come that would take advantage of quad cores, Q6600 might not be good enough already. So the extra money that I will invest would be wasted instead of adding it to, let's say, the Hard Disk budget.

So the E6750 is starting to appeal for me, since it is cheaper and runs faster in the current games.

I know that the Q6600 has more headroom in the future. But why invest on it if it will not be up to the task when future software comes?

Currently, there are several games that take advantage of 4 cores. One of them is Supreme Commander, one of the most cpu intensive game.

Anyways, since you waited so long, why don't you wait a little longer for the E8400 or something? It's due to come out soon.

Soon as in Next Week :>

Are there any other than Supreme Commander? And don't mention Deep Fritz or something like that...

I'ved only seen the E8400 being compared to the E6870. Yes, there might be a performance gain to the E8400.
It is obvious that the E8400 will be also faster than the Q6600 when it comes to most applications and games today.
But if the basis will be the "Quad Core" games, which I expect to come out in 2009, will the E8400 be faster than the Q6600?

There are lists out there, I don't have any links handy so you'll probably just have to google for them.

I'd choose the Q6600 since it's so easy to OC to 3Ghz. You should look it up/use search if you haven't come across it already, essentially it's 'free' because you don't have to mess with voltages or anything if you're using a P35 or X38 mothberoard.

I know most people go by the benchmark comparisons they see out there, but what many don't keep in mind is that you don't notice ANY differences between games that get synthetic benchies of 100fps (dual core) and 80fps (quad) in current games.

But in the games that are optimsed, check those benchies out (SupCom) and the different is reversed. What this means is in 2009 when more and more games are quad optimized the Q6600 will still be chuggin along nicely, it'll be your video card slowing you down.

So either go with the Q6600 now, or wait and see what 45nm benchies are like and price/availability by the end of the month.

Cheers!

Q6600 FTW. It will take me to Nehalem. Just then I will upgrade again.

Games that take advantage of quads include CoH, SupCom, Hellgate, FSX, Crysis, UT3 AFAIK. All games will benefit from a quad if the antivirus and torrent client and other things are running in the background.

I'd wait for Q9450, but if you're in a hurry get the Q6600. It's smarter IMO to get a good CPU now even it means getting a smaller hard disk. You can easily add a better hard disk later when you saved another $100 or $200.

AFAIK, Crysis definitely does not take advantage of quad core. CoH, FSX, and UT3 takes very little advantage of quad core (10% less). not sure about Hellgate, but Supreme Commander is probably the only game takes significant advantage of quad core.

IMO, I think you should stick to a dual core, and use the saved money to buy a higher end graphic card. Having a faster GPU will definitely yield higher frame rates and quality than having a quad core.

Only 10% of the total games to be released in 2008 have been announced yet. Infact its probably less than that. Let alone the capabilities of them.

I see 2008 becoming the year of the quad. If you really plan to keep your system for as long as you say I guarentee you will wish in the future you got a Q6600. I made the same mistake ages ago with single and dualcore. Everyone said go faster single core for games. They were right, except for everything else a slower dualcore was better. Espescially as software got larger and bulkier the single core started to get bogged down.

The same will happen to dualcore and eventually quadcore. So buy 1 step ahead even if it is slower because you can overclock to make up the difference when it starts to lag.

Just my 2 cents

Q6600 til Nehalem.

Then you have a bad system as a backup..

I also faced the same question when building my new system between the E6850 , Q6600 and E6750. I went with the E6750 because of its Strong performance and price and although the E6850 is faster its not by much. The Q6600 is fast becoming one of the slowest quad cores available from Intel.

Waiting for the E8000 series is an option. They have more cache than the current C2D's 6MB vs 4MB. Price Performance from Toms CPU charts puts the E6750 far above the rest.

You can easily overclock the Q6600 to 3.0 GHZ.

if u dont intend to buy a system for 3 years. get the q6600. but if u gonna buy another one say in a year or two. get the dual. thats my opinion.

Q6600

Forbidden Planet takes advantage of a quad core processor.