At my wits end..Q6600 or E4800?

[sources]

I really don't know which to upgrade to. I plan to mostly game, not really multi-task. Can anyone help?

 

[rgeist554]

E8400 and overclock to 4Ghz. End of discussion. No one start this debate again. Even if you don't overclock, it will beat the Q6600 at stock settings in a gaming environment.

 

[Matt26LFC]

E4800 then i guess, if u dont really plan to do a gr8 deal, letting us know wat u r going to do with it wud b helpful

 

[sources]

I don't plan to run many programs at once, it's just a recreational computer I'd browse and download with, nothing heavy. I mess around in photoshop/sony acid/after effects but nothing intensive. Just mainly playing games, really.

 

[rgeist554]

E4800 then i guess, if u dont really plan to do a gr8 deal, letting us know wat u r going to do with it wud b helpful

omg, I hope you're just trolling. >_<

 

[aevm]

I'd even go as far as E8500, if you're going to overclock. I hear it overclocks better than the E8400.

If your favorite game is FSX wait for Q9450.

 

[dragonsprayer]

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT DUAL CORE E8400/E8500 ARE THE VERY LATEST STATE OF THE ART CPU'S FOR GAMING SYSTEMS.

RUNNING THESE CPUS AT 4.2-4.5GHZ ON AIR WILL PRODUCE THE FASTEST COMPUTER POSSIBLE WITH ANY SET OF SIMILAR PARTS

THE E8400 IS THE FX-60 OF TODAY!

 

[Grimmy]

I don't plan to run many programs at once, it's just a recreational computer I'd browse and download with, nothing heavy. I mess around in photoshop/sony acid/after effects but nothing intensive. Just mainly playing games, really.

Hell... a E2xxx could do all that for ya, and then some. An E4500 could do a lil more, and going to E4600 I really don't see the 200mhz worth it for stock speeds. I haven't seen any E4800. (edit - unless you are talking about the E8400 :lol

The main question is... do you want to save the most amount of money, get the best bang out of your buck, and how much your willing to spend, but trying to keep in mind to have a decent upgrade path to follow.

Gaming will be depending MORE on the GPU rather then the CPU, unless it has been optimized for more then 2 cores.

So even if you do get the best processor out there, you may be disappointed if you slacked on a good GPU.

 

[IndigoMoss]

I do have one question, I'm really interested in these E8400s. Has anyone heard of good results using a 680i motherboard? I'm not planning to upgrade for a long time though, just want to know if you can get these 4.5Ghz clocks on a 680i.

I'm really happy with my e6300 @3.2ghz though. I bought it when they first came out and I can not be happier. To think, 2 weeks before I bought it, I was going to spend the same amount of money on a X2 4200+.

 

[Grimmy]

Even if you could get a 680i chipset to run the E8400 at 4.5ghz, you may not be happy with the amount of heat and vcore applied to it.

I remember reading someone getting it to 4.5ghz (can't remember the chipset) but he ended up backing off to 4.2ghz since he mentioned the temps were too much for him.

 

[dcinmich]

I really don't know which to upgrade to. I plan to mostly game, not really multi-task. Can anyone help?

It's personal preference really. In the end that's what it came down to for me. I originally had my heart set on the E8400, but then everyone kept telling me to get the Q6600. I'm a graphic designer and often have large design programs (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) running at once while browsing and running other apps. People told me that I would benefit more from the Quad in this respect, than I would from the E8400. After reading up on the Quad (and the several billion posts titled "Q6600 vs E8400") I decided to go for it. I figured for 20-30 bucks more it is a better long-term investment to have a decent CPU that would do me good for some time.