Choosing a CPU for multi-tasking and general use -Help please

Internet, homework, forums etc don't require much of a CPU at all.
A cheap Celeron or Sempron would do fine here.
Gaming, the E8400 is the way to go.
Rendering/Programming, it really depends on the application.
A quad core would generally be the best here, but then you are not doing this very often, and most applications as of right now don't really use a quad core all that effectively even if they have multiple CPU support. I don't think you would see a huge improvement over a fast dual core.
My 2 cents, get the E8400.

Best 14 out of 15????



Or just get a loan and buy all 4 to figure it out, pick one, and then sell them on ebay?  

so in general computing (windows GUI tasks) having 4 cores wouldnt benefit over having 2? Even in extreme multi-tasking?

Anyone?

I'm still wondering wether or not having 4 cores at say 3.0Ghz is better than having 2 cores at 4.0Ghz. Will those extra cores (although at a lower speed) be better for general use and multi-tasking?

That's a lot of CPU horsepower for such mundane use. What is your current rig?

I need it to play some powerful games, and i do not want any lack at all during general purpose stuff

my current rig is:
AMD Athlon 64 4000+
1GB DDR 400mhz
DFI Lanparty NF4
EVGA nVidia 7300GT 256mb

Thisll be quite a jump

I myself an probably the type of person that the quad core is built for... I never do just one thing at a time. I like to download things, check e-mails, run upgrades, etc. The machine I have came with the quad core... and with the 4Gb of ram I have... it really can handle anything I put it through. It may not need all that power... but it is really nice. My laptop on the other hand is a dual core... man there really is a huge difference to what I can handle... since it would also give you longevity... stick with the quad... you can't go wrong.

if you are doing mostly Internet, homework, and forums I would get a Cheap single-core CPU like the Athlon 64 LE-1640 from newegg.com http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103239 Becuase gaming relies on the GPU and not so much the CPU gaming is where you'll need like a Geforce 8800 GTX or Radeon 3870 X2. Heck I'll go with the 8800 GTS http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143119

Even our current Athlon 64 4000 is good enough it's just that the 7300 GT is where your lacking and would definaltly upgrade your GPU.

Dear god, go for the Q6600. Games do rely on the CPU quite a bit more than some would insinuate, and the moment you think "multitasking" the next thought in your head should be "quad-core". Even though games are supposedly not built for quad cores yet, quite a few end up utilizing multiple cores.

I've used single core, dual core, quad core, and octo-core setups (two processors), and I can easily say that the quad core is the best of the bunch, even in a mid-sized budget. Dual core setups do work quite well, but once you go quad-core, you'll never want to go back.

I also say go with the Q6600.

I'm not sure when the quadcore became the defacto standard for multitasking. I've done some serious multitasking on my Pentium D 805 and have never felt bottlenecked. Usual multitasking scenario is a multithreaded video encode taking about 90% cpu usage on both cores while doing word and firefox with the remaining 10%. The most extreme multitasking session I ever had was when I did a batch encode of videos from wmv to 3gp format using a single threaded program, while playing Call of Duty online at the same time on the other CPU core. I was at 100% usage on both cores for 4 hours straight. In the days that I used to run the software TV capture card on my pentium d rig, I would routinely capture video into mpeg2 (60% of one core) while surfing the web and watching flash video online (90% cpu usage of the other core).

Now I'm sure that some people can bottleneck of dual core cpu with their multitasking. I'm just giving examples of my multitasking experiences as a measure of what even the crappiest dual core can do.

Any of the CPUs you've chosen are good. If you lived close to a Microcenter, I'd say buy one the Q6600 they have for $199.

q6600, you will not have to upgrade for while.

Do you really need to upgrade right now? It sounds like you are only playing games and doing programming stuff once in a while. Maybe it would be better if you used your current rig (until it dies), sell the working parts, and then get a newer system (ex. Nehalem, when it comes out). If you think your specs are low, just look at mine (below). Honestly, I don't know where some of these upgrade fanatics get the money to pay for all of this hardware. Don't any of you guys actually use your pc's until they break?

i think q6600 is very overpriced especially if one of your focus is on gaming. i would get the e6750 and use the extra money saved for a better graphics card.

heck, even x2 6400 is a better buy. you could buy a high end am2 MB and hold out until future phenoms since it will sahre the same platform.