ok so i ordered all my parts except the cpu due to the fact the store that im buying from is close to me. anyway what one of these should i get. note i want the best one for gaming.
q6600 (this is the one i was looking at)
or
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (would bump up my build by like 9 bucks and is out of stock.)
or
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (set me back another 100 bucks but i can do it)
my other specs
thermaltake Armor
mobo : GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ram G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) (4gb)
hd 320gb
o/s vista home premium
op drive lite on mutil burner psu Corsair 620w SLI Modular video card- evga 8800gts 512mb OC
Unless it is old stock or an old revision level 45nm should be ok. Check the gigabyte web site for a list of supported processors for each revision level. If it is fresh stock, you will get a current bios level.
For gaming, I vote for the E8400 or E8500, or the xeonE3110 which is really a E8400.
If your game is fsx, then the Q9300.
---------------
E8400-stock, GA-P35-DS3R(rev2.1), Corsair 4x2gb 6400C5, EVGA 8800GTS-512-G92, Vista home premium-64-bit, WD velociraptor-300gb, PC P&C silencer-610, Antec SOLO, 2 x Samsung 275T, Samsung-203b-dvd
Get Q9450 or Q6600, or settle with a cheaper dual core, which is just as fast for non-quad optimized applications, and generally overclocks better due to lower heat production and power consumption. There is no reason to get Q9300. You're paying $100 more for just average 7% speed increase over the Q6600 at stock clock, which at 2.5ghz, is 100mhz faster than Q6600. At the same clock speed, the Q6600 outperforms Q9300. Q9300 has a multiplier of 7.5x, compared to Q6600's 9x, making it harder to overclock. To obtain 3.6ghz in Q6600, you need to run your motherboard at 1600mhz. At that same fsb, you only get 3.0ghz in Q9300. It also has only 2x3mb of L2 cache, compared to Q6600's 2x4mb and Q9450's 2x6mb. Larger L2 cache generally helps more when running large, complex programs. Q9300 will have a harder time than Q9450 and Q6600 the heavier the application you try to run on it.
Q9300 is the economy class chip of the Yorkfield 45nm quad generation. Right now, it's not even cheap, so there's no reason to get it.
I've built 2 systems using the Q6600 and it's has impressive the Sh** out of me. I think it is a very solid performer today, and yes when applications start to really take advantage of multi cores it will really shine. This is just theory, Microsoft and Intel have invested $20,000,000 for 2008 into improving multi-core utilization in applications. If I were a betting man I'd say it's gonna happen and soon. In my opinion it comes down to the q6600 2.4ghz 65nm 8mb cache & q9300 2.5ghz 45nm 6mb cache. On one hand slightly more heat, bigger die, 2mb cache 100mhz slower, and 100.00 less on the other 100Mhz faster smaller die, lower heat, 2mb less of the critical cache. 100.00 more. Benchmarked straight up it would probably be pretty close. Intels like cache so in some tasks I would think the q6600 would win. Like I said I built 2 in the last 2 months, one for a customer and one for me after playing around with his, had to have one. I did noticed a little difference when I went to from a single to a dual but the quad really feels like it has a lot of power. Once i added the additional 4 gigs of ram is seems very snappy. Yes, that's right 8gigs of OCZ Reaper 1066. Seems extreme now but is a 12 months it will be more common.
For Gaming and maybe also overclocking you buy E8400 would be better than Q9300. Gigabtye P35-DS3L definitely support 45nm CPU but you may need to upgrade the BIOS for better performance with the E8400 if you bought your GA-P35-DS3L middle last year.
The q6600 is NOT the best out of the three for gaming.
Not for most games, at least. E8400 can overclock higher and thus perform better in games not optimized for quad cores, which is nearly all of them at the moment. The only one I know of that's fully quad optimized is Lost Planet. Supreme Commander show large improvement too, but not officially quad optimized. Still, for future-proofing, quad is the way.
In terms of games, what are the differences in fps between, say, the E8400 and the Q6600? Are we talking like 5 fps on a game that can reach 100+ fps with a great system or like 20+ fps?
Get either an E8400, or a Q9450. The Q6600 performs less in gaming, and the Q9300 is not worth the extra price, not to mention it does not overclock very well thanks to the multiplier. I am sticking with my E6750, like mihirkula, @ 3.6 GHz until the Q9550 comes out, and only if it benches higher than a E8500, which would mean near or higher than a Q9650.
---------------
Vision without action is a daydream, action without vision is a nightmare.
In terms of games, what are the differences in fps between, say, the E8400 and the Q6600? Are we talking like 5 fps on a game that can reach 100+ fps with a great system or like 20+ fps?
We are talking about a increase of about 10 FPS on a game that is 80+ FPS already. We are also talking about an increase of 10 FPS when the game is reaching 30 FPS already, it IS that much of a difference.
---------------
Vision without action is a daydream, action without vision is a nightmare.
Well, they said games will never be optimized to dual when it first came out. Now, the early duals are slow, but still fast enough for gaming, while single core processors of the same period is completely worthless.
History is better indicator of what's to come than predictions of the self-proclaimed experts. The smart money is on quad.
