First off, yes I know this question is everywhere, and I've read all the threads, but am still stuck.

My choice is between E8400 and Q6600
the other aspects are
4GB DDR2 800Mhz
SATA II 750 GB
9600GT
EP35-DS3L

the price is only $10 different.

Now I know "if you are a gamer - E8400; if you multi-task- Q6600"; but some of the talk about multi-tasking makes it sound like unless I am planning on doing some work for Pixar then duo cores is all I need.

My usual day would involve writing on word, listening to itunes and surfing the web (multi pages open). Does this count as "multi-tasking" to the point that quad core would be beneficial? I also would like to have this set up for at least 3-4 years.

My gaming is pretty minor - but mostly due to the cr@p 4 year old laptop I currently have. I like COD2, but mostly I'm into Civ and sports games, with the odd WWII flight sim (not FSX).

Some days I'm locked into buying the E8400, then the next day I decide on Q6600. Then today I was reading about the Q9300 and the fact it runs cooler, and uses less power; but which is more important - the 1333Mhz or the 8Mb L2 cache? I could get the same system as above but with Q9300 for about $70 more - worth it?

Anyhoo thanks in advance - this site has been great for a total newbie (oh and also I will definately not be trying to OC - I'm not at that point yet).

If you would like to keep your new system for more than a year I would get a quad. Curentely games are not optimized to take effect of more than two cores, which is changing with each title released. Plus quad core processors allow for a much better non game expirience.

All previous games will work better with the 8000 series appart from a few..

Multithreaded games are apparantly on their way but who knows whats comming.

Hopefully we will get some soon if any are produced anymore...

If you can stretch to the 9450 is only a few dollars more then go for it....

Get the quad then

Thanks, but what about the multi-tasking aspect - what level of multi-tasking is required before a quad is noticeably superior? As I said, I will have word, itunes and explorer running at the same time - any need for quad?

No, a dual-core would be sufficient even for those tasks, even one clocked at 1.7Ghz will be more than enough ~ kinda what I'm doing (replace explorer with Firefox and Word with Painter). Seriously I think you would be better off with an Athlon X2 or Pentium Dual-core for your light computing needs (maybe even a low-end Core 2 Duo). For gaming the graphics card is the major factor... (second thought, an E7200 would be perfect, Q6600 if you don't plan on upgrading for years)).

Thanks AMDfangirl.
I don't plan on upgrading for years - family budget and all - so Q6600, looks to be the go. I read about heat issues - is that only when OCing? - is the Q9300 worth the bit extra $$ - I read somewhere else it is a 7% or so improvement on the Q6600 on most tests. I don;t think I can streath the budget to the Q9450.

Can someone explain the pay off between 8mb L2 cache 1066Mhz, and the 6mb L2 chache 1333mhz (I swear my life was a lot easier 2 weeks ago before I started reading up on this stuff!)

^ A Q9450 would be like using a Death Star to destroy a Z-95... (or Monica's wedding scenario A) its an overkill and it hurts the Imperial defence committee's credit stream... (Chandler's finance = XP)

(He must have at least gotten one of the analogies...)

I'm sure that when you adjust the clockspeed to the same level it will be an even field... I recommend the Q6600 because it overclocks better, as you may grow fond of this in the near future. Besides it will overclock further, and thus provide higher performance. A higher FSB will benefit in high memeory applications but effect little, so I recommend the Q6600, which has more cache which equates to better game performance...

Sorry AMDFanGirl but the 45nm Core 2s are faster clock for clock. 45nm runs at 5ipc and 65nm runs at 4. So for the Q6600 has to hit 3.6ghz+ to match a E8xxx or Q9xxx at 3ghz and he can't afford a Q9xxx. Either way the Q6600 can off load more tasks during gaming (non game stuff) so it should be able to at least rival it at the same clock speeds; unlikely to beat it at dual core enabled games through.

Sad to say I got all the references AMDFanGirl!

I think the gist of what I'm getting is that given my needs either E8400 or Q6600 is going to be great (and compared to what I currently have I'll think I have died and gone to heaven).

In the past I have always had to settle for something less than spectacular (I was the guy who got a 386 when his mates were buying that flat out 486), and at the moment I can get something that at least has a chance of still being decent for 2 years.

The difference between the Q6600 and Q9300 does interest me, but I thinnk I'd rather spend the extra money on a better video card.

Difference between q6600 and q9450 clock for clock isnt that much... ir remember seeing a test where both were at 3.6ghz....the q9450 was quicker but not massively.

Most people seemed to think that a q6600 @ 3.8 would be roughly equal to s 9450 @3.6...Not worth the extra money IMO.

If you dont want to OC then get the e8400, if you do OC then get the q6600. At stock speeds the q6600s isnt quick enough for games that cant use the 4 cores, but 3.0 ghz upwards and its fine. Intel is going to drag games developers kicking at screaming into the world of multithreading whether they like it or not. In less than two years time i suspect that very nearly every game will have quad core support.

Any system is enough for your needs. FSB x cache memory won't make a difference in your experience.
As for the future, in 3 or 4 years all existing systems, including an extra-expensive QX9770+3xSLI 280GTX+blablabla will be very slow.
Believe, in 3 or 4 years from now, you'll be making questions about your new upgrade.
That said, just keep in mind that quad cores generate more heat than Core 2 Duos, so you better have some extra $80 to spend in an aftermarket cooler.

lameness more correctly put its a Q6600 at 3.75ghz(3.75ghz * 4ipc = 15) that is needed to match a Q9450 at 3ghz (3ghz * 5ipc = 15). Well more or less, there are other factors that can obviously add to or deduct from the performance.

If you doubt my argument about the IPC consider AMD is the one who pushed the ghz * IPC metric to prove their chips were faster at the time. Additionally think of the Phenom X4 at 2.4ghz with a IPC of 3 can not compete with the Q6600 at 2.4ghz (4 ipc).

Thanks galta on the FSB issue.

The heat issue is one I keep reading about. Is there a comparison on temperatures somewhere? (don't think there is one on the charts). Is it a case of you need a good cooler even if not OCing?

Anyhoo I've decided. Definately getting the Q6600... I mean the E8400.. no the Q9300.. or possibly the...

lamness said it all in 1 sentence. For your needs this is perfect advice.
"If you dont want to OC then get the e8400, if you do OC then get the q6600"

$80?

ZeroTherm NV120 only cost me $48 bucks, and it had a $10 rebate, so $38 bucks.

My Q6600 (G0) runs just as cool as my E4400 (and it's using a Tuniq 120 $59, when it was the best), and eats only 10Watt more on idle.

In 3 or 4 years anyone's system will be considered outdated machines, so there won't be any questions about the old.

The Q6600 is good to about 3.0 GHz with the factory cooler in a case with decent ventilation.

I suggest you get a good cooler anyway, even if you don't OC.
The better performance of good aftermarket coolers results in lower temperatures and lower noise. You probably have at least 4 fans working inside your case (1 for the PSU, 1 for the CPU, 1 for the GPU and 1 for the case), what adds up to a lot of noise.
As for temperatures, it's hard to say because it will depend on temperature of your room, the quality of your case etc..
Keep in mind, however, that a quad is essencially 2 core 2 duos, so its TDP should be about 2 times bigger.

I run the q6600 at 3.3 gigs, 44 to 47 at idle, and 55 58 at power. You dont have to spend 80 dollars on a cpu cooler, the artic pro 7 does a more then sufficent job, even with overclocking, you wont get the fabled 3.6 gigs, but you can get upwards of 3.4 with confidence.

I guess for my needs it a bit like asking whether I want Federer or Nadal to partner me in doubles for my local social tennis team.

The E8400 seemed at first blush to be the go, but all the talk of mutl-tasking had me wanting 4 cores - but it seems what I class as multi-tasking isn't going to make a difference. That said as this is it for me for at least 3 years I think the Q6600 (or 9300) is the go to 'future proof' - but then I think "future proofing" is a bit of a crock. I remember thinking, "1 Ghz? I'll never need that much speed".

So yes, I have no idea. But thanks everyone anyway.