Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad/Duo Duo/Quad!!! Aaaauuuggghh!!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 2, 2008 9:46:24 AM

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).
July 2, 2008 10:02:39 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 10:08:42 AM

Grogger Go said:
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).


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....

July 2, 2008 10:11:51 AM

Grogger Go said:
I also would like to have this set up for at least 3-4 years.



Get the quad then
July 2, 2008 10:12:45 AM

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?
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 10:38:48 AM

Grogger Go said:
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)).
July 2, 2008 10:53:58 AM

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 b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 11:59:10 AM

^ 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...
July 2, 2008 12:13:09 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 12:29:56 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 12:31:11 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 12:46:54 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 12:56:20 PM

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).
July 2, 2008 12:59:52 PM

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...
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 1:05:24 PM

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"
July 2, 2008 1:07:34 PM

galta said:
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.


$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. :lol: 
July 2, 2008 1:11:02 PM

The Q6600 is good to about 3.0 GHz with the factory cooler in a case with decent ventilation.
July 2, 2008 1:19:57 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 1:22:10 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 1:28:39 PM

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.
July 2, 2008 1:32:40 PM

In 2011 do you think you'll be happier with a dual-core over a quad? Quads offer a smoother non-gaming experience. I did a comparison with my E6850 and my Q9450 and though I wanted the E6850 (OC'd to 3.5Ghz) to be as good or better than my Q9450 (OC'd to 3.4Ghz) there was HUGE difference in how the OS felt. The dual-core runs significantly cooler, the quad, though notably warmer, runs notably smoother.

I'm not sure for an extra 2-3fps in gaming (if that) I'd go with the dual-core when a quad renders the OS so much smoother for everyday use.

The quads are great, but they run warmer. ...but given the choice I'd still go with the quad on a new build, as long as it wasn't a Q9300...7.5X multi...where's the fun in that?
July 2, 2008 1:36:39 PM

Geez, I'm way out of my depth here. 7.5X multi?? Could you explain a bit for me.
July 2, 2008 1:51:59 PM

CPU's have a multiplier, to determine their speed.

To make it somewhat simple:

E4400 is a 2ghz processor, 800mhz FSB.

Mainly CPU's are Quad pumped.

To figure out the multiplier:

800 / 4 = 200

2000mhz (or 2ghz) / 200 = 10

So a Q9300 is a 1333 FSB CPU. To figure out its stock speed, without looking it up:

1333 / 4 = 333.25 or just 333mhz

7.5 x 333 = 2497.5mhz or 2.5ghz
July 2, 2008 2:58:43 PM

haha, I have to laugh....your thread topic sums up exactly how I've been feeling for the last 2 or 3 weeks, trying to decide between the same procs. While I await the arrival of my shiny new radeon 4870 I'm driving myself nuts trying to decide between dual/quad. The decision would be easy if the q9450 was cheaper, but as it stands the extra 120 bucks doesn't fall into my original budget.

Here's a really good review that compares the players in this price range, including stock and OC'd speeds and power usage (they use the 8500 instead of the 8400, but the 8400 is capable of nearly the same clock speeds as the 8500 from what I've seen).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

another interesting article shows that the clock speed difference is nullified somewhat at higher resolutions (in gaming), something to look at for gamers.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...

Like most said with your workload it seems either choice would be fine, but the quad seems to be more future proof as long as programmers embrace quad cores.

Personally I'm torn still....I do some heavy gaming, as well as alotta photoshop, lightroom, Illustrator, and a little work with premiere. The only thing that worries me about the q6600 is lack of sse4 (which i'm pretty sure is mainly to speed up multimedia and rendering operations) and the power consumption, especially overclocked which I will definitely be doing. But how much extra per year is an OC'D q6600 gonna add to my electric bill vs a 45nm proc? $50? $100?

Sadly I still seem to be undecided on the matter.... :( 

My friends don't call me "Captain Indecision" for nothing!
July 2, 2008 3:08:14 PM

If you don't plan to overclock the CPU - then heat with a q6600 - even with the stock heatsink - is not an issue....

Also - if you don't get the quad now - in two years you will not be able to... As all CPU's from intel will be the new socket...

Also remember all the other processes running in your system slowing it down - AV, anti spy, other background processes (printing etc..) Try this, open task manager, select 'threads' under view/select objects - and see how many threads are running.. I estimate that on my PC I must have over 500 threads currently active - quad cores - especially over time as background processes get more and more bloted - will pay off big time.
July 2, 2008 3:35:46 PM

+1 for the Q6600.

seriously, i have both a C2D and C2Q machine or had. E6600 and i used to have a Q6600 both at 3.0ghz. i OC-ed them both, and honestly, there is such a noticeable smoother windows experience on the Q6600. but then again, i sold the Q6600 to my friend cuz he needed a processor and got a Q9450.

i'm a hardcore gamer also, but i also want my computer to be used to other things, and not just gaming. overall the experience is much better with a
quad than a duo.

imo, why would a few more fps matter when such great cards are out like the 4850/4870? i play games like TF2, COD4, WIC, on my current 3870x2, and its always 60+. i play on 1440x900 because thats the max my monitor supports. i don't even think its noticeable anymore if you have a decent graphics card. i run COD4 at 100fps+ and would another 2 fps at the fps range matter? :p 
July 2, 2008 4:23:21 PM

I am very very happy with the Q9450 I picked up. Running the Q9450 at 2.66 stock speed I am getting between 90-200+ FPS in Age of Conan with Max Distance/High Settings/Max Shadows/Max Pixels/Max Foliage with an XFX 8800GT.

July 2, 2008 4:37:30 PM

galta said:
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.


$80?! My Xigmatek 1283 only costs $28 and only a lapped TRUE can hang with my cooler!

Any who, get the Q6600 the difference between the Q6600 and the Q9300 is only noticeable in benchmarks, honestly there is a thing called diminishing returns.

To aznguy0028 no it wouldn't not at that resolution. At higher resolutions 1920x1200+ the difference would be more like 5-10 FPS, not to mention Crysis. I hate mentioning Crysis, honestly thats not the ONLY game out in the world, hell the game is not even that good and the story certainly sucks, but it is the only game that matters, right? RIGHT?! Oops, back to subject, for people like me who have a nice E6750 overclocked to atleast 3.2, I never see any difference after 3.2, then there is no reason to upgrade, until nehalem.
July 2, 2008 4:50:41 PM

JDocs said:
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).

Link plz. Every benchmark I have seen of the q9300 puts it roughly 5-10% ahead of the q6600. According to you it should be a massive 25% ahead (the extra clock speed compensates for the lower cache).
July 2, 2008 4:52:30 PM

In games the difference wouldn't be noticeable anyways unless your running 1024 resolution and staring at a fps counter.For the light multi tasking your doing the quad would be asleep most of the time,but if you don't upgrade often it would buy you some future proofing for when(or should i say if)the multithreaded apps/games that you would use start to trickle in next year or the year after.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 5:02:33 PM

stove said:
I am very very happy with the Q9450 I picked up. Running the Q9450 at 2.66 stock speed I am getting between 90-200+ FPS in Age of Conan with Max Distance/High Settings/Max Shadows/Max Pixels/Max Foliage with an XFX 8800GT.



except you're running at like 1024x768 lol

OP get a quad core and shutup.
July 2, 2008 5:04:24 PM

Get a quad. Seriously, what's the discussion? HELP ME LIVE MY LIFE AND MAKE OTHERWISE SIMPLE DECISIONS FOR ME.
July 2, 2008 5:14:24 PM

Get the Quad. It is true most games and other apps are not optimized for 4 cores (yet). But, the difference in performance (framerates) between a very fast dualcore and an average Quadcore is trivial.

The limiting factor on games (the 93xx and 8000 series duals vs the older q6600 is not the CPU but the video card)

You can't future proof any PC purchase. No matter what you buy a year from now it will be lame and slow; but you will probably have greater utility from the quad a year from now than the dual.

Also, the q6600 is a famously good OC'er. (Q6600 @3ghz with no voltage change)
July 2, 2008 6:57:20 PM

I remember myself couple of month back
I was confused between Q6600, E8400, E8500
Q9xxx were not available
Finally I bought E8500
But GOD has his own ways
It was my birthday and guess what happened ?
I received Q6600 as bithday gift
I have it now sitting in my drawer waiting for multithreaded games
Wish you happy birthday :hello: 
July 2, 2008 8:01:48 PM

Sounds like GOD has a sick sense of humor kad....
July 3, 2008 3:43:00 AM

Grogger Go.... buy the Q6600 or E8500 off Kad. [:kentuckyranger:3]
July 3, 2008 8:17:37 AM

Thanks everyone. I'll go the quad and see what I can afford on the video card front.
July 3, 2008 5:33:50 PM

I also went ahead today and ordered the q6600 with the new biostar Tpower I45 mobo, xigmatech s1283, and 4gb a-data vitesta cas4 ddr2 800 to go along with the Diamond Radeon HD 4870 already on the way. Can't wait!

Hopefully my 650 watt psu is up to the task when overclocking...
July 4, 2008 12:23:53 AM

go for quad core to make your system future proof and spend a little bit more for Q9450 ,12Mb of cache will help you a lot .
July 4, 2008 3:20:37 AM

Don't tempt me! I'm struggling as it is to justify spending on a new system!

I'm thinking the Q6600, and then do some studying on how to OC... if I'm brave enough.
July 4, 2008 3:41:28 AM

On the quad-duo issue, it seems to me given the huge number of threads on the issue that it's a unique "problem". In the past the issue was more straight forward and came down to intel over AMD etc, how much you could afford, and whether you were better off spending money on more RAM, better video card etc etc.

With the E8400 and Q6600 now basically the same price it seems to me the decision is a bit trickier, and make me think intel itself isn't really sure of which way the public wants to go. After so many years of focussing on Ghz it now seems to be having a bet each way.

Obviously in the future quad will be standard but until quads at the same speed as duos are the same price, I think we're going to be having the dilemma of GHz versus cores.

So I guess for those sick of the arguement, sorry I can't see it ending soon.
July 4, 2008 5:08:37 AM

stove said:
I am very very happy with the Q9450 I picked up. Running the Q9450 at 2.66 stock speed I am getting between 90-200+ FPS in Age of Conan with Max Distance/High Settings/Max Shadows/Max Pixels/Max Foliage with an XFX 8800GT.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa142/baldtornado/Archmagus_picture000.png


What resolution and what AA and AF settings are you using? My specs are somewhat similar... except that I'm using the Q6600 instead of the Q9450. I usually get an average FPS around 30 - 35... most of the time in high 30s low 40s and occasionally jumping up to 50+... but sometimes dipping as low as 24 FPS. I have VS enabled... which does limit me to 60 FPS... but your numbers indicate I should be hitting that almost constantly.

I am running at 1680 x 1050 with max AA and 8x AF... high settings with shadows off.
July 4, 2008 5:43:01 AM

+1 for the Q9450 if you have the cash.
July 4, 2008 8:52:10 AM

Nah I don't have the cash, and I am getting more and more tempted to try OC. The more I read on the OC board the less worried I get that something I do will destroy my CPU. And the thought of having 4 cores @ 3.0Ghz for the Q6600 price make it a pretty sweet deal.
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2008 10:07:33 AM

^ Don't do that until you are sure its expendable ie. few years later...
July 4, 2008 10:31:52 AM

Not sustainable at OC?
July 4, 2008 10:56:07 AM

Grogger Go said:
Not sustainable at OC?


Don't put your bet on OC unless it's your 2nd cpu or you have 1 for backup.
I know everyone seems to have this good impression of q6600 being a good overclocker. Well if you google a bit for q6600 you'll find alot of ppl who killed their cpu/mobo trying to OC. I have to admit these days it's very hard to kill a cpu/mobo by oc'ing. The definite issue of any cpu is it's own ability to OC, since no cpu is the same with another. U might buy 2 x q6600 cpus and realise that under OC one can easily go 3.6/3.8 ghz while the other can't get past 3/3.2ghz. Each cpu is unique and may have better or worse oc'ing capabilities.
U have to 1st of all like that cpu ALOT without oc'ing it. Then you can enjoy yourself and add some satisfaction by trying to get it higher. Buying a cpu and thinking that you will like it @3.6ghz is only going to make things dissapointing in case it is a model that can't get past 3/3.2 ghz. I'm not saying 3 ghz for a quad is nothing, it actually rocks, but i'm only warning you as i did the same time a couple of times in the past and i ended up dissapointed about my aquisition. Even more when you're on a budget and can't afford to kill cpu's or any other pc parts trying to get the last drop of performance out of them. 3.6 ghz for q6600 is 50% over factory frequency. I know most say it's easy, well i say it's not, especially for budget reasons.

Q9450 will not bring ALOT of performance, but it will be a tiny better then q6600 in 2-3 years. It is a cooler and more power efficient quad then the q6600. You can easily get it to 3.2ghz and never worry of something going wrong with it EVER (ofc with an aftermarket HSF and some good thermal paste, AS5 is good)

Q6600 is definetly the winner price/performance and a better performer then the E8xxx models if you're an overall pc user, meaning that you don't play 24/7 and 2 FPS more or less doesn't make you touch yourself..., maybe sometimes you want to open some random programs while playing some light games and listen to music too.

E8400 is definetly the budget winner for any 24/7 gamer who will probably invest more money in a GPU solution then a q6600 user.

Beyond 3.2 ghz however the GPU will botleneck the CPU, so going for q9450 over the q6600/e8400 will not get you any extra fps in most common sense games. However it will be a safer bet for being a better all-around cpu in the next few years then the q6600/e8400.

So in my opinion, if you have some extra cash hidden somewhere in a piggy bank, get the q9450 together with a decent HSF (xigmatek/tuniq) and oc it to 3 or 3.2ghz ... and profit.
If you're on a very tight budget get the q6600 get a good HSF or even better a CPU only watercooling system that shouldn't cost more then ~100 $ and oc it to 3.6 if you're lucky to get a good cpu. Although if you put q6600+water cooling cpu unit you would reach the q9450 price and it's not so profitable anymore.
If you want to be extra cheap, and you plan to perhaps make an upgrade sometime next year, get the E8400 together with a decent HSF and oc it to 3.6/3.8 ghz

Hope it helped somehow
July 4, 2008 11:24:19 AM

Thanks X3qtor much to chew over.

Most likely this forum has gone to my head and after getting excited about having a decent CPU for the first time, I've started looking into areas (OCing) that I probably don't need to worry about for now.

Given the MOBO I'll be getting is the GA-EP35-DS3L and I read it's a bit tricky to OC I think it's best I just buy the damn CPU and stay at stock and enjoy.
July 4, 2008 12:52:36 PM

Actually that mobo is pretty nice for oc, i'm just trying to make things sound easier for you and make you decide. Oh and most important, if you really want to decide, you definetly have to stay away from hardware forums till you buy one of those cpu's :D  Otherwise you'll change your mind daily based on different replies and never get to buy something :D 

All in all trust me when i will say you'll be happy with whatever you buy. All 3 cpus are great values for today and they are all worth their money. Enjoy your build and if you can let us know some 1st impression or maybe a review of what you buy :) . I'd love to see some benchmarks or something :D 
July 4, 2008 1:39:10 PM

q6600 makes a great overclocker, 3.3 gigs stable on air with a artic pro 7, and all i did was increase the fsb. People who manage to kill this cpu are idiots, and should just sell all computer components they have, cuz there too stupid to own one.
!