Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Quad Core Q9550 vs Core 2 Duo E8600-Please Help

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 21, 2008 9:51:23 PM

Hello. So, rather than add another "dual core vs quad core" to the overflowing table, I have narrowed it down to 2 processors. This is sort of a dual core vs quad core thread, and I apologize. I have read a lot of them, done my homework etc, but I'd like specific help.

So, should I get the Quad core Q9550 2.83 GHz ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... ) OR the Core 2 duo E8600 3.33 GHz ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... )

Here's what I am looking for in a CPU:

80%- Gaming Performance
20%-Multitasking

Problem is, the dual core gives more fps in today's games, but once games are optimized for 4 cores (and who knows when that'll be), quad will dominate... but by then, there'll probably be much better, cheaper quads. At the same time, we are already starting to see a few great 4-core utilizing games, and quad core is much better for multitasking.

So, which of these CPUs do you think I should grab, and why?

Btw, yes, I would like to overclock. Problem is, I have absolutely no clue as to how to do it. And while people say you can just OC a quad core and make it as fast as a dual core, you could also OC a dual core and make it faster than that same quad core.

Thanks a bunch :) 

Edit: The reason I chose the E8600 is because it's the best dual core on newegg, and the Q9550 because the next step up is only .17 GHz, for $220 more.
September 21, 2008 10:04:41 PM

E8400 is $170 and OC's well. Youll be paying $100 for another 300mhz.
September 21, 2008 10:16:10 PM

spathotan said:
E8400 is $170 and OC's well. Youll be paying $100 for another 300mhz.


That's not my question.
Related resources
September 21, 2008 10:18:30 PM

Look. It seems you have a endless supply of money according to these threads and post you keep making. Not trying to be a dick head but people up here have just tried to get you the best bang for the buck and you just keep throwing them off. If money isnt an issue then why even bother asking for opinions? Just take 10 minutes and read some benchmarks man. The most expensive option is not always the best option, that went over your head it seems.

But if it makes you happy, go with teh quad.
September 21, 2008 10:44:26 PM

Dude, I never asked for bang for the buck. I asked which is better for multitasking and gaming. That's it, simple question. Yes money isnt a problem, thats exactly why I dont want bang for the buck, I want performance. I want reassurance me being too impatient to wait for nehalem is at least somewhat not a retarded idea :pfff: 
September 21, 2008 11:08:05 PM

Allright I won't suggest you a different cheaper CPU because you've narrowed it down to the above two.

E8600 gets my recommendation ... because you said 80% gaming.

In a year and a half Nehalem would be mainstream and you'd want to get one of those Nehalems complete with a new mobo... so it makes sense to buy what is faster NOW.
September 21, 2008 11:25:16 PM

Between these two cpu.. id say go with the quad.... 2.83ghz is enough to feed a current graphic card and get a good framerate even if only 1 thread is used, and with future game with better support for multithreading....the quad will be superior... If you want to get the higher framerate now because you are using a very high resolution and u need every single fps u can get now, get a 8400 or 8500 and overclock it or waste your money and get a 8600 for about 100$ more for a little 140mhz more...
September 22, 2008 1:11:19 AM

Oh crap, I forgot to say that I will be using 3 GTX 280 OC editions in SLI... does that change which one would be better?
September 22, 2008 2:40:18 AM

This change everything...you should run windows and other software on the graphic card... you do not need any cpu lol.... seriously... 3 gtx 280, are we speaking about a computer or a home heater!!! If you really need to get rid of your money buy a good (very good) computer, not an outrageously overkill one and give the remaining money to some charity organization....
September 22, 2008 4:58:23 AM

nishiki said:
This change everything...you should run windows and other software on the graphic card... you do not need any cpu lol.... seriously... 3 gtx 280, are we speaking about a computer or a home heater!!! If you really need to get rid of your money buy a good (very good) computer, not an outrageously overkill one and give the remaining money to some charity organization....


You know what, I'm sick of replying to the same post post made by 1000 different people no matter what question i ask. I'll just ignore it.
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2008 5:09:05 AM

Before completely squandering $1,350 to $1,500 on 3 GTX 280's why don't you read these articles here first.Many people here gave you good advise.You can see by these articles that your better off with a faster Quad Core CPU and just 1 GTX 280 or just 1 Radeon HD 4870 X2.SLI'ing 2 GTX 280's will give you meager performance gains for a wasteful cost in 1920 by 1200 resolution.Getting 3 would be extremely foolish and stupid.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-radeon-char...

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-char...
September 22, 2008 2:52:47 PM

UltimaSlayerVII said:
You know what, I'm sick of replying to the same post post made by 1000 different people no matter what question i ask. I'll just ignore it.


Btw i answered seriously at your question before you mentionned the 3 gtx 280, i gived you my opinion. I said the following

Quote:
Between these two cpu.. id say go with the quad.... 2.83ghz is enough to feed a current graphic card and get a good framerate even if only 1 thread is used, and with future game with better support for multithreading....the quad will be superior... If you want to get the higher framerate now because you are using a very high resolution and u need every single fps u can get now, get a 8400 or 8500 and overclock it or waste your money and get a 8600 for about 100$ more for a little 140mhz more...


And yes my opinion include you to not waste your money for almost no performance gain... if your sick about people giving you their advice/opinion don't ask and do whatever you want... it look like your looking for somebody that will tell you what you want to ear only. 3.16ghz vs 3.3ghz for 100$ look like a waste of money to me and i think im better to say it then not. Same for using 3 gtx 280... And i think most ppl on this forum will agree.

So for best fps with game not using quad core get the dual core otherwise get the quad. But if the difference between the fps gived is an average of 150fps on the 2.83ghz quad and 170 on the 3+ghz on the current game you play, 150 or 170 is good enough you won't notice the 20fps less all will be smooth at 150...why not take the quad for future game using more thread?
September 22, 2008 11:24:34 PM

Dont bother. Nishiki hit the nail on the head, he only wants people to tell him what he wants to hear. He had another thread up before this with the same BS. Hes been given the advice hes asked for but hes literally debunked everything.
September 23, 2008 12:35:53 AM

nishiki said:
Btw i answered seriously at your question before you mentionned the 3 gtx 280, i gived you my opinion. I said the following

Quote:
Between these two cpu.. id say go with the quad.... 2.83ghz is enough to feed a current graphic card and get a good framerate even if only 1 thread is used, and with future game with better support for multithreading....the quad will be superior... If you want to get the higher framerate now because you are using a very high resolution and u need every single fps u can get now, get a 8400 or 8500 and overclock it or waste your money and get a 8600 for about 100$ more for a little 140mhz more...


And yes my opinion include you to not waste your money for almost no performance gain... if your sick about people giving you their advice/opinion don't ask and do whatever you want... it look like your looking for somebody that will tell you what you want to ear only. 3.16ghz vs 3.3ghz for 100$ look like a waste of money to me and i think im better to say it then not. Same for using 3 gtx 280... And i think most ppl on this forum will agree.

So for best fps with game not using quad core get the dual core otherwise get the quad. But if the difference between the fps gived is an average of 150fps on the 2.83ghz quad and 170 on the 3+ghz on the current game you play, 150 or 170 is good enough you won't notice the 20fps less all will be smooth at 150...why not take the quad for future game using more thread?


20 fps in crysis DX10, all settings max, full AA/AF on 2560x1600... 20 fps would be from the 35 3 gtx 280s give me to 55... thats huge. I'm guessing you mean for games that dont include crysis at absolute best settings, right?
September 23, 2008 1:38:20 AM

ultimaslayerVII is a kind of a dick. don't even bother to help this jerk
September 23, 2008 2:22:25 AM

spathotan said:
Dont bother. Nishiki hit the nail on the head, he only wants people to tell him what he wants to hear. He had another thread up before this with the same BS. Hes been given the advice hes asked for but hes literally debunked everything.


Quote:
ultimaslayerVII is a kind of a dick. don't even bother to help this jerk


Message received, Ultima, buy 3 gtx 280 and add one spare in case one ever come to fail... :pt1cable: 
September 23, 2008 2:58:13 AM

nishiki said:
Quote:
ultimaslayerVII is a kind of a dick. don't even bother to help this jerk


Message received, Ultima, buy 3 gtx 280 and add one spare in case one ever come to fail... :pt1cable: 


Alright, now I see this site is a bunch of assholes who love to hate and call other peoples setups worthless just because they don't have the $ to use a setup like that. Well guess what? There's a person on this earth who has spent the last 5 years on a PC that crashes on CSS on the lowest possible settings. That person has been scraping up $ while paying for college for YEARS to buy an insane gaming PC, and now he wants one that will blow everyone else's away.

Hint: IT'S ME. Now stfu and go hug your 8800GTs.
September 23, 2008 3:18:50 AM

I knew it was an ego trip! :pt1cable: 
!