Dual core or quad core

[david8115]

im thinking of getting the e8400 or the Q8200. I do plan on Oc, but not very much. but if i don't which will give me the best overall performance in games, and video editing.

also, which would be better?
q8200 @ 3.0 Ghz
or e8400 @ 3.7Ghz

Thanks

 

[kt88seamp]

I like quad cores.

 

[bornking]

depends on the rest of the system.
You will need a viceo card that will be very good (assuming you want HD minimuim)
That way you won't bottleneck anywhere.

If so, get a quad!

 

[cjl]

I'd go with the quad, personally.

 

[Fortunex]

For gaming, I'd go with the dual core.
For video editing and whatnot, I'd go with the quad.

Depends on what you want your computer to be better at.

 

[mamw93]

Get Q6600 and overclock the hell out of it. I overclocked mine with stock cooling to 3.5GHZ and I idle at 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Though I have 7 140mm fans and my CPU fan all maxed out all the time.

 

[loneninja]

Personally at this point I wouldn't buy a dual core unless I was on a budget, and there is no way I would even consider an Intel 8XXX series, they are way to expensive with so many X4,X3, and C2Q in the same price range. I'd personally go with the quad, it may be slower in single/dual threaded apps right now, but it'll be much faster in multi threaded apps and multitask much better. It'll probably become the better chip for gaming within a couple years too if you don't upgrade again before than.

 

[B-Unit]

Cut the Q8200 out right now. If your gonna go Core2Quad, its Q6600, or Q9x50, anything else is just wasting your money.

 

[david8115]

Cut the Q8200 out right now. If your gonna go Core2Quad, its Q6600, or Q9x50, anything else is just wasting your money.

explain plz, i'd be really pushing my budget if i get a Q9450. plus i don't think i need the performance this cpu has to offer, kinda just a waste of money for me. Just need fast pc that can do stuff, quickly(anything is fast compared to current computer i'm on)

 

[B-Unit]

The Q8x00 series are crippled by their low L2 cache (they are really Pentium Dual-core E5x00 dies glued together and given a 'promotion' to Core2) and the Q9x00 chips are crippled (in terms of OCing) by low multipliers.

The Q6600 is tried and true, with overclocks frequently hitting 3.2-3.4Ghz on air, some even higher. The Q9x50 series, with a good motherboard and strong cooling, have been known to hit 4.0Ghz.

Personally, I wouldnt go with dual core at this point in the game unless you really cant afford to move to a quad, however the Q6600 should be within $20 of E8400.

 

[505090]

For gaming, I'd go with the dual core.
For video editing and whatnot, I'd go with the quad.

Depends on what you want your computer to be better at.

+1 to Fortunex

 

[mamw93]

Quad will outlast the dual by a few years.

 

[david8115]

Maybe i'll just get the dual for now, then upgrade to a i7 or Q9x50 in a few years.

 

[eagles453809]

you know you people keep saying not to get dual cores...why? i remember a couple of years ago we were all saying "in a couple years everything will be multithreaded and optimized for quad"...and guess what not much of anything is. So here is the bottom line...

FOR GAMING YOU ARE BETTER OFF WITH A DUAL CORE AT 3.8-4.4Ghz which my E8500 does 4.25 easy. so any argument that a quad is better for gaming is bullshit.

FOR VIDEO/AUDIO/PHOTO ETC... YOU ARE BETTER OFF WITH A QUAD CORE CPU. END OF STORY.