TF2 E8500 Vs QUAD Q6600?

Hi I got a E8500 and a 4850 512mb GHX card and all max settings 1650x1050 I get around 160fps in spawn and around 60+ in instense battle. I was wondering cause these a option in advanced video settings "enable multi core/thread" or something. And was wondering would a Q6600 give me more FPS then my E8500? Cause ATM it says 100% on both cores when that "multi core" option is enabled. Would it be 100% on all cores with a quad?

Tell me what would be better E8500 or a quad say Q6600 ( was the same price range)

Don't "upgrade" to a Q6660. If anything, think about a Q9650. I understand the price of the Q6600 might be more attractive, but unless you plan on overclocking, I definitely don't think that the Q6600 is the way to go. The significantly lower stock clocks combined with higher power consumption is not exactly an upgrade in my book.

Main reasons:

- It's very difficult, if not impossible for the human eye to tell the difference between 60 and 160 frames. Unless I'm completely missing the boat, upgrading to go beyond 60 frames per second, which is generally considered to be the max / ideal, seems very trivial.
- I do understand the attractiveness of a quad core, but if you have to, at least upgrade to something that is somewhat as energy efficient and perhaps more importantly, unless you plan on overclocking, has similar stock clocks.

E8500 - 3.166 ghz / 6 MB L2 Cache / 1333 mhz FSB / 65 W TDP
Q6600 - 2.400 ghz / 2x4 MB L2 Cache / 1066 mhz FSB / 105 / 95 TDP
Q9550S - 2.833 ghz / 2x6 MB L2 Cache / 1333 mhz FSB / 65 W TDP
Q9650 - 3.000 ghz / 2x6 MB L2 Cache / 1333 mhz FSB / 95 TDP

- Remember that just because a game supports multi-threading, doesn't mean that every core will be completely used. Solid programming is the key here. As a result, in some gaming situations, dual cores with high frequencies might surpass the frame rates of quad cores at low frequencies.
- In the end, a performance battle between two generally, archiectually similar dual and quad core processors (ex - E8400 and Q9650) will almost always be won by the quad core.

Recommended further reading:

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2280.html
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

"- In the end, a performance battle between two generally, archiectually similar dual and quad core processors (ex - E8400 and Q9650) will almost always be won by the quad core.
"

I thought that it didnt really matter about cores for games. Cause games prefer high clocks which a dual can provide so a dual would be better. A E8500 beats a Q6600?

is there something wrong with 60 fps?

I dont think so

LCD's refresh at 60 Hertz

60 fps

I havent a doubt you can detect images at the 1/1000 of a second level , but this wont make a damn bit of difference on an lcd monitor which is only ever going to be at 60 fps no matter how high a number the gfx card is pushing at it .

It was only a couple of years ago that many games capped their own output at 60 fps so they didnt damage the lcd's that were available back then .