Core2duo and core2 quad

is there a huge difference between the performance of the said procies?

thanks

You'll need to be more specific than that... The answer is, it depends. A dual-core with high clocks speeds will perform better for apps that don't support multi-treading properly, including most games. A quad-core will sometimes lag behind in a dual in single-threaded apps, but kicks butt when it comes to multitasking and productivity.

So, what's your budget, and what are you planning to do with the system?

for multi-tasking then you need a quad but, a higher clocked dual core can out-perform a lower clocked quad in certain task and gaming...
so to be safe, look for a higher clocked quad core processor.
^
overclock, good idea dpk..

yes C2D is dual core..
it can be especially for beginners who do not full prepare.
not trying to scare you..

There are other tradeoffs- the quad is more expensive, puts out more heat, and at least in the case of the core2 processors the quad probably won't overclock quite as well as the dual core. Lots of games have been benchmarked just fine with a dual core processor. The main benefit of a quad core is in video processing, but games are slowly catching up to the multithreaded technology. You can find older articles on Tom's that show their tests of dual core vs. quad core processors.

In gaming you can sometimes do better by getting a good but not the best cpu and then taking that money savings and buying a better GPU. If your budget is constrained then a 2.93GHz dual core is a good starting point.

In the new "i" series processors, the quad cores overclock very well, so that's the way to go if you can afford it.

IMO more cores the better
The q8400 is only 430 mhz slower which is really not a big difference.
The extra 2 cores is a big difference.
Having 4 cores is more "future proof".
Later on after much studying you can learn to OC the q8400 if it is not an OEM system (HP,Dell etc) and easily make up the difference.
Also each one will easily meet system requirements for any game out there (Heck most games can run on a P4 3.0 or higher) so the video card will make the most difference gaming.

Sweet. I run a Dual 3.2 P4 based rig with a 7600gs oc'd like crazy.
I can play Crysis Warhead on low settings,Far Cry 2 at medium settings and L4D 2 at 1920x1080 also.
It is funny you mentioned those games.
I am fine with lower settings and alot of people new to computers on this forum would think you need at least a Core I3 with a HD 5000 or a 460 to game and it is not true.
Obviously if you want to max every setting then you need a crazy system but new games are still playable on low settings on older tech.
The OP should go with the Q8400. In the long run it will be a better choice.
With a good video card it would be a nice setup for quite awhile.

We strayed off topic but goes to prove that 453 mhz difference between the Q8400 and E7500 really wont matter for gaming while having two more cores will be a world of difference.
If the OS takes advantage of 4 cores it will use it. XP Pro Vista Ultimate will use all 4 cores so the OS will run better.
If a game is designed for two cores then using task manager or SeeSaw you can assign the games affinity to 2 cores and still have two other cores for something else.
I have played L4D 2 while encoding a 800mb avi file with DVD Flick at the same time.
More cores are better if the speed difference between cores is minimal (less than 1ghz).
With more and more multi core systems more software is being written for multi-threaded optimization and I can only see the trend getting bigger.
There is a roughly a 4-5ghz speed barrier with processors due to TDP and heat so to overcome this more cores are utilized to increase processing power.
It takes awhile for software delevopers to catch up to hardware but they always do.
Most serious software (business oriented) like photoshop,maya,autocad,VM software, etc all will take advantage of as many cores as can be thrown at them.

go for a higher clocked quad (C2Q), it's still worth money in my book.
below is a small sample of my quad set-up; the quad chip i use is also the lower power consumption model and it's a decent clock speed.
the GTS450 is a better buy than the GTS250 and is better power consumption wise as well; look for a ddr5 card and not ddr3 regardless.
with a similar set-up, you can also game if and when the itch needs to be scratched..

C2Q Q9505S (2.83GHZ) Yorkfield
ASUS P5Q-EM LGA 775 Intel G45 HDMI mATX motherboard
SCYTHE SCKTN-2000 KATANA2 LGA775 CPU Cooler
AS5 - thermal compound
MSI N450GTS CYCLONE 1GD5/OC GeForce GTS 450 (Fermi) 1GB 128-bit GDDR5

im on a tight budget... i mean.. really tight..

like on a 350-400$ budget.. 400$ is really like stretched out..

im living in The Philippines and not all of your said brands are available here (i think)

uhmm... my build would be like this..

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5Ghz
Asus P5G41CM-LX Intel G41/ DDR3
2gb ddr3 RAM
250gb HDD
GTS250 512MB DDR3 256bit

aint this good enough for what i would be building it to do?

^
must have posted in wrong thread..

600watt is too much and not needed.
a 450watt to 500watt Corsair will be sufficient.

Since he is using XP 2gb is fine.
I use 2gb on 32bit xp and rarely drop below 1gb free.
XP is optimal on 1gb and higher
Vista needs at least 2gb mainly because of superfetch.
OP will be fine on 2gb for now and can upgrade later especially if they upgrade OS.
The only thing is they have only 2 slots then he would be paying twice...
2x1gb then later 2x2gb so in the long run it would cost more
Though he could offset cost by selling off old 2x1gb sticks.
Short term budget vs long term budget
unless he did 1x2gb for now
IMO with his budget he is better off with a AMD build
Better bang for buck
C2Qs are overpriced new

I know
Who are you Mike Tyson?
You might not get that reference you are younger
Tyson would knock guys out first round back in the day
Pay $50 pay per view for a 92 second fight
When and how much did you get your Q9550 for?
Nice build I am jealous in a good way

# AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban 2.8GHz Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT55TFBGRBOX
# ASUS M4A785-M AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
# Kingston HyperX 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 Desktop Memory Model KHX8500D2K2/4G
# COOLER MASTER Elite 310 RC-310-BKR2-GP Black with blue front panel Steel Body / ABS plastic front bezel ATX Mid Tower Computer ...
# Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
# LG DVD Burner - Bulk Black SATA Model GH24NS50
$442.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Comb [...] mbo.549114

# AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ955FBGMBOX
# MSI 890GXM-G65 AM3 AMD 890GX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard
# Kingston ValueRAM 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR1333D3K2/4GR
# HEC 6K60BSX585 Black / Silver 0.8mm SECC Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 585W Power Supply
$385.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Comb [...] mbo.514056

# Intel Core i5-760 Lynnfield 2.8GHz LGA 1156 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80605I5760
# GIGABYTE GA-P55-USB3 LGA 1156 Intel P55 USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
# Antec Dark Fleet DF-10 Black SECC ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
$368.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Comb [...] mbo.540799

@ OP - malmental 's post ^^ there you have it, the AMD build is better on the pocket.

I don't think he'd need a hexacore. The $385 is a good buy but adding the HDD, ODD and the monitor - it goes up again. Actually staying lower than an i5 build.

@king SMP - so your into modding huh, i did that a long time ago. back when i had an E4300. A hexacore would be overkill for school work. A review/test carried out here on Tom's suggested that getting a quad core is actually a waste of money,as games and most applications need an average of 3 cores to operate. Hey that's an idea...look for a AMD phenom x3 build and he's set for some time to come! Wind tunnel huh, i think i could have it test my air airports windflow design

We have been straying off topic.
To answer his question.
YES!
That build can pretty much handle anything you can throw at it.
You could game and same time run other apps easily.
If that build along with a decent case and psu is within budget go for it.

hmmm...^ + 1

If for example he was in US then AMD would be better on a budget
But looking at the build he came up with where he is at and in his budget
he would be fine especially if the OP studies OC'ing.
And everything except cpu/mobo could be reused for later build when Core I series drops in price

That is the chance you take.
usually because of ocing your temps rise and that can fry the chip.
however modern processors throttle back at a certaing temp so you should be ok.
Normally your windows freezes and you reboot and set your overclock lower.
there are plenty of beginners guides here and on other sites.
Study up on those and make your own decision if it worth the chance.
It can reduce the lifetime of your equipment.
with the build you proposed you should be good for a long time (using it for what you describe) before you would need to think about ocing it.
and you can reuse almost everything for the future for another build.

usually if you oc it will freeze and then you would go into the bios and reset to default or lower oc settings
If a tragedy occurs you might lose your processor completely but it is rare.
read this:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1804
it is a good guide to get started with.
and it is not a bad idea to wait to oc until your hardware is lacking.
You stated that you wanted the build for schoolwork and games.
what kinda of school work? is it computer related or just writing reports and powerpoints?
also what kinda of gaming?
if you want to play crysis or starcraft at the absolute highest settings and resolution then a high powered machine is needed but I play crysis warhead on low settings and left 4 dead 2 and far cry at med to high settings on an ancient dinosaur (built 2004) machine.
really gaming is more dependent on video card then cpu

most software nowadays still uses Pentium 4 and windows xp as a minimum system requirement so you should be fine for 2-4 years
and then unless things radically you would just have to upgrade motherboard and cpu which by current prices is about is about 100-150 USD fpr combo.
only thing is whether DDR3 ram will still be used 2-4 years from now

well for highest setting and engineering software raises the bar...
I would if you could look at min and recommended requirements for that software and build using the recommended requirements
as a guideline.
The software sites for each company should list that.
Definitely more cores the better.

who knows and it doesn't really matter right now..

no warranty doesn't cover oc'n damages.........lol
only a new mobo has any warranty that has to do with oc'n..

kinda mean LMAO but true!