Last message on previous page:
I see newegg has oem q9300 in stock but at 300 bucks ill pass i think the q9450 should be out this week but i cant figure out if its going to be @359 bucks retail or is that retailers price per 1000?  Damn these computer companies making me buy new stuff  lol

Priced the same my vote is the Q6600.  Had the e8400 actually been available enough to be lower priced, then I would lean that way.  But with that boxed $199 Microcenter price, Q6600 for sure.  There are already a couple games where 4 cores pull ahead of higher clocked dual cores.  Look at Supreme Commander and updated Lost Planet here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 600_8.html .  This IMO is bound to increase in frequency and both are currently more than enough for gaming, so why not think toward the future.  Also notice in benching other games, even if the dual core (e8400) overclocks higher, chances are the Quad won't need to be OC'ed as high to keep up with it.  

Thank you^ A person with Logic finally

Where I agree that games that use a quad is the way to go if your currently played games are quad multithreaded, but thats very rare. Also , in your link, its using a 6850 at 3.85Ghz against a fully maxxed out 6600. Now, the 8400 is just plain better clock for clock than the e6 series, and itll comfortably oc to 4 Ghz. I know Im knit picking, but even in quad games the 8400 at 4 Ghz and being better clock for clock, would show even or better in those same benches IMHO

Also, if you DONT oc, it clearly shows the 6600 as being only a little better  against a e6850, which the 8400 is generally 7% all around better than. So at stock speeds, the 8400 is equal to a Q6600 according to the link, projecting the 7% increase in the 45nm arch

Just keep in mind socket 775 is almost dead.  For 45nm Nehalem you will need a different socket.

Well I was just in the same dilemma and I finally went with a SLACR Q6600 and I am happy that I did.  It hit 3.2 ghz easily on a EP35-DS3P with ease.  In benchmarks it eats the e8400.  Sure the E8400 will hit 4 Ghz if you are lucky and don't mind going over the recommended voltages, but hell at 3.2 ghz there is no bottleneck.  It screams and it stays within voltage limits and it is reasonable on temps.  
 
I was so worried about low clocks but she clocks just fine.  

For pure gaming, the 8400 gets the most out of a gpu in most games. In apps, at stock its a toss up. Evenly priced as Paul said, quad qould be a better overall choice for ocing/with productivity in mind. Theres no clear winner overall IMO. And if you upgrade often, yes Nehalem will require a new socket. So either way, theyre a deadend til the new arch comes out

Sure, most games the extra clock speeds may push the e8400 ahead even.  I won't argue that the e8400 could keep up or even beat the Q6600 at stock speeds, or even maxed overclocked.  But we are talking CPU scaling settings not real world gameplay.  Who is going to game at 1024x768 no fsaa on such a rig?   At this level CPU, your gaming experience will be mostly GPU limited once settings are tweaked for actual gaming.  So what advantage does the e8400 have?  
 
My point is, both are totally fine for gaming now.  So if 1) we already see signs of the quad core shining in some games, like Lost Planet where a 2.4GHz quad beat the 3.85 GHz dual, and 2) neither will shine over the other at real world gaming settings, and 3) the Quad is as cheap or cheaper, then -----> why not go for the Quad? There is no way in the world that the e8400 at 4.0GHz will provide a better gaming experience than a 3.6Ghz Q6600.  It's not going to happen, not even with SLI 8800U. So why spend as much or more for an e8400?
 
IMO if you want max 3dmarks or 10x7 cpu scaling benchies, sure go e8400.  You'll own the benchie bragging rights with your 4GHz CPU. But If you want equal gameplay, better multitasking abilities, and to be better set for next year and beyond, get the Quad.  Priced the same, I can't understand people flocking to the e8400.  It's supposed to be a cheaper chip.  It would have been similar to flocking toward the FX-55 instead over the X2 4800+ back when the FX-55 was winning almost all cpu scaling tests vs the lower clocked dual cores.  And what happened shortly after that, games started to take advantage of dual cores and the X2 4800+ became way better than the FX-55.  I only bought the FX-55 because I got it for half the going price, way cheaper than an X2 4800+.  And I'd gladdly buy a sub $200 e8400 too.  But If games over the next year or two are coded to take advantage of 4 cores we may very well see similar happen in e8400 vs Q6600.  I would actually be surprised if someday in the next two years we don't at least see  one or two games where this happens in a big way, kinda like Supreme Commander on a single core.  

Like I said, I was knitpicking, and maybe the nexr gen cards will require that higher clock, but like you said, even, dollar for dollar, quads more forward looking, at the same price.

 
I agree.
 
You'll see less performance now with the Q6600, however, for things like Crysis and future games and apps, you're going to want the Q6600.

^ (edit : @ jaydeejohn) Yeah, I understand what you are saying and it seems we are of the same thinking on all this. There really is no wrong one to go for, just depends on pricing and desired use/results.
 
I'm happy at the time I went with the Q6600 over the equal priced e6850. But if I owned both chips (e8400 or Q6600) and could only keep one, I'd probably just sell off whichever I could get the most for at the time.  If that amount was about equal though I'd keep the Quad.  
 
Oh, Just so you know I wrote that book and got a phone call before submitting it, so I hadn't read the last couple posts before mine.  
 
And one other thought.  I'd be curious as to which does better recording fraps HD video while gaming. I've been having fun doing that with this build as the FX-55 one just wans't up to the task for high res video.

This thread has changed my mind soo many times but has given me alot of information. Im now converted back to Quad Core because as people have said, more updates for games may see that the game becomes Quad compatible. The only thing is that im dreading the new socket. Im guessing this means that given time, my motherboard and my CPU will amount to nothing?
 
Thanks

 
Yea Nehalem...will be a while before we see them reasonably priced though.  Especially with AMD so far behind...what benefit does Intel get by releasing Nehalem for the mainstream at reasonable prices?  It'll come, it'll just be a long time before they come down to real-world prices.  Kind of like what those assholes over at Intel (edit: typo!) are doing on the QX9650 right now, grrr.
 
But regardless, what's new?  This is how it's always gone in computing...and will probably continue to go for some time.
 
Paul and JDJohn, you guys were arguing practically the same point!  LOL.

Now that the Penryn quads are out it would seem they are the way to go with perhaps the exception of the q9300.  With it you are really only getting the performance of the Q6600 for more money. The Q9450 and x3350, on the other hand, are gettin 8+% better performance clock per clock and OCing as high as 4ghz on air. I like the Q6600 and despite better benches with higher OCs of the duals I still feel quads are the way to go but my recommendation is in Penryn colors. Of course there is the the retail premium right now but that too shall pass.

 
I was thinking the same thing.. When does the socket actually die?

Well what I think they should obviously do is make the best parts they can, stick with that idea and give it out so they make 0 profit. Then people can donate if they want =P
 
But seriously, looks like the Q6600 is winning but im defo going to look at the 9450 and 3350 however they will probably be way out of my price range that its not funny.
 
Thanks

I think 775 will put up a good fight though.  If you are talking about gaming, quad cores are neck and neck with the Wolfdales.  Quads are still in their infancy regarding gaming.  So what will 8+ cores really bring to the table?
 
Personally I could care less if it takes me 20 more seconds to rip some music.  My comment is totally biased because I really only care about gaming performance but at this point, quad cores aren't even necessary with the great performance of the dual 45nms right now.  Nehalam...nah...sure it will be a great CPU but software is still playing catch up with the quads.
 

 
By definition, I guess when a new CPU won't be made for it which would = Penryns.  BUT, I expect Intel to release later versions with higher multipliers.  So if you define new steppings as a new CPU then 775 won't die soon.  But I said it somewhere else, quads aren't even mainstream yet so I wouldn't worry about longevity.  

 
Which is better ATIx2 or NVidiax2?