E8400 or Q6600 or Q9400 or Q9550?


#1

Alright tech heads I got a question for ya - I want either the E8400 (Core 2 Duo 3.0 Ghz) or the Q9550 (Core 2 Quad 2.8 Ghz) CPU and I’m having a bit of trouble making a final decision. Or POSSIBLY the Q6600/Q9400, though I like either of those less.

Primary use is gaming. I’m not upgrading again, whichever one I get, for probly 2 years at least. I’m sure if you know about the CPU’s then you’d know all about how games still aren’t fully utilizing quad core, and thus how games are still faster on a higher clocked dual core, CURRENTLY. Yada yada. BUT, considering I don’t upgrade often, I wanted to hear what SRK peeps had to say about those CPU’s in particular.

Thing is, I can afford the E8400 no problem. If I shoot for the Q9550, it will break and I do mean BREAK my ass for next month. I will have to pour in all funds just to get it and maybe even sell a couple things in the process.

Q6600 I could get, just like the E8400, but honestly I like the E8400 over this chip, because it’s simply better in every department except the amount of cores. Mainly, it’s 45nm w/ much higher clocks.

I could try to get the Q9400, but that would still leave me with VERY little money. I don’t like the cache size on that chip too much though, for it being a quad.

So right now I’m heavily leaning towards the E8400, but am still somewhat unsure. I’d appreciate your feedback, my fellow tech heads of SRK.

Specs of the system the chip would be going in:

Asus P5Q-EM (socket 775 obviously)
4GB Ballistix 800
VisionTek 4870
Corsair 550VX
Caviar 320GB
DVD burner
20.1" 1400x1050 native 5ms Westinghouse LCD

Thanks in advance, yo. :cool:


#2

i have a 6600 with asus mobo, and i cant complain. also i would recommend a wd raptor hd instead of the caviar. i love opening task manager and having 20 windows open and using only 7% of cpu power.


#3

E8400 is the way to go. Quad Core is useless right now as there are practically no applications that really benefit from it or are designed for it. And plus with the E8400, you can OC that bitch to like 3.6/3.8gHz.


#4

i would say the q6600 is the best choice under a budget. 20 dollars more than the core 2 there…


#5

This is my line of thought. What was it they said about Crysis? “Quad core ready.” Yet it runs faster on the higher clocked dual core. Why should I think Alan Wake or whatever else would be any different?

I do wanna hit 3.6/3.8 and doing that on a quad would be very hard if not impossible on air.

Thanks for the thoughts guys. This is what I’m talking about, 3 posts so far, 1 guy says get the dual core 2 guys say quad core.

But please vote if you would so I can get a quick consensus for this :sweat:

Please guys it only takes a second to vote.


#6

Why don’t you get an e8600? I heard that they OC extremely well and getting to 4+GHz is no problem on AIR!


#7

It’s like a hundred dollars more for a better stock performance of, .15 gHz. You’re gonna overclock it anyways, and even if it can OC a little higher, .15gHz is not worth a hundred extra dollars.


#8

Exactly. I WILL overclock to at least 3.6 with the E8400, please believe.


#9

It’s actually .33 Ghz stock more than the e8400 AND the ability to practically guarantee 4.5 Ghz on Air. To me that justifies the price; I had to double check the overclocks since I couldn’t remember what’s the standard. Some have even gotten to 5GHz on Air so yea.

I would get that if I didn’t get the e8400 a few months ago. :sweat: Still your choice but since you’re willing to get a quad for that price then why not go for a dual core since programs aren’t taking full advantage of the quads yet.

Edit: Ha, didn’t read the part about your money. I’d say you already decided on the e8400 but to let you know, some of the newer batches are a little harder to OC than the older ones. I know this for a fact because the first e8400 I got needed no voltage increase while the next one I got needed a little more. It’s still almost guaranteed that you’ll get 3.6 GHz on it though. Also, depending on where you buy it you could RMA if you can’t get it stable and shoot for a better e8400 chip. :tup:

Here’s my setup which is about 2 months old.
Antec 300 Case
CPU - e8400 OC to 3.6 GHz
(Thermalright Ultra 120)
680i EVGA mobo
4GB OCZ RAM
750 Corsair PSU
CD/DVD Pioneer
EVGA GTX 260 896MB - OC to 650/1401/1130
250 GB Seagate Barracuda
Samsung 19" 5ms monitor

I actually used the funds to fix my car on this pc so now I won’t have my car till next year. :lol:


#10

if you’re going to game, definitely get e8400.


#11

Hmm. I didn’t see THAT part about being able to go over 4 GHz. But I still think that 3.6/3.8 is plenty good and that it’s not necessary to go higher. Especially with money being an issue.

And yeah, that PC better be worth it if you’re rideless.


#12

It’s not so bad, I already have some wheels and they get me from A to B. But, an '84 beamer isn’t exactly a chick magnet. :lol:

I plan on doing more digital work next year and I think this puppy should handle it no problem since I already ran CS3 and Corel Painter; they fly compared to my old Pentium 4. I’ve also ran Crysis with 60fps and no less than 30fps on the more intense stuff.


#13

Isn’t it possible to to OC E8400 (or E8500) to 4.0Ghz range using air?


#14

E8400 OCd to 4 gigz on air with the freezer 7 pro cpu heatsink and the arctic mx-2 thermal compound ftw. So easy i love this bad boy


#15

Well the E8600 getting so high on the OC tip is nice, however as ulovemikeroch stated 3.6-3.8 should be enough. I’m pretty sure any higher than that and my 4870 would really start to become a bottleneck for the CPU anyway. So it’s just not worth an extra $100 for a higher clock at that point, when everything else besides clock speeds are identical.

If I was going to spend that much, I’d go for a quad over a higher clocked dual core.

Something tells me to get a quad for the future, since I won’t be upgrading again for a while, and I’d still want to play current games. But that little voice seems to keep getting drowned out by the other voice that says the cheaper dual core with higher clocks is the better purchase. It just seems more rational (on one side of the coin at least) to get something that currently has way more support going for it (dual core), with something that I’ll ALWAYS benefit from (higher clocks), over something that WON’T always get used (four cores), with something I’ll always wish I had MORE of (clock speed).

Let me clarify a bit though, I COULD potentially get the Q9550 if I really wanted. It’s just that it’d be pretty much ALL my money at that time. BUT, if it would actually be worth it, then I’d do it.

Also I’d either get a Tuniq Tower 120 or a Thermalright Ultra 120 extreme. I’m pretty set on those and I like them both more than pretty much anything else for a cooler.


#16

Yea y cores run about 45C/40C but those thermalright ults are nice prolly have you runing about 4-5 degrees lower but remember those things are BIG


#17

A real hard thing to do is get an accurate heat reading. I have a Thermalright Ultra and some programs say I idle at 49C but Realtemp tells me 39C or so. That’s one of the main reasons I didn’t want to OC anymore. I didn’t know which temp is the mose accurate. :sweat:

That thermalright was huge and I had to remove my top fan for it to fit. It was also probably the hardest thing for me to install since I didn’t know how much tension those pins could take and didn’t want to risk breaking them.


#18

Looks like a solid system. My vote was with the e8400.


#19

plz the Q6600 is way better than the others listed :wink: got mine oced to 3.2 and it runs fine. GG


#20

what mobo james ?