[Trepkos]

So which one do you prefer?

The e8400's 45nm, 3.0ghz stock freq, easy cooling, wolfsdale core, large cache, nice price.

The q6600, 65nm, kentsfield core, easy cooling, 2x 4mb cache, under 200 in some retail places.

I'm kinda undecided on which but Im leaning towards the e8400, since quad core CPU's have yet to become commonplace enough to be of full potential in the usual computing environment.

[krazyq]

q6600 wins.
could be both ways.
q6600 has more cores....
the e8400 does beat the q6600 in clock to clock speeds but i would still choose 4 cores vs 2.

[vernong1992]

Originally Posted by krazyq

q6600 wins.
could be both ways.
q6600 has more cores....
the e8400 does beat the q6600 in clock to clock speeds but i would still choose 4 cores vs 2.

agreed

games are getting to be more multi-core soon anyways

[veedubfreak]

I actually backed my q6600 back down to stock speed because all i'm playing right now is world of warcraft and its still way more CPU than i need. If you plan on upgrading again go with the e8400, but if you want a cpu that is going to last you EASILY 2 years or longer, get the quad.

[Twizted_3kgt]

Another one? Q6600 is the way to go, will last much longer and perform about the same now.

[veedubfreak]

Ya, i'm pretty sure the search function is broken:rolleyes:

[synergy]

I don't know. You have a higer FSB with the 8400, plus less power consumption, which means higher clocks with lower temps. I think this would make up for a couple extra cores. Measured at the same speeds the quad will perform better, but you will obtain higher speeds with the duo.

[aaronkupen]

It depends what you will be using your computer for. You should state that so we can make a better determination otherwise it becomes the same argument over and over in these forums.

[b1gapl]

Big reason to go quad, is if the purpose is for heavy multitasking or editing/encoding videos and photos.

[Twizted_3kgt]

and soon to be added to that list...gaming.