Hey guys,

Im guessing you get the jist of things by the name of the thread.

Just want to a few things clear though, the computer I am building will be for games, school work and general use. Im looking at playing Crysis, COD4, Assassins Creed and others. Im hoping to get a good lifetime expectancy out of this computer with minimal upgrades, however after about 4 months of purchasing this computer I will get the best CPU fan I can find. So which is it to be.

E8400 - 2 Cores - 6MB Cache - 3.0 GHZ
Q6600 - 4 Cores - 4MB Cache - 2.4 GHZ

And PLEASE guys, dont list saying just get the next Q**** CPU, unless it will come out pretty much the under $300 AUD, because I cant really spend the extra money. *im broke as it is*

Thanks

Q6600 - 8MB - L2 cache

If you are broke. Food and Shelter are a priority.
If you have to wait four months to buy a heatsink fan, you really need to rethink your monitary priorities. You don't need a cpu. You need a job.

My vote, E2160 and a good aftermarket cooler now. Total price is 1/3 of either of your options, and seeing the FSB to 333 will give you the E8400 with only less cache. You said money is an issue, so I think that's your best option. The money saved can get you a mobo and RAM.

Go with Q6600(has 2x 4MB L2 Cache) if you plan to keep this system for a while.
E8400 may be a better choice for current games, but it's not going to last as long as a Q6600 based system.

With Intel and M$ getting together to expand the usage of mulithreaded apps and programs, itll be here eventually heheh, I mean we are talking M$ ya know

I'd get a E2180 and a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 cooler, then spend all the remaining cash on the best possible video card.

Hi, this is my first post here and would like to say that this is a very controversial debate.
Based on all the other Q6600 vs. E8400 threads I've seen, the question really boils down
to what you use your PC for. If you are into benchmarking, video encoding, editing, then I'd
suggest going with the quad core. If you are doing HEAVY multitasking (one guy was running
four instances of World of Warcraft on 4 different accounts), then go with the Q6600.

For general purposes and gaming, I would recommend the E8400.

I personally bought BOTH a G0 Q6600 and an E8400 and I'm selling my Q6600
as of this moment. Reasons: I am primarily a gamer and use my PC for my classes, I could overclock
to 4.0Ghz on a 90 dollar motherboard, Runs nice and cool, I could run at 3.6 with only 1.2VCore if I wanted.

Both CPUs will be comparable in gaming performance- it'll rely on your GPU a lot more.
One thing I noticed was that the Q6600 seems to handle COD4 a lot smoother, perhaps because
it supports the usage of all four cores. There is virtually no bottleneck from either chip.

The reason why I would pick the E8400 is that by the time you need more than 2 cores for gaming,
there'll already be cheaper and better quad core solutions than the Q6600. As of now, the low
number of games that support quads does not justify the extra heat and power consumption of the Q6600.

If you game and hardly use the 2 extra cores, what's the point? That's my justification for the E8400.

Then again, the E8400 is extremely hard to come by (I got really lucky with buying the LAST one from
a Local PC shop). I got the Q6600 for $210 at MicroCenter, E8400 for $250. Although I paid 40 more for a
dual core, I figure I'll be saving about $10 / month in the electric bill, so in the long run, the cost to me will be less.

Get the E8400 if you can for ~$200. If you can't, Q6600 G0 is still an excellent choice that will
last you a long, long time.

I voted for the E8400. But, if you can't find one, then you should opt for a Xeon E3110 as it's essentially the same chip but just binned as a server chip rather than a desktop chip; plus most on-line retailers sell the Xeon E3110 for $20-$30USD cheaper than the E8400.

Q6600. You get more cores and about the same cost. If you do some video editing,etc. the Q6600 will be a real help.

Q6600. more cores more future proof good investment.

I imagine you will be disappointed with dual core within a year. Quad core is the only road to go for value and performance, and you won't second guess yourself for having one.

If youre planning on gaming, go with the 8400. The problem with future proofing on these quads today is, in a years time, theres going to be a socket change (Nehalem) and its a dead end. Performance wise, the 8400 is a better solution for gaming. Other uses like vid encode etc, then yes a quad will supercede the usage of a dual core, which are both dead ends as soon as Nehalem comes out

Thanks for all your inputs. Im still unsure about the CPU at this point in time because there are alot of good points from either side.

As for the votes. I cant actually see the results because it just tells me that my vote has already been counted so mmm. However i will defo check out that Xeon chip.

Still unsure but I think im looking at going with the Q6600 and a month or so down the line upgrading to the Zalman 9700 and overclocking just to a simple 3.0

Any ideas?

The results right now are 6 for E8400, 11 for Q6600, 1 for other.

I would say the Q6600 is your best solution only if the video encoding is something you will do a lot, and only if you have software for it that can use all 4 cores. OK, also if your favorite game is Flight Simulator X. For almost anything else. an overclocked E8400 is better than an overclocked Q6600.

I don't get the part about building the PC now and adding the cooler later. No offense but that's weird. What, waiting to save another $40? Also, some coolers need you to remove the mobo from the case to install them. Also, why bother cleaning the paste and reapplying. Just put the cooler there from the start.

Forget the Zalman 9700, it's expensive and tends to be annoying under load. Get yourself a Xigmatek HDT-S1283 instead.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6835233003

You just said you want to play games and school work. Where do either of those really need 4 cores? Go with a dual core and I'll repeat some other replies when I say, "save for a video card." Forget the cpu. Get a great cheap overclocking dual core for the time being. Until you start video editing and list programs that will take advantage of the extra cores, don't invest in quad just yet. 3GB or ram, a E2_/E4_/or E6_ processor is more than enough for the latest games when coupled with a nice video card like a 9600GT. You don't want to be broke and playing games on an expensive machine that will depreciate faster than the fast food sitting next to you while you wonder why you have to eat this crap every day... been there, done that, wised up and still won't pay more than $1000 for a complete computer.

Hey, Im getting the 9800 GX2 at the moment. So i dont really have to save my money to reach for a better video card.

Thanks. Keep the advice coming

Wow... OK, get a Q9300 or Q9450 or even Q9550. You'll have to wait a bit for them, but they have all the advantages of both E8400 and Q6600 and will last you a long time. A bit pricy, the Q9550, but then so is the 9800GX2. Besides, the 9800GX2 drivers stink right now AFAIK, so you don't lose much by waiting.

Then youll want the max you can get from your cpu, to avoid any kind of bottleneck, so 8400

Celeron!

(Sorry, I just felt like posting to break 400 posts )

If you can afford a 9800GX2, get a QX----.