Torn between Q9450 and E8500

I

Iplayloud

New Member
I just like the higher 3.16 GHZ but having 4 procs is pretty cool too. Big price difference too... I'm selling my present comp to my parents and building a new one.
 
All depends on what you use the PC for? Gaming, go for the e8500, more overclocking potential as well. If you multi task go for the Q9450. Also depends on how long you plan on keeping it, the quad is future proof.
 
I honestly would go with the Q9450, and thats exactly what I did. The reason behind, is not only will it give excellent performance now, in a couple of years, it will still be giving excellent performance where the dual-core would be bottleknecking.
 
Some E8400s are better than E8500 and E8600s. It all depends on the individual chips and the other related system components.

If you're using the system for gaming, a C2D is probably your best bet. Quad cores are still predominantly server products, although they do game well. In 3DMark06 my E8400 beats my Q6600. In video encoding, my Q6600 squeaks out the win over my E8400. There aren't many programs that will utilize all 4 cores of a quad, although they're supposedly "coming soon."

Garethman!!` said:
I honestly would go with the Q9450, and thats exactly what I did. The reason behind, is not only will it give excellent performance now, in a couple of years, it will still be giving excellent performance where the dual-core would be bottleknecking.
Click to expand...
It also depends on how often you upgrade your system. Technology changes quickly, and a system can quickly become outdated. For me, I update my systems about every 9 mos to a year, so performance in a few years is really a moot point. About two years ago I was told that the E6420 would be a worth investment. Although it's still capable of a solid 3.2 GHz, it's sat in my junk drawer for over a year.
 
Last edited:
cohen said:
Both would be good for gaming, but the best dual core gaming is the E8400.
Click to expand...


*sigh* You're funny...

I'd go Quad! You can OC to like 3.4Ghz, to be honest, thats a great clock! Like people have said, Quad is more "future proof" and will pretty much trash every game you play easily!
 
What's the price difference between those? If it's really "big", I'd just go for the cheaper one, but if the difference is, say, 50% or less quad offers way better performance for the price (assuming that the quad is the more expensive one here). If the quad is cheaper... well, that's a no-brainer. Quad.
 
"Futureproof" is a very broad and debatable term. If you're going to be gaming the most, get a Wolfdale. Dual corers are currently the best for the money for gaming. In the future, when apps start to require/support quad cores, then there'd be lots of new and cheaper quad processors seeing there'll be a lot more demand than now. As of now, best thing to do if you're gonna game is a dual core, simply for the price.

nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I mean I know you are going to make use of at least 3 cores. ;)

My "argument" was towards people who are just going to play games mostly :)
 
Yeah, for rendering and graphic design work, I think I'll need 'em. I see your point though, go Dual if all you do is game and don't mind upgrading when the time comes. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top