E8400 or not?

This topic has been covered at least a dozen times already. core2duo currently has faster clock speeds, which is better for gaming at the moment. In the future games will be coded to use all four cores, and at that point the quad will be the better of the two.

Short answer is core2duo is better now, core2quad will be better in the future.

Although there is a very valid argument that by the time quads are the new standard, current quad core CPUs will be outdated and need to be replaced anyways.


IMO a faster dual core is the smarter of the two right now.
 
There are already games that utilize more than 2 cores, BioShock for example is quite heavily multithreaded (would utilize more than 4 cores, if there were), and there's supposed to be a patch for Crysis that gets it to use all 4 cores of a quad. Generally, if a game is not optimized to take advantage of more than 2 cores, it's not going to need the power, and would play well even on a slower-clocked quad (now, don't say Crysis, people...)

The point is, we're already in the future. I would personally get a quad, and @OP - you already have a C2D at decent clocks, you want to upgrade to something that will have a lot more potential than a dualie. In terms of potential performance any quad will beat a dual-core (First person to say "phenom" will be slapped :P), and as Korn said, someting like Q6600 would quite easily clock higher than your current CPU, not to mention that you have those two sweet extra cores.
 
allow me to resummarize this thread:

people with quad core CPUs think you should get a quad core
people with dual core CPUs think you should get a dual core
 
allow me to resummarize this thread:

people with quad core CPUs think you should get a quad core
people with dual core CPUs think you should get a dual core
Click to expand...
Wait, all of my computers have single-core CPUs in them :P
(No, seriously)

Must be some sort of core deficiency that makes me jump all over the quads...
 
Kornowski said:
I have a Dual Core, Yet I'm recommending the Quad ;)
Click to expand...

but you recently purchased a quadcore, so you have a biased opinion. since you own both a quad and a dual, your opinion will be valid after 3 months have passed. you have SNP (shiny new processor) syndrome which effects your judgement too much to have a valid opinion on the subject :P
 
DirtyD86 said:
but you recently purchased a quadcore, so you have a biased opinion. since you own both a quad and a dual, your opinion will be valid after 3 months have passed. you have SNP (shiny new processor) syndrome which effects your judgement too much to have a valid opinion on the subject :P
Click to expand...

Haha! :P I don't have it yet though...
 
DirtyD86 said:
but you recently purchased a quadcore, so you have a biased opinion. since you own both a quad and a dual, your opinion will be valid after 3 months have passed. you have SNP (shiny new processor) syndrome which effects your judgement too much to have a valid opinion on the subject :P
Click to expand...

Couldn't we say the same about the fact you have a E8400? This wasn't necessarily a quad vs not thread, but i can see why it has gone that way. But as there are so many procs on the market, i wondered if for the US200 mark, is there a better alternative (bang/buck).
 
Last edited:
I would have picked the E8400 given another opportunity to pick my parts. Not that I'm unhappy with my Q6700, it just hasn't overclocked liked I expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top