Intel July 22nd Processor Poll (Pic included)

[wafflez]

k, I'm building a new computer after july 22nd, and I've heard that the q6600 isn't worth the $266, and that I should go for Core 2 Duo instead. However, other people have been telling me to go for a Core 2 Quad because it's the 'future'. There's a link to a wishlist in my signature, and I'm mainly a gamer. (CS:S, HL2, Crysis, other fps's..) I don't want to overclock seeing as I'm only getting the Zalman 9700 cpu cooler.

So, if you were building a gaming rig, would you get the E6850 Core 2 Duo at 3.0ghz or the Q6600 Core 2 Quad at 2.4ghz for $266?

EDIT: Please note that I voted for the duo...I probably shouldn't have voted so don't let it affect your judgement.

 

[Cleric7x9]

i really think the duo is a better deal. i dont see any applications truly using 4 cores anytime soon

 

[hermeslyre]

The q6600 will be more powerful in the future, as programs and games will be allowed to take full advantage of the 4 cores.. Doesn't it make sense to go with the more powerful CPU, with them both being the same price?

 

[Cleric7x9]

The q6600 will be more powerful in the future, as programs and games will be allowed to take full advantage of the 4 cores.. Doesn't it make sense to go with the more powerful CPU, with them both being the same price?

how do you figure the quad core is more powerful? i guess in the future it will be, but who knows how far in the future. most programs still dont even use 64 bit architecture and correct me if im wrong, but i think that has been out a lot longer than multi-core CPUs. if the app isnt using all four cores, then the higher clock speed and front side bus of the dual core would make that a more powerful CPU. i could pile 15 quad core processors into the bottom of my computer case, but if they arent being used then they arent really all that powerful. my vote is for the duo

 

[frost02]

i vote for the quad just cuz i have one myself and trust me, if u like to play cs:s and fear listen to music browse the web look at pictures edit pictures ... like i do then you would want the quad as well

 

[hermeslyre]

You have a point but our differences lay in our opinions. You don't see multiprocessing catching on in the near future and I do. You can't compare it to 64-bit architecture because 64-bit is simply overkill. Despite being around for decades modern applications and games really wouldn't benefit from it yet.


Just like with Netburst, Intel pushing for for more speed, more GHZ, we're are now concentrating on cores and as we both know more cores don't mean squat without the software and games to match. Whether our "benevolent Overlords" choose to pursue it is up in the wind, but i'm betting they will and as such, i'm betting on the Quad.

 

[Cleric7x9]

in that case i cant wait for the 50-core processors to come out!

haha anyway according to the poll so far im in the minority so i guess you should go for the quad!

 

[hermeslyre]

in that case i cant wait for the 50-core processors to come out!

haha anyway according to the poll so far im in the minority so i guess you should go for the quad!

You mean the 64 core processor. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 I believe that's how their doing it.

You have a Good point that has a very good chance of proving itself correct, Betting on the future is in no way a winning game.. We just have to make our decisions and move on.

 

[ADE]

Crysis will utilize all 4 cores.

 

[wafflez]

hmm, it seems the only way to get an answer is to ask that one vague question that angers everybody: Which one is faster?

or, if you were building a computer with identical specs, what would you get?

 

[footballstevo75]

The Quad.
It is more future proof, and would handle all my needs until they all can be used.

 

[hermeslyre]

hmm, it seems the only way to get an answer is to ask that one vague question that angers everybody: Which one is faster?

or, if you were building a computer with identical specs, what would you get?

At this very point in time the e6850 is faster if you were running 1-2 intensive programs, the q6600 if you were running 3-4. I believe.

If I were building this computer I would choose the q6600.

 

[Luchman]

Im pretty much in the same dilemma. As of right now, I'm about 70/30 sure that I will be going with the q6600 instead of the e6850.

It really think it all depends on your faith in games catching on with the quads sooner rather than later. It seems the majority of the people here think they will utilize four cores somewhat soon or at least before technology changes so that q6600 aren't even a competitor.

To be honest, If it weren't for the fact that Crysis will be using four cores, I would have to get me an e6850 instead...

 

[hermeslyre]

If Crysis is simply multi-threaded to be able to handle 4+ threads then it's not the same as truly utilizing all 4 cores. Crysis will probably be able to use all 4 cores but not to the fullest extent that it could, sorta like a beta to fully quad core capable games..

 

[Froboy7391_99]

If Crysis is simply multi-threaded to be able to handle 4+ threads then it's not the same as truly utilizing all 4 cores. Crysis will probably be able to use all 4 cores but not to the fullest extent that it could, sorta like a beta to fully quad core capable games..

I think Supreme Commander was the beta for qaud core games and Crysis will be fully capable myself.

 

[Shane]

Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz...more future proof.

overclock it

 

[chupacabra]

Any one of those 2 would be a good choice, i probably would take the Q6600 mostly because they would perform pretty much around the same until the DDR3 memory is like 200 bucks for 2gbs that's when it's going to get some advantage the E6850

 

[Impulse666]

i say quad. get a nice cooling system and OC it to 3.0 easily.

edit: anyone else notice the 2.0GJz (gigajertz?) on the e4400? lol

 

[Geoff]

Dual-cores are going to become obsolete very shortly, quad-cores are going to be come the norm very soon.

 

[wafflez]

ok quad core it is. Now, is the zalman 9700 cpu fan and the antec 900 case good enough to overclock to 3.0ghz?