Q6600 or E8400?

my answer would be

FOUR CORES because then you wont have to upgrade for a good long time hopefully but if you have chance to get the new quads shoot for that i would say quad would be best for gaming cuz you aint gotta worry about the system hindering performance or anything
 
Last edited:
I think I'm going to stick with the q6600 because it seems that more games in the next year or two will start to be coded for multicores. And it looks like people are pushing the q6600 well up over 3.0 which is plenty of power considering my supporting hardware will consist of 4 gigs of ddr3 and a Palit 8800gts 1gig super clocked. Like someone said earlier in the post, you can always overclock a chip, but you can't add more cores.

So, unless anyone can give me a real hardcore, serious, reason as to why I should get the e8400 instead of the q6600, please let me know soon.

Cheers!
 
If you have that much money to blow on 4gb of DDR3, then wait for the Q9450, as it seems futureproofing is what you're aiming for.
 
vonfeldt7 said:
Ha, the MSRP is $316. Or at least that's what it was 15 years ago when Intel announced the prices. Who knows now. (AKA I'm pissed off that the Q9450 STILL isn't released yet).
Click to expand...

Wow, if they really come out at around that price, it's pretty much a no brainer. My theory is that they aren't releasing the Yorkfield's until AMD or some other compeition can put out a product that will rival the Wolfdale and Kentsfield. Until then, from a marketing point of view, there is no point for Intel to put out an even more superior product when they are still making money off current chipsets.

But, like I said I suppose if these are being released in the near future, I can put the build off until then. Especially if they are going to be that cheap. But if it's going to be like 6 more months, I'll have to go with a Q6600 Kentsfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top