Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
which CPU would you get and why?
Hey guys,
I know this has been posted and debated for awhile, but I am going to be buying a new CPU in the next 2-3 weeks for a new gamming computer. I have narrowed it down to three choices, and to be honest, I can not make my mind up. I know the price differences and thats about it. I know most gammers here are a hell of a lot more updated on these things than I am, so I am asking for honest advice on the three CPUs from Intel.
#1 Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor
I know this processor would be the fastest due to four cores, but I have heard it runs hot and uses a lot more power.
#2 Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
This processor was advised to me to the best choice.
#3 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
this one would be faster than #2 and still have the same power and heat.
Basically, My question is would a 4 core CPU be a major boost in performance over choice #2. The price difference is very low. The FSB on the 2 cores are faster than the 4 core.
Also, be easy on me. I am new to this and going to be building my very first PC by the end of Feb.
Comments
intel? pfft I like amd, good for the price/performance. tomshardware will tell you with charts, look it up
Absolutely agreed
I actually thought about AMD, but I went with a Intel board. Kinda late now to change my mind. lol
go with the e6750. the e6850 is a waste, you can OC the 6750 to those speeds easily..
on the quad core, most games at the moment cant even use dual cores properly yet. unless you want to future proof youself for 3-4+ years into the future than go with the e6750.
Edit: so yes, the e6750 WILL be faster in current games over the Q6600.
My personal opinion: Get a board that supports the Quad if you won't be able to get another one in a year. If you can get a new board in a year, stick with the dual core. Either way, I personally would go with the Dual core processor. There really is not enough out at this time to justify the use of a quad. Sure, it is a nice processor, but nothing is gonna benchmark properly with it. Kind of reminds me of compensating for deficiency elsewhere? Too much cost and probability of overheat and error, especially if this is your first PC build. Go with something that is more straight forward. So #3 would be my pick, of those listed... if you won't go AMD (which is better)
I'd advice you to go for Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0Ghz. At least that's what I did, even though the new Penryn processors are right around the corner I got bored of running with my old computer. But hey, at least my motherboard supports the new 45nm processors so I can update if needed.
My first thought was going for quad core too, but after looking few test results (one was in Tom's hardware if I remember right) I found out that the quads aren't that well supported yet. Maybe somewhere in future, but right now most of the games run even slower with quad core than dual core. If you do lots audio/video editing, then you should go for quad core since these programs (at least the new ones) are already supporting them.
AMD? No, you gotta be kidding.
Get the q6600 or wait a a month or 2 for the new intel 45nm quad cores(there are 2 withing the price range of the q6600). My q6600 overclocks easily to 3.4ghz with a zalman air cooler so it was well worth buying.
AMD is not that bad right now...but if you go reading processor reviews and comparisons done within the last year, year and a half...you'll run away screaming from AMD...research before you post, I think.
Outside of that, AMD is not bad, just not as good as Intell right now.
Maybe they'll pull ahead next year, or the year after. I'm hoping they don't stay down for long, and I'm interested to see what AMD's triple core processors do.
D.
But I heard the Q9450 is a disapointment with only a few better things for about $100 more. You can get a Q6600 G0 step for $260 without the fan or $280 with the stock cpu fan.
http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A1938460
Get a QX9770...
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
I wouldn't out AMD. If you look at its platform it offers more then Intel mainly because of the advances made in crossfire. Ontop of it, the new boards will last for several years where-as Intels will last a couple months. When it comes to gaming and graphical capability, the Video Card is far more important then the processor, and you can't really get a 790FX chipset on an Intel Board.
I don't think it could be said any better. I've had both AMD and Intel and when it comes down to the money, you get what you pay for with AMD. For me, Intel always has seemed a bit overpriced for what you get.
I like my dual core 3ghz!
Get the new E8400. No point even looking at the E6750 or E6850 anymore IMO.
I wouldn't recommend a quad for a gaming pc right now.
Dual core, only because if you're not doing work like video editing, rendering, and/or post-processing of images (aka photoshopping), then the extra cores won't offer the benefits you might expect. Dual core is just being adopted as the basis for many products, especially those which handle best in multi-threaded implementations (like games, where you have x number of threads for rendering, x number for calculations of game mechanics, for sound, and so forth...). But I preface this advice on decent research on your part, for which chipset from either AMD or Intel that is being adopted for their quadcore and beyond, because whatever dual core is out now will probably be supported under that given chipset, so you can buy cheap today with a dual core, but be able to buy for tomorrow with a motherboard that can support true quad core processors.
-- Brede
Dunno, this is sounding rather nice: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale.html
D.
The E8400 is in the same price range as the 6750. They are $189 at Microcenter right now if you have one near you. $220 on Newegg, but that should drop to around the $189 price in two to three weeks when the OP builds his PC.
Lets look at the two:
6750 vs 8400
65nm vs 45nm -> 45nm = less heat, less power consumption
2.66ghz vs 3.0ghz
4m cache vs 6m cache
I think the choice is pretty clear.