• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Duo core bad idea now?

S

SouLXIV

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
670
I'm having trouble deciding between the E8400 and the Q9300. I'm aware that right now the 8400 is a lil faster in most games, but are any upcomming games going to support quad core? I know it's more future proof, but I'm only interested in gaming on my pc. Is it true that by the time games can untilize more than 2 cores, the Q9 series will be out of date anyway?
 
I like my Quad, and it's a q6600 I run it at 8*400 with stock voltage 1.210

Ram @ 1.8V @ DDR 800 4-4-4-12

In other words go QUAD! Personal preference though!
 
I don't know much about the quads, but I got a E8400 and I love it. Its an awesome deal for the price.
 
get a Quad Core, you´ll regret it if u don´t. they are fracking great :)

once u go quad, you never go back ;)
 
Dual core are not faster in games. It just ain't true anymore. At this time, I really think a cheap quad is probably the best buy for most users who have a $200 budget for a CPU. Dual is good, no doubt, but I really wouldn't drop too much cash on one at this point. I'd go Q6600 or Q9300.
 
I first owned a q6600 which was great and all, I had it running at 3.7ghz on water. But then a few months ago I got an e8400 instead. For me, I found the q6600 to be a waste as I didnt do anything intensive. No encoding just some hi res gaming and surfing, the purpose of this build. So I figured i'd toss it into my back up rig and get a e8400. It runs faster and cooler (4.0ghz) at lower volts. So if you dont do anything intensive get a dual core and be done. IMO most if not all the low end 45nm quads are poor overclockers.
 
Darkatom said:
I first owned a q6600 which was great and all, I had it running at 3.7ghz on water. But then a few months ago I got an e8400 instead. For me, I found the q6600 to be a waste as I didnt do anything intensive. No encoding just some hi res gaming and surfing, the purpose of this build. So I figured i'd toss it into my back up rig and get a e8400. It runs faster and cooler (4.0ghz) at lower volts. So if you dont do anything intensive get a dual core and be done. IMO most if not all the low end 45nm quads are poor overclockers.
Click to expand...

So the e8400 was better for you with intensive gaming or was the q6600 better? I am looking for a cpu as of now for some time now. I just did not noticed the q6600 being cheap as it is.

There is this game I am playing thats a huge resource hog called "Age of Conan" that requires a lot of power. I have a 8800gts 320mb, decent 2gig duel. I am just running a single core as of now.
 
New games starting to have quad core support(at lest that's what they say in their boxes:p).So, if you don't upgrade your cpu very often, don't even think about it, go quad!
 
Wait even if you did go quad, isnt the Q6600 a better buy than the Q9300?
 
Slane420 said:
So the e8400 was better for you with intensive gaming or was the q6600 better? I am looking for a cpu as of now for some time now. I just did not noticed the q6600 being cheap as it is.

There is this game I am playing thats a huge resource hog called "Age of Conan" that requires a lot of power. I have a 8800gts 320mb, decent 2gig duel. I am just running a single core as of now.
Click to expand...
Either of those CPU's will be more than enough for that game, especially if you OC. It's your video card you should be worried about.
 
Itchyeyes said:
Either of those CPU's will be more than enough for that game, especially if you OC. It's your video card you should be worried about.
Click to expand...

In particular, I think, the *clock speed* is plenty for the intended use, in either case. That being true, you may as well get the chip with 2x the cores for when more games take advantage of quad core CPUs. It'll last you much longer. No, I'm not talking "future proofing" here, I'm just suggesting it will be a much longer period of time before you think "damn, this machine's getting long in the tooth and sucks to work with." The only real reasons not to go quad are concerns about extra heat and electricity. To be frank, though, those really don't make that much of a difference for the average user.
 
Get a quad. Either the Q6600, Q9300 or Q9450. I'm a new owner of a quad(Q6600) and the difference between my single core and my quad core is simply astounding. Nothing holds it back and I mean NOTHING. It will eat everything you can throw at it, at stock speeds no less. Plus, you still have plenty of room to overclock. What are you waiting for?!:D

Quad FTW!
 
Get the Q9300. Both procs are built on the 45nm tech, so they should have similar max overclocks. Just OC the quad.
 
Considering the Q9300 and the Q9450, the Q9450 has an 8 multiplier, where the Q9300 has a 7.5, so the o/c potential should be a little higher on the Q9450. I am currently deciding between the Q9450 and the X3350, which I mentioned in a thread in the mobo section.

I want a 45nm, but if you want the highest multiplier, with possibly higher o/c potential, go for the Q6700 with the 10x or the Q6600 with a 9x.
 
imo...
Get a quad core if you can get one to run at around 3.5GHz +
If you cant afford that, get a C2D that clocks over 3.7GHz.

I'm running an E8400 at 4.13GHz and love it to bits.
I honestly have not had a need for more CPU power apart from when I generate blocklists.
My conscience wont let anyone else get a dual if they can get a high clocking quad.
This is so they dont miss out on any new games that will benefit, especially crucial with more PhysX games coming as some CPU power will be needed for Physics (as well as GPU power).

Also if you ever intend on doing movie encoding, making MP3's etc, a quad is a better option.

However if electricity consumption or PSU capability is one of your major concerns, an E8400 is the better option.
 
9mmx19 said:
Wait even if you did go quad, isnt the Q6600 a better buy than the Q9300?
Click to expand...

Yes yes it is. The Q9300 is only 7% faster than the Q6600 yet costs around $270 while the Q6600 can be had for $200. Hell there's usually a sale or two where the Q6600 can be had for $180. Also, the Q9300 OC about the same as the Q6600 but is a bit harder to do due to its the 7.5x multiplier and 1.4V max vCore (Q600 has 9x multi and 1.5V max vCore).

If lower energy (about 30W less at load), a 7% performance increase, and SSE4 instructions is worth the extra $70 to $90 for you, go for it.
 
i see used q9300 for 215$.. if your not paying the electricity bill and dont care then the q6600 might be best and cheapest.. but q9300 overclocked still uses less power than the q6600 stock..

as far as games.. i think they are not even going to be cpu limited as the gfx cards are doing most of the work and most dual core old x2's still can hang.. high res or low res its not going to make much diff.. i say e8400 unless your encoding
 
I have three Q6600s and an X2 4000+. Before the quads I was running an E6400@3.4Ghz. I noticed a difference between the E6400@3.4 and the Q6600s@3.6, 3.6 and 3.51. However, I am rather demanding on my system, probably moreso than your average person. This was for my everyday average stuff I do.

In games, I did notice things ran smoother with the quad even if they don't use multiple cores because I always have something running the background. I run into CPU limitations only with encoding and F@H with the quads. With the quads, my main limitation usually ends up being the hard drives. Luckily, I make sure to have at least 2 drives (and currently 3) in my main system to minimize the slowdown from hard drives.

Personally, I don't see myself going with anything less than 4 cores in the foreseeable future. To me, there is a world of difference with 4 cores rather than 2. I don't see any way an extra few hundred mhz a dual core might give me will outweigh the advantage of having twice the cores.

I've done some video encoding with my X2@3.0Ghz and it practically crawls compared to my Q6600@3.6. When I had the E6400, it paled in comparison to the Q6600 in regards to encoding. Yes, it did have a bit lower clockspeed but having half the cores made the biggest difference. Then again, the extra cache on the Q6600 helped as well.

Another thing to keep in mind about the Q9300 is the low amount of cache it has. At this point in time, I wouldn't pay money for a Q9300. The low multiplier kills the overclockability of the CPU, especially compared to the Q6600. You would need to run a 480FSB to reach 3.6Ghz with the Q9300 and that's a rather tall order especially since you only need 400FSB to do the same with the Q6600.

For my money, the Q6600 is almost impossible to beat right now. If I was building another system today, I'd slap a Q6600 in it without having a second thought.

 
I got the E8400 as it was half the price of the Q9450... maybe I'll upgrade it next year? The c2d is a lot of cpu for the money right now tho!
 
If you don't need quad then go for dual core, only some apps take advantage of the 4 cores.
 
i dont think the q6600 draws THAT much more power. Isn't it rated at 105w? The Q9300 is 95w, so it seems the difference is quite negligible. I'm not too sure so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top