3 processor choices

Discussion in 'hardware' started by HURST, Jun 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    I'm designing my new desktop computer.
    I have 3 processor choices. Money is not an issue, they all 3 cost roughly the same.
    I'd appreciate advices/recomendations/experiences.

    Choice 1:

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E8500 3.16GHz 1333MHz 6MB LGA775

    Choice 2:

    Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95

    Choice 3:

    Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 8MB LGA775

  2. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Sep 20, 2003
    Hi Hurst

    First my general philosophy is always over buy. Then I don't regret it latter.

    I would chose no. 1 for me, for the following reason. It's a faster processor. In my case the quad core doesn't buy me anything, and isn't likely to with the software I run. So I would use the faster dual core's.

    If the software you potentially might use the quad core, then chose the maximum you can afford.

  3. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Nov 9, 2006
    France, May 1968
    If you use/will use multi-threaded apps or if you multitask a lot (and I mean a lot), pick the option #2. If not, pick the dual-core in option #1 :)
  4. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Jun 22, 2006
    im not sure tbh. i have the Q660 intel quad core and its great.
    nothing wrong with the dual core thou.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2008
  5. mfenech

    mfenech Registered Member

    Aug 20, 2006
    I'm in a similar situation as Hurst. I'm not a gamer, but I'd like a fast PC that will last me 3 years or so. If someone wouldn't mind answering these questions:

    1. I'm coming from a single-core processor now. Will there be as much advantage using a multi-core processor with conventional applications compared to using one with multi-threading software?

    2. What types of software are currently or will be using multi-threading?

    3. Let's say I get Hurst's choice #1 CPU but also get a motherboard that supports the top quad-core CPU's. If I want to upgrade the CPU later, will these motherboards only support near-future generation quad-core's at best?
  6. Arup

    Arup Guest

    I have two Quad core machines and combined with XP64 and Ubuntu x64, they outperform dual cores handsomely under load, its true few programs are written to take advantage of multiple cores but thats changing gradually, 7Zip, Paint.Net etc use all cores efficiently. Also a quad core machine gives you enough CPU bandwidth to do multiple tasks at once without degrading system performance.
  7. MikeNAS

    MikeNAS Registered Member

    Sep 28, 2006
    You have 2 choices. Q6600 or Q9300 :D First one is cheaper.
  8. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Jan 15, 2007
    Mountaineer Country
    They are phasing out production of the Q6700 and the Q9300 models. Here's the 3rd quarter price cut info as well as what is new and what they are cutting.

    FWIW, I have my Q6600 overclocked to 3.0GHz with stock voltage. It would be nice to have the Q6700 because it has a different multiplier than the Q6600 which would help if overclocking. If you do plan on overclocking a quad, make sure you have a good aftermarket cooler as they get hot.

    The E8500 and the Q9300 are both 45nm which should save you money on electricity. As an option, you could get the slightly cheaper E8400(45nm) or Q6600(65nm) processors and bump their speed a little to match the E8500 and Q6700 and use the money you save to buy other components.

    * I should also mention that overclocking does void your CPU warranty and so does using an aftermarket heatsink. On the other hand, how would they know...
  9. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    I'm not interested in overclocking, since I'm not a hardcore gamer. Just every now and then I like to play a game and them I get bored and uninstall.
    I do would like to make my new computer as "future proof" as I can.

    That's a nice option I hadn't considered.
  10. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Apr 18, 2005
    Mass., USA
    Depends on clock speed.
    In lieu of the fact that few applications take advantage of multi-treading, a power hungry app. may run slower on a 2.66 multi core than a 3.06 single core.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.