Quick Question.

[Ketchup_rulez]

I realise that this has probably been answered before but I did a quick search and couldn't find a complete answer, so bear with me.

Basically I'm soon getting a new computer and would like to know what you guys think about my choice of processor. In my budget range is either the Q6600 or the E8500. I'm not going to overclock so basically my question is; which processor would be better for gaming (and gaming only- I'm not doing any video manipulation etc.)? I'll probably upgrade in 2-3 years so what would be the best choice?

Thanks guys.

 

[omicron_15]

E8500.

 

[sisley_111]

^ +1 for E8500

 

[houstonserenity]

E8400 or e8500 hands down

 

[knotknut]

If you dont plan to upgrade for a couple of years you will be better off with the Quad core as new games will be tailored towards the Quad platform.

If the E8500 is in your budget I would look at the Q6700 its @ the same price. $274.99
and the Q9450 but it's $329.99.

 

[homerdog]

The E8400 would be a better buy. The 160MHz separating it and the E8500 is kind of a joke.

 

[Grimmy]

quick answer..

<-- flips a coin.

TAIL's... dat one.

 

[ausch30]

The E8400 would be a better buy. The 160MHz separating it and the E8500 is kind of a joke.

+1

Go with the E8400 it is a very fast chip and the .5 multiplier difference between it and the E8500 is not worth an extra $70.

 

[jeb1517]

I'm not going to overclock

I strongly suggest you reconsider.

Light overclocking has become so easy it should just be integrated into the initial set up of any new build.

To answer the question....E8400

 

[th_username]

q6600

 

[geofelt]

For gaming, the E8400 or E8500. Only if your game is quad core optimized like FSX or supreme commander would I consider a quad.

 

[rsetter1]

Post the rest of your system so we can help with the right solution for you.
Your video card will make the greatest impact on how your games will play.
Of course the processor is important but not as much as GPU for gaming.

 

[homerdog]

I strongly suggest you reconsider.

Light overclocking has become so easy it should just be integrated into the initial set up of any new build.

To answer the question....E8400

If his budget was any less I'd agree, but an E8400 is more than fast enough for every game save for maybe Flight Simulator X. Stick with stock and reap the benefits of SpeedStep.

 

[Wisecracker]

+1 (weeeeee)e8400

 

[Zorg]

I strongly suggest you reconsider.

Light overclocking has become so easy it should just be integrated into the initial set up of any new build.

To answer the question....E8400

I've got to strongly agree with that. Q6600 @ 3G is a no brainer.

Ketchup_rulez, you are on the line of the best choice. The question is how quickly the quad core optimized games will be available in a large number. Currently the higher clock of the e8XXX series is better. That will change, the question is whether they will have any quad optimized games you want, before you upgrade.

 

[Grimmy]

Heh, I say when ever you have a choice, just choose what you want. It may not be exactly what you want, for this example (q6600/e8400), but you can't go wrong with either. But making the choice yourself is where freedom of choice is. Why let others make it for them? :lol:

I went with a Q6600 not just for gaming, but for the OS. That was my only intention really to get the Q6600, after doing some searches for Vista 64bit, and on top of that, the use of 4gbs of ram. I did my own research, and thought about it allot before actually getting everything.

Now my logic may go against some (gaming/normal everyday used rig), but that is just it. We all contribute the same reasons over and over for certain things. If the builder cannot decided, whelp, then that will be their problem, and shouldn't be ours when there are many threads on this particular choice between the same fracken thing.

Now all we need is someone by the nic of Mustard_Ownz to make another thread like this.

 

[knotknut]

The OP has not made one response to our replys. Whats up with that?

The OP might be getting a 780G motherboard or something like that and us telling him ohh E8XXX or QXXXX is better for gaming when it wouldnt make a bit of difference.

We need some participation Ketchup.

 

[ausch30]

Grimmy you are a wise man. I bought the E8400 for the exact same reason, it was the best for me. I wanted a chip that was the best at gaming now, not a year from now. I plan on building a new system in a year and I'm going to use my current setup as a HTPC so for me the E8400 was the best choice.

 

[knotknut]

I'll probably upgrade in 2-3 years so what would be the best choice?

Future proofing?

 

[Onus]

I chose a Q9450 ($306 from Microcenter) because I won't feel the urge to scratch a major upgrade itch for quite a while with that chip.

 

[ausch30]

I chose a Q9450 ($306 from Microcenter) because I won't feel the urge to scratch a major upgrade itch for quite a while with that chip.

We'll see if your still saying that after Nehalem is released if it performs the way they think it will.

 

[Onus]

There's a difference between scratching an itch and mopping up drool .

 

[Zorg]

We'll see if your still saying that after Nehalem is released if it performs the way they think it will.

We don't know yet whether Intel is going to allow OCing with the IMC. That will have a lot to do with any upgrade excitement that exists.

 

[homerdog]

We don't know yet whether Intel is going to allow OCing with the IMC. That will have a lot to do with any upgrade excitement that exists.

The rumors about Intel not allowing overclocking with Nehalem turned out to be false.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37824/135/

 

[Zorg]

That article doesn't necessarily give me the warm and fuzzy. I certainly hope so, we'll see.