# q6600/e8400??



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

q6600/e8400??

if u have orkut account see this
*www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=14672745&tid=2592968230183118352&start=1
pls help


----------



## Pathik (Apr 10, 2008)

E8400 Imo


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Pls More I Hve 2 Make A Decision......


----------



## kooki (Apr 10, 2008)

im stuck with the same choice. q6600 is future proof, e8400 seems to be really good with the 45nm chips. e4500 seems to be the best value for money. 
gosh even i cant decide.


----------



## hellgate (Apr 10, 2008)

get the E8400.it runs cooler and oc's better as compared to Q6600.


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

Q6600 - if you are primarily into 3D rendering programs/CAD packages or Media encoding stuff cos not much games use of Quad cores...

E8400 - if you are primarily into games/general performance

E4500 - if you are on a budget and want a basic C2D


_


----------



## rahulmig (Apr 10, 2008)

get e8400.. price slashed ........by intel...


----------



## jithudigitised (Apr 10, 2008)

has the prices been slahed for 45 nm chips.The news was that the 65 nm chips prices will drop. 
If yes,,then greattt


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

rahulmig said:


> get e8400.. price slashed ........by intel...


whats the current price rahul ??

Dell is also giving Q6600 as the only option in its XPS desktop.... guess Intel is pushing it to clear stock for new Quad cores...

OT: also plzz get the price of 9800 GT that you said available in the other thread 


_


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

currrent games do not support Quads and when they do , will dual cores perform better?  - *NO*
and its not a major performance difference now- i'd suggest a Quad - be it a 65nm or a 45nm one.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

i can buy q6600 / e8400....
i am not in much 3D rendering programs/CAD packages or Media encoding stuff.....
but photoshop cs3 etc will b usually used......
pls help


----------



## Pathik (Apr 10, 2008)

No point getting a 65nm proccy now, And for your needs even an e8400 is overkilll


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Pathik said:


> No point getting a 65nm proccy now, And for your needs even an e8400 is overkilll


 
WHY??


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

65 nm dual cores make no sense , but a Q6600 is certainly a great buy - considering that a 45nm Quad will cost more than 16000 for now


----------



## ring_wraith (Apr 10, 2008)

Are you kidding? Q6600, no doubt! 

Right now, very few programs actually support multi-cores. But Multi-threading is going to be the emphasis in the near future, not improving performance of each core. 

Therefore, get a Q6600, you won't regret it.


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

^^^
but I buy for present performance... I cant put my money thinking developers would embrace 4 cores in the near future suddenly while C2Qs have been out for a long time but yet to see satisfactory response from Game developers 

so for *my* perspective E8400 is better than Q6600 at present.. for the performance per buck you put in..

but if you really think more games are gonna see effective use of multi cores such that there will be a significant performance difference compared to C2Ds in the near future then theres nothing wrong in buying a C2Q

but I just dont buy into that idea 

_


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

every single software is moving to Quad core now..this is enought to convince yourself for a quad core  .we will see Quads and DDR3 go mainstream by the end of this year..so if u only want a good performance till that time and can change a proccy then, a dual core is good !


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

^^^
hmmm lets see 

maybe in the coming months if what you say really manifests substantially then C2Qs would seem attractive to me 

better I will go and see a few demos.. so that I can get a better Idea 


_


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 10, 2008)

e8400.get a quad when 32nm chips come oout.e8400 OC's like a monster u can take it to 4ghz+ with a good cooler like U12E


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Extreme Gamer said:


> e8400.get a quad when 32nm chips come oout.e8400 OC's like a monster u can take it to 4ghz+ with a good cooler like U12E


 

wont b used for too much overclocking......



DigitalDude said:


> ^^^
> but I buy for present performance... I cant put my money thinking developers would embrace 4 cores in the near future suddenly while C2Qs have been out for a long time but yet to see satisfactory response from Game developers
> 
> so for *my* perspective E8400 is better than Q6600 at present.. for the performance per buck you put in..
> ...


 

i agree 2 u but for 1-2 yrs frm now will not upgrade it so e8400 will suit me???


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 10, 2008)

by all means yess!!!!!!!! e8400 will suit you.q9650 is gonna come out in 1-2 yrs and 32nm is also round the corner


----------



## ring_wraith (Apr 10, 2008)

DigitalDude said:


> but I just dont buy into that idea



You don't _buy _the idea? What the hell does that mean? More cores are the future, and you know it. There's only so far you can push one core without increasing power requirements irrationally.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Extreme Gamer said:


> by all means yess!!!!!!!! e8400 will suit you.q9650 is gonna come out in 1-2 yrs and 32nm is also round the corner


every tech have to b old someday.......
thanx anyways waiting 4 more suggestions....
getting in a weak or two so pls reply....


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 10, 2008)

ring_wraith said:


> You don't buy the idea? What the hell does that mean? More cores are the future, and you know it. There's only so far you can push one core without increasing power requirements irrationally.



you are perfectly correct... more cores are the future and that more than one core you say is 'dual' for me at present... maybe I dont forsee a bleeding edge requirement for me in the *near future* 

so I dont believe C2Qs can be fully exploited at present or in the near future by ppl who dont have anything to do with rendering/media encoding and allied segments that already have softwares that take advantage of that much cores 

what I dont buy is the idea of getting a 65nm C2Q for some more price, with the anticipation of quadcores being utilised fully in the near future, infavour of a better 45nm C2D with a higher clock and bus speed  that will give me full bang for the buck right from day 1.....

this survey is the most comprehensive hardware survey representing gamers system profiles.. just have a look:
*www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html


btw not much affecting our discussions but still I will just tell this... Intel C2Qs are just two dualcores sandwiched together... only AMD has native Quadcores though performance wise it sucks...

_


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 10, 2008)

crysis,the only game using a quad,scales better with a duo.what can you say to that?quads will be needed 2-3 years later


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Extreme Gamer said:


> crysis,the only game using a quad,scales better with a duo.what can you say to that?quads will be needed 2-3 years later


no way we will see a change in 6 months(approx)



DigitalDude said:


> you are perfectly correct... more cores are the future and that more than one core you say is 'dual' for me at present... maybe I dont forsee a bleeding edge requirement for me in the *near future*
> 
> so I dont believe C2Qs can be fully exploited at present or in the near future by ppl who dont have anything to do with rendering/media encoding and allied segments that already have softwares that take advantage of that much cores
> 
> ...


 
i agree 2 u.....


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 10, 2008)

the only way crysis will run properlyis by using GT200 cards which are supposed to be the 9900's


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 10, 2008)

Extreme Gamer said:


> the only way crysis will run properlyis by using GT200 cards which are supposed to be the 9900's


no one is going to buy a card just 2 support a single game......


----------



## spikygv (Apr 10, 2008)

rite now , by how much does the e8400 beat the q6600 ?(games)


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

^ not much and if i'm not wrong isn't Crysis optimised for Core 2 Extreme?


----------



## spikygv (Apr 10, 2008)

if the performance difference is not much , then why recommend e8400 over q6600 ? the only reason i can see is better OCability . .. .but for regular users who dont do soo much OC , i think a q6600 should be fine. . .


----------



## hellgate (Apr 10, 2008)

i've used both a Q6600 and E8400 (E8400 is my current procy) and i wud say that E8400 is better suited for current apps.
Q6600 did allow me to do some heavy multitasking but then i did that sort of multitasking rarely.my bootup time has decreased with the E8400 and my 8800GTS 3DMark06 scores hav increased.
so i wud suggest a E8400 to any1 who aint into heavy multitasking.


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

sagargv said:


> if the performance difference is not much , then why recommend e8400 over q6600 ? the only reason i can see is better OCability . .. .but for regular users who dont do soo much OC , i think a q6600 should be fine. . .


even an OCed E8400 wont perform as good as a OC'ed Q6600 due to its lower L2 Cache , and a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz isnt a bad OC , which can be achieved using a good cooler like a 90i


----------



## hellgate (Apr 10, 2008)

^^^  i beg to differ with u buddy.a oc'd quad wud perform better in CPU related benches but the E8400 oc'd to the same level wud perform better in real world apps which dont benefit from quad.the 2MB xtra cache of the Q6600 wont make a world of a difference.
the main thing is if the app is optimised to utilise the full pwr of the 4 cores of a quad then the E8400 just wont be able to match the performance level of the Q6600.but most apps r not optimised to use all the 4 cores


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 10, 2008)

^ yes true but pretty soon games r gonna rock on quad..what abt then?and many apps right now (pro only) run better on a Quad.


----------



## spikygv (Apr 10, 2008)

hellgate said:


> ^^^  i beg to differ with u buddy.a oc'd quad wud perform better in CPU related benches but the E8400 oc'd to the same level wud perform better in real world apps which dont benefit from quad.the 2MB xtra cache of the Q6600 wont make a world of a difference.
> the main thing is if the app is optimised to utilise the full pwr of the 4 cores of a quad then the E8400 just wont be able to match the performance level of the Q6600.but most apps r not optimised to use all the 4 cores



in real world , by how much does e8400 lead q6600 ? any links to benchies..


----------



## mayanksharma (Apr 10, 2008)

IMO, going for Q6600 should be a good decision. Considering the price and future extendebility, Q6600 rocks in that department. 8400 on the other hand is based on penryn core, i.e. 45nm fabrication technology. That tends to better overclocking ofcourse. Though, opinions may vary. I am happy with my Quad and so are many others. 

@hellgate,
3DMark06 scores with a Dual core CPU is always less than a Quad Core CPU, no matter how hard u overclock it!  The recent futuremark products and even the upcoming ones scale better with Quad than a Conroe!


----------



## hellgate (Apr 11, 2008)

mayanksharma said:


> @hellgate,
> 3DMark06 scores with a Dual core CPU is always less than a Quad Core CPU, no matter how hard u overclock it!  The recent futuremark products and even the upcoming ones scale better with Quad than a Conroe!


 
the overall 3DMark06 score will be higher with a Q6600 but wat i wanted to say that for me the SM2.0 and SM3.0/HDR scores for my 8800GTS 320MB has increased with the E8400.


----------



## acewin (Apr 11, 2008)

in quad core's alot much improvement is needed, and first being lowering of power reqs. if you buy a quad core now to stop it from burning is alot expense. Add to this, still there arent much applications which can utilize double cores. how can you expect that for quad cores. Applications are not just gaming apps and multimedia apps, theres alot to them. Even, for which you guys recommend quad core for rendering softwares like Maya autocad, what is the performance change from C2D. I dont see why a normal user would go for them, they are like the Pentium D proccessors, just they are showing better performance, unlike Pentium D which were even lower in performance than normal HT proccys and generated alot much heat.

It never means that something is costliest is best.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

mayanksharma said:


> IMO, going for Q6600 should be a good decision. Considering the price and future extendebility, Q6600 rocks in that department. 8400 on the other hand is based on penryn core, i.e. 45nm fabrication technology. That tends to better overclocking ofcourse. Though, opinions may vary. I am happy with my Quad and so are many others.


IF A PERSON BUYS A THING HE HAVE GET HAPPY AS HE HVE NO OPTIONS LEFT....
opinions may vary I KNOW THIS BUT NOW IF I GIVE U 10K WAT WILL U OPT FOR......N THAT WAT I AM ASKING.....?



acewin said:


> in quad core's alot much improvement is needed, and first being lowering of power reqs. if you buy a quad core now to stop it from burning is alot expense. Add to this, still there arent much applications which can utilize double cores. how can you expect that for quad cores. Applications are not just gaming apps and multimedia apps, theres alot to them. Even, for which you guys recommend quad core for rendering softwares like Maya autocad, what is the performance change from C2D. I dont see why a normal user would go for them, they are like the Pentium D proccessors, just they are showing better performance, unlike Pentium D which were even lower in performance than normal HT proccys and generated alot much heat.
> 
> It never means that something is costliest is best.


I AGREE.....



nish_higher said:


> ^ yes true but pretty soon games r gonna rock on quad..what abt then?and many apps right now (pro only) run better on a Quad.


PLS NAME SOME PRO APPS.....



sagargv said:


> if the performance difference is not much , then why recommend e8400 over q6600 ? the only reason i can see is better OCability . .. .but for regular users who dont do soo much OC , i think a q6600 should be fine. . .


why NOT 2 recommend e8400 over q6600 ?(THING COSTINK 2K LESS WITH SAME PERFORMANCE)


----------



## axxo (Apr 11, 2008)

this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.


----------



## acewin (Apr 11, 2008)

axxo said:


> this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
> we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
> how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
> all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.



well its because, other than general users like and areas where really data processing is a matter, companies still base there database and finance on ancient periods. There are alot many servers running on 2000 Server OS, heehe.

But be damned sure certainly these res will get utilized, but I certainly say hardwares are now much more ahead of apps, in market terms.
If it wouldnt have been competition between AMDs and Intels, nVidia and ATI, we would still have very low hardware builds.
Multi cores  are launched to show hardware improvement and lure people like us. Whatever it be I am happy hardware prices have gone lower, now most apps which I run, and the way I run(atleast 5-10 apps running in the background always, like everyone of us) our system doesnt hungs on us. Heehe


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

axxo said:


> this is like 64 bit or 32 bit?
> we had seen 64 bit architecture over 3 years..but yet to see applications using this architecture..
> how can we trust that we see more apps utilizing quad to use its full potential.
> all we see today is some 64bit AVs, defraggers and few other useless applications. I dont see any real benefit with 64 bit os or processor same as my opinion with quad cores.


GUD ANSWER....



acewin said:


> But be damned sure certainly these res will get utilized, but I certainly say hardwares are now much more ahead of apps, in market terms.
> If it wouldnt have been competition between AMDs and Intels, nVidia and ATI, we would still have very low hardware builds.
> Multi cores are launched to show hardware improvement and lure people like us. Whatever it be I am happy hardware prices have gone lower, now most apps which I run, and the way I run(atleast 5-10 apps running in the background always, like everyone of us) our system doesnt hungs on us. Heehe


IF I HVE NOT MENTIONED TILL NOW ITS FOR MY PERSONAL USE

@all People Out Here....
I Dont Want Critical Comments On These Processors.......
Just Wat 2 Opt Wat Not......


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

give ur correct opinion i started a poll....


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 11, 2008)

one fact is that 65nm quads are stitched duos


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

stitched duos MEANS??


----------



## hellgate (Apr 11, 2008)

^^  he meant that a 65nm quad is basically 2 C2Ds bridged 2gether.they r like Pentium Ds.i.e they r not native quads.

do u plan to upgrade within the next 12-16months after buying a procy now?


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

hellgate said:


> ^^ he meant that a 65nm quad is basically 2 C2Ds bridged 2gether.they r like Pentium Ds.i.e they r not native quads.
> 
> do u plan to upgrade within the next 12-16months after buying a procy now?


no i already mentioned that....


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 11, 2008)

coolest111 said:


> PLS NAME SOME PRO APPS.....
> 
> 
> why NOT 2 recommend e8400 over q6600 ?(THING COSTINK 2K LESS WITH SAME PERFORMANCE)


 
Apps from-
Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few

I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600  , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.

i m no 3d guy but try rendering something in max--e8400 comes nowhere near a Q6600 but yea beats phenom  

Games-
Supreme commander is Quad core optimised,
Alan Wake will do that properly..so expect Quads to perform better soon enough ..


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

nish_higher said:


> Apps from-
> Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few
> 
> I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600 , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.
> ...


 
 you have too many processor...... 
thnx ,no doubt quad will perform better soon enough but for now ??


pls poll ur options tooo.....

anything new if u come across do tell....


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 11, 2008)

my poll choice=  Q6600 anyday

For now-2-5% performance sacrifice (and that too not quite noticable) for just a short time is nothing compared to changing ur proccy to a Quad after 2 months


----------



## acewin (Apr 11, 2008)

nish_higher said:


> Apps from-
> Autodesk,Steinberg,Cakewalk,Sony (probably),Digidesign (they always did),etc..to name a few
> 
> I have myself compared my E8200 , Phenom 9500 , Q6600  , E8400 (friend's) - for sure windows startup time and non-quad core optimised apps start time is minimum for E8200 and E8400 .but switch to any of the above mentioned apps and see the difference.
> ...



well said, which is true enough, general apps really dont need that much proccy utilization, its the games and rendering which demands more, that is why we add to a specialized graphic card. C2D have been around about year and half and 2, and we see good enough games for utilizing them.
Theres alot much improvement in quad cores which still has to come and sure games will also come. But current quad core option is just a heat sync, we cant get future proof with Q6600. Quads will perform better certainly but that will be another year, and till then real good quad cores will be around.

I say e8400 or any C2D just because of low power reqs. because Intel has done enough work for launching quad cores and not to make them anything below C2D in performance, unlike the Pentium D proccys which were nothing in performance and high in power requirement.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

acewin said:


> I say e8400 or any C2D just because of low power reqs. because Intel has done enough work for launching quad cores and not to make them anything below C2D in performance, unlike the Pentium D proccys which were nothing in performance and high in power requirement.


C2D requires less power i mean wats the difference


----------



## hellgate (Apr 11, 2008)

intel's Nehalem will bring native quads.also a six core procy is also slated 2 be released.so just buy a E2140 now and upgrade to Nehalem.


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 11, 2008)

but its a different socket


----------



## hellgate (Apr 11, 2008)

yup its a diff socket.afaik its LGA1366.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

Nehalem will not b costly......?


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 11, 2008)

^^^
anything cutting-edge will be 


_


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 11, 2008)

i know thats why i hve asked.....?
coz he suggested that.....



pls cast ur votes hardly takes a second....


----------



## topgear (Apr 11, 2008)

This polling has a bug 

*Q6600 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN E8400*

Coz as of now q6600 is nowhere cheaper than e8400 ?

Anyway i'll vote for q6600 as it has four cores - so it will be more future proof. Some years ago gmaes were not optimized for dual cores - but now thaey are.

So in the future games will be optimized for 4 or more cores - That you will feel the real difference - So quad is the future


----------



## hellgate (Apr 11, 2008)

^^^  when most apps and games will be optimised for quads native quads and more will be availble in the market.
those who upgrade frequently and those who wanna upgrade to Nehalem once it hits the market getting a E8400 now makes more sense.for the rest of thr guys who don6t plan to upgrade  in the next 2yrs or so for then getting a Q6600 makes more sense.
i sold off my Q6600 for  a E8400 for thr sole reason that i'll upgrade to Nehalem once it comes to the market.


----------



## mayanksharma (Apr 11, 2008)

coolest111 said:


> IF A PERSON BUYS A THING HE HAVE GET HAPPY AS HE HVE NO OPTIONS LEFT....
> opinions may vary I KNOW THIS BUT NOW IF I GIVE U 10K WAT WILL U OPT FOR......N THAT WAT I AM ASKING.....?


First of all, u dont need options to stay happy with whatever u have! U have it and thats becoz of ur choice. And the choice have to be in ur favour ofcourse! And if it isnt, u are making a mistake by urself! Dont blame others then.  
Same in my case. Gimme another 10K bucks, and i'll go for another Quad! A better one ofcourse. 
Look what i had suggested that under normal usage (i.e. not playing games while encoding a bunch of videos) the E8400 is faster (stock speeds) than the Q6600 at just about anything, since not that much can take good advantage of 2 cores, never mind 4. Further, the E8400 overclocks better. For now, the E8400 is the obvious choice for most people.
But, whether that's true when you're halfway through the period until your next upgrade, that's the trouble!! The Q6600 isnt all that much slower and if your uses do become good with multicores! The Q6600 then beats the crap out of the E8400.
Dual core will be plenty for the next 1-2 years. A quad core will probably be better suited for years and years down the road. E8400 = Shorter Term. Q6600 = Longer Term.  Members can only point u for the right direction. 
Your choice.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 12, 2008)

topgear said:


> This polling has a bug
> 
> *Q6600 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN E8400*
> 
> ...


 
i made the poll after giving a thought......
*Q6600 AS IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN E8400 means Q6600 IS CHEAPER FOR ITS PERFORMANCE THAN E8400 HOPE U GOT IT....*



mayanksharma said:


> Members can only point u for the right direction.
> Your choice.


 
I KNOW I HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE ,AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT I STARTED THIS THREAD 2 TAKE ME (OTHERS IF ANY) 2 THE RIGHT DIRECTION......



mayanksharma said:


> First of all, u dont need options to stay happy with whatever u have! U have it and thats becoz of ur choice. And the choice have to be in ur favour ofcourse! And if it isnt, u are making a mistake by urself!
> Dont blame others then.


 U HVE TAKEN MY WORDS IN WRONG SENSE......
I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE......
I AM JUST ASKING IF U BOTHER 2 HELP PLS DO..... ELSE LEAVE THIS THREAD.....



hellgate said:


> ^^^ when most apps and games will be optimised for quads native quads and more will be availble in the market.
> those who upgrade frequently and those who wanna upgrade to Nehalem once it hits the market getting a E8400 now makes more sense.for the rest of thr guys who don6t plan to upgrade in the next 2yrs or so for then getting a Q6600 makes more sense.
> i sold off my Q6600 for a E8400 for thr sole reason that i'll upgrade to Nehalem once it comes to the market.


 
I TOO ,IS THINKING THE SAME.....
BUT WILL UPGRADE IN 2 YRS(APPROX)...


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 12, 2008)

ahem!!

please stop using ALL CAPS its kiddish and bad manners. 

you dont have any right to ask people to leave this thread. If you open a thread asking for help people are bound to give different views. you have to be open to +ve and -ve sugesstions equally. 

and can't you understand English ? mayank just said something generally and not pointed at you specifically. Its a general statement meaning you should take responsibility for choices you make and not blame anyone. It doesnt mean that you are blaming anyone. 

You are also NOT a newbie as you are a member from Oct 2006. You should have known forum etiquette better.

Be chill and calm then people will help you.. anyway this thread has run into 4 pages so there was quite a discussion.

NOW JUST GO BUY ALREADY! 

_


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 12, 2008)

^^
i can understand eng......
that was neither +ve nor -ve remark as far i can get.......
sorry if anyone got hurt wid my words.....

i hve 2 type by on screen keyboard so it can b either capital or small if u want small here it is......

i am leaving 1 day more 4 members 2 give remarks on monday i will buy it


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 12, 2008)

games supporting quad core (for now)
*robfisher.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=QuadCoreGames

Expect new games pretty soon


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 12, 2008)

^^^
a LOT indeed 

I went through the Valve and Unreal articles (as they were the only thing I was interested  ), a lot of talk in those articles are centered around multi-threading and multi-core stuff but mainly technology descriptions sans benchmarks.

even dual-core is a multicore and quad core has a long way to go 

please dont mistake me that I'm against quad core and such.. I just say the this is the time of dual cores  quad cores will pwn with the arriving of the 45nm C2Qs (to mainstream at present its at a premium) and native quad cores from intel.

I'm always two notchs below the cutting edge  that saves a lot of bucks

_


----------



## nish_higher (Apr 12, 2008)

like i said this is the beginning..  
expect new games soon.the main point here is only that if u dont wanna upgrade again by the end of this year then get something worth your money now..


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 12, 2008)

^^^
neverthless I'm very jealous of your system config  


_


----------



## Pathik (Apr 13, 2008)

Me 2.. Nish you just need a good gpu to make it one of the best.


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 13, 2008)

thnx guys i too know both procy... r 1 of the best in there respective areas and it is worst act to compare them.....but then 2 u all r helping thnx.....
it is worst act to compare them-means 1 is c2q other 1 is c2d it would hve been gud that both r c2q r both r c2d......
thnx....


----------



## mayanksharma (Apr 13, 2008)

coolest111 said:


> U HVE TAKEN MY WORDS IN WRONG SENSE......
> I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE......


Neither i am! 


coolest111 said:


> I AM JUST ASKING IF U BOTHER 2 HELP PLS DO..... ELSE LEAVE THIS THREAD.....


See, i was trying to help just like others. Though, that line by u cast a different meaning to the discussion. 
Dont worry, i am leaving ur thread!


----------



## topgear (Apr 13, 2008)

@ nish_higher
Thanks for the link


----------



## coolest111 (Apr 13, 2008)

mayanksharma said:


> Neither i am!
> 
> See, i was trying to help just like others. Though, that line by u cast a different meaning to the discussion.
> Dont worry, i am leaving ur thread!


 
i understood u wrong.....anyways if u want u can help me.....i wil delay my purchase for teusday JUST 4 U.......


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Apr 18, 2008)

If u are a gamer,go for e8400.Right now,only a few games support quad core(soulhammer,crysis 1.2 patched etc)


----------



## mastermunj (Apr 19, 2008)

Guys,

I am professional software developer and planning to buy a high performing proccy for myself. Gaming is in my blood and i live with it but since i left game development, i have not used my pc at home and is like a scrap now.

Since February i am waiting for Penryn Series to come in...

In recent threads i saw many comparisions between Quads and Duos..

Will Q9450 have any better chance to make quads stand stronger in front of E8400???

My main reason to go for quad is that i will have database server + web server + app server and several test components with benchmark tools running on same pc..

and when bored, games play very important role in freshening up as well as to get in new bright ideas in mentally blocked mind after hours of programming..

Awaiting for a thin line straight to point suggestions.

Also suggest rest of the parameters for a good rig to make it strong in all senses


----------

