Got all my pc parts set, but don't know which processor to get

I'm confused between two procesors, should I get the new 45nm e8400 dual core 3.0ghz or should I get an older 65nm quad core q6600 2.4ghz. Keep in mind on most sites the q6600 is only 50$ more than new e8400.

thanks for the help

edit: I want this processor for mainly gaming, like crysis

DON"T BUY THE E8400 !!!!

it has a cooling flaw from the factroy....once you try to overclock it it will become way too hot (100C + )

you should wait until they fix this issue if you want this CPU

DON"T BUY THE E8400 !!!!

it has a cooling flaw from the factroy....once you try to overclock it it will become way too hot (100C + )

you should wait until they fix this issue if you want this CPU

gla300

I bought an E8400 on Friday, havn't got it yet (1 day shipping ¬_¬)... plus I might need to buy a new motherboard cause this one is sucky and it says on the site it supports 8400 and other 45nm chips with a bios update but you need to overclock FSB and something else, so to get best performance looks like i need a new mobo.

Perhaps you would be better served by going with the E8400 and overclocking it to 4.0 GHz or more, seeing that most games are only starting to become optimized for dual-cores, let alone quad-cores. Also, since it's a Wolfdale chip, you get SSE4, which speeds up video encoding tasks significantly. On the other hand, the Q6600 was shown to have quite a performance boost over the older E6850 in applications that were quad-core-optimized, even at stock clock speeds. However, the E6850 is not a E8400, with the latter having much higher overclocking potential, 2 MB more cache, and SSE4. If you want a quad-core, I would suggest to wait for the Yorkfield quad-cores that AREN'T overpriced Core 2 Extreme models at this point in time.NamelessPlayer

Part of it depends on what you plan to do outside of gaming. Me, I plan to do a lot of media work (editing, encoding, etc.). These tasks have been MT-friendly for a while now, so they'll naturally work better with a quad than with a dual. This is influencing my decision to wait for the Q9450. Also, quad-friendly games are bound to come sooner rather than later. Take Alan Wake. It'll be a Vista-exclusive game, and Remedy is pegging a dual-core as the minimum processor for the job--quad as recommended. Current games like those in Orange Box, yes, probably won't benefit much from quads (But I don't know about Crysis--it's still early in the lifecycle and could see an upgrade that can give quads a boost. We'll have to see), but since quads have been out for a while now, expect more and more games to take advantage of them. After all, going from 2-CPU coding to 4-CPU isn't as big a stretch as it was going from 1 to 2. IOW, a nice quad will probably make for a better long-term investment.

PS. As for the video card, go high but don't max out. If you ask me, a 512MB 8800GTS looks like the optimal bang for the buck. GTX costs quite a bit more for not that much benefit over the GTS, last I checked. Also, if you can afford to wait, let the GeForce 9 series come out in the next month or so. This should help drop prices on the 8's. (An exception to the not maxing out rule: if you have a high-res LCD, say 30 inches, then you'll probably need to max out to get full resolution on it)

for gaming the e8400 is much better due to being clocked much higher and games lack support for more than 2 cores (many can't even use 2 fully) but for video the q6600 is better. I'd say get the e8400 and upgrade to the 45nm quad if you find you want quadimprezawrx500