Is Intel Core i7 920 faster then Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650?

... and if so, is there a BIG difference?

Tanx

A much better deal, a much faster CPU and a much nicer logo ;) I7 rules.

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

Daytona_178

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

Slig0

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

Daytona_178

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

Slig0

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

Now I won't argue against your point that with the Q9650 being more expensive or equal in price, the i7 is the better buy.. but microstutter? Man, I've heard a few people/websites talk about microstutter on Core 2 Duos/quads, and I've NEVER seen it. I think they have something else wrong with their machines. It doesn't make sense that Intel would've released a chip that was so universally hailed as a great gaming upgrade over the Athlon 64 X2's if it had such a noticeable problem.

Yeah, strangely enough mods were nice to me for the first time and I only got 3 days instead of the usual 5-7. Probably they saw how insulting that guy's behavior was.Slig0

[QUOTE="Slig0"]Yeah, strangely enough mods were nice to me for the first time and I only got 3 days instead of the usual 5-7. Probably they saw how insulting that guy's behavior was.cell_dweller

Yup, either it or PII 965/955 if you don't do a lot of intensive Intel optimized stuff.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]Yeah, strangely enough mods were nice to me for the first time and I only got 3 days instead of the usual 5-7. Probably they saw how insulting that guy's behavior was.cell_dweller

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Your back slig0,,,i figured you got a temp ban for your argument with that guy a few days ago.

Anyway getting back on topic:

hartsickdiscipl

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

Now I won't argue against your point that with the Q9650 being more expensive or equal in price, the i7 is the better buy.. but microstutter? Man, I've heard a few people/websites talk about microstutter on Core 2 Duos/quads, and I've NEVER seen it. I think they have something else wrong with their machines. It doesn't make sense that Intel would've released a chip that was so universally hailed as a great gaming upgrade over the Athlon 64 X2's if it had such a noticeable problem.

Microstutter was reduced by a great degree on Wolfdale over Conroe, but it is still present in some games which is proven even by Anand's and confirmed by my personal experience. But that is not the matter, the point here is that if you can reduce that stutter in games, plus get better application performance at a similar overall platform cost why not do it?

PS: Yeah, over Athlon 64 X2 maybe, but not a drastic increase over Athlon X2.

Yup, either it or PII 965/955 if you don't do a lot of intensive Intel optimized stuff.

Slig0

I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!Daytona_178

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

Yup, either it or PII 965/955 if you don't do a lot of intensive Intel optimized stuff.

cell_dweller

I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!Daytona_178

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

Very close, and when overclocked it probably matches Q9650 (in that game). But as anand stated, it can introduce microstutter in games and lags behind I7 in applications, so why get it for a higher price?

PS: Yeah, because of that hellspawn I got moderated... And I deserved it for hijacking a thread and insulting, but he brought me to the end of my nerves.

Slig0

Now I won't argue against your point that with the Q9650 being more expensive or equal in price, the i7 is the better buy.. but microstutter? Man, I've heard a few people/websites talk about microstutter on Core 2 Duos/quads, and I've NEVER seen it. I think they have something else wrong with their machines. It doesn't make sense that Intel would've released a chip that was so universally hailed as a great gaming upgrade over the Athlon 64 X2's if it had such a noticeable problem.

Microstutter was reduced by a great degree on Wolfdale over Conroe, but it is still present in some games which is proven even by Anand's and confirmed by my personal experience. But that is not the matter, the point here is that if you can reduce that stutter in games, plus get better application performance at a similar overall platform cost why not do it?

PS: Yeah, over Athlon 64 X2 maybe, but not a drastic increase over Athlon X2.

What games? What GPU(s) were being used along with it? I have to wonder why you and Anandtech ran into this problem and so few others have (at least documented). Considering that the Athlon X2 (not 64 X2) came out after the Core 2 Duo, I would hope that Core 2 Duo wouldn't too much faster!

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

Yup, either it or PII 965/955 if you don't do a lot of intensive Intel optimized stuff.

cell_dweller

I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!Daytona_178

I disagree on the flexibility part. IIRC, the i5 is limited to 4 core processors (albeit with hyperthreading) while the i7 allows for future i9 CPUs.

As for the PII, I've heard rumors that future 6-core processors will be supported by the current AM3 socket, but so far I haven't found any substantial article/source confirming or even mentioning this :?.

Keep in mind that you can grab an i7 920 for cheaps if you live near a microcenter.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727

Same goes for the i5 750.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0317379

[QUOTE="cell_dweller"][QUOTE="Slig0"] [QUOTE="Daytona_178"]I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!Slig0

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

Two packs of this is cheaper and faster :?

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Now I won't argue against your point that with the Q9650 being more expensive or equal in price, the i7 is the better buy.. but microstutter? Man, I've heard a few people/websites talk about microstutter on Core 2 Duos/quads, and I've NEVER seen it. I think they have something else wrong with their machines. It doesn't make sense that Intel would've released a chip that was so universally hailed as a great gaming upgrade over the Athlon 64 X2's if it had such a noticeable problem.

hartsickdiscipl

Microstutter was reduced by a great degree on Wolfdale over Conroe, but it is still present in some games which is proven even by Anand's and confirmed by my personal experience. But that is not the matter, the point here is that if you can reduce that stutter in games, plus get better application performance at a similar overall platform cost why not do it?

PS: Yeah, over Athlon 64 X2 maybe, but not a drastic increase over Athlon X2.

What games? What GPU(s) were being used along with it? I have to wonder why you and Anandtech ran into this problem and so few others have (at least documented). Considering that the Athlon X2 (not 64 X2) came out after the Core 2 Duo, I would hope that Core 2 Duo wouldn't too much faster!

I didn't understand that last statement, either because I am drunk or because you missed the verb :D

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="cell_dweller"] Thanks guys....I figured that would be the way to go :)MaoTheChimp

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

Two packs of this is cheaper and faster :?

Not bad, also might try doing CPU/RAM combos for good savings, especially if you opt for AMD.

Not bad, also might try doing CPU/RAM combos for good savings, especially if you opt for AMD.

Slig0

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

Microstutter was reduced by a great degree on Wolfdale over Conroe, but it is still present in some games which is proven even by Anand's and confirmed by my personal experience. But that is not the matter, the point here is that if you can reduce that stutter in games, plus get better application performance at a similar overall platform cost why not do it?

PS: Yeah, over Athlon 64 X2 maybe, but not a drastic increase over Athlon X2.

Slig0

What games? What GPU(s) were being used along with it? I have to wonder why you and Anandtech ran into this problem and so few others have (at least documented). Considering that the Athlon X2 (not 64 X2) came out after the Core 2 Duo, I would hope that Core 2 Duo wouldn't too much faster!

I didn't understand that last statement, either because I am drunk or because you missed the verb :D

wouldn't be** :P

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

What games? What GPU(s) were being used along with it? I have to wonder why you and Anandtech ran into this problem and so few others have (at least documented). Considering that the Athlon X2 (not 64 X2) came out after the Core 2 Duo, I would hope that Core 2 Duo wouldn't too much faster!

hartsickdiscipl

I didn't understand that last statement, either because I am drunk or because you missed the verb :D

wouldn't be** :P

Thanks :D

[QUOTE="cell_dweller"][QUOTE="Slig0"] [QUOTE="Daytona_178"]I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!MaoTheChimp

I disagree on the flexibility part. IIRC, the i5 is limited to 4 core processors (albeit with hyperthreading) while the i7 allows for future i9 CPUs.

As for the PII, I've heard rumors that future 6-core processors will be supported by the current AM3 socket, but so far I haven't found any substantial article/source confirming or even mentioning this :?.

Keep in mind that you can grab an i7 920 for cheaps if you live near a microcenter.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727

Same goes for the i5 750.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0317379

Well, I currently have a E8400 @3.4ghz. I'm selling it however to my bro for about £100, and with that (since i can't afford new ram, mobo, cpu at same time).. i've just bought an Intel Q9550. So for £70 overall, and i'll OC it to a similar level if not higher than by E8400, i hope maybe i'll get some of a performance boost?

p.s my HTML IS well formed and there ARE VALID TAGS!

[QUOTE="cell_dweller"][QUOTE="Slig0"] [QUOTE="Daytona_178"]I7 920, i5 or Phenom IIX4,,,,,you cant go wrong with either of them!Slig0

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="cell_dweller"] Thanks guys....I figured that would be the way to go :)Daytona_178

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

Whoa, your quotes are messed up!

PS: Now when I quote they aren't...

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Slig0"]

I7 RAM

I5/PII RAM

Wow, RAM is hyoer expensive now... Especially if you want a good brand. I bought that OCZ kit for barely $100!

Slig0

Whoa, your quotes are messed up!

Well, I currently have a E8400 @3.4ghz. I'm selling it however to my bro for about £100, and with that (since i can't afford new ram, mobo, cpu at same time).. i've just bought an Intel Q9550. So for £70 overall, and i'll OC it to a similar level if not higher than by E8400, i hope maybe i'll get some of a performance boost?

p.s my HTML IS well formed and there ARE VALID TAGS!

GenTom

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] Its the same with DDR2 currently....ugh.Daytona_178

Whoa, your quotes are messed up!

The quotes are mixed as I didn't say thanks guys, dweller did... Here:

[QUOTE="GenTom"]

Well, I currently have a E8400 @3.4ghz. I'm selling it however to my bro for about £100, and with that (since i can't afford new ram, mobo, cpu at same time).. i've just bought an Intel Q9550. So for £70 overall, and i'll OC it to a similar level if not higher than by E8400, i hope maybe i'll get some of a performance boost?

p.s my HTML IS well formed and there ARE VALID TAGS!

hartsickdiscipl

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Slig0"]

Whoa, your quotes are messed up!

Slig0

The quotes are mixed as I didn't say thanks guys, dweller did... Here:

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GenTom"]

Well, I currently have a E8400 @3.4ghz. I'm selling it however to my bro for about £100, and with that (since i can't afford new ram, mobo, cpu at same time).. i've just bought an Intel Q9550. So for £70 overall, and i'll OC it to a similar level if not higher than by E8400, i hope maybe i'll get some of a performance boost?

p.s my HTML IS well formed and there ARE VALID TAGS!

Slig0

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

hartsickdiscipl

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading it all about timing. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

Yeah, you Core2 owners can hit 4.0 in no time with outrageously low voltages. And what is with you this night? You are missing the verbs every time :D "Upgrading it all about timing". JK :)

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] ? What quotes?Daytona_178

The quotes are mixed as I didn't say thanks guys, dweller did... Here:

Happens to me all the time, do you see it like that as well or is it a bug only for me?

No kidding. The scary part is that I THINK I'm typing everything correctly when I do it!

No kidding. The scary part is that I THINK I'm typing everything correctly when I do it!

hartsickdiscipl

Another thing that is strange is that "t" and "s" are distant letters so it shouldn't be very likely to mistype. Also, who knows, maybe you wanted to say: "Upgrading it is...".

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

hartsickdiscipl

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

Daytona_178

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

Yeah and a 3.3ghz dual-core was ahead of the quads, what's your point?

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah and a 3.3ghz dual-core was ahead of the quads, what's your point?

I think he is defending LGA775 against LGA1366, not quads from duals. Well at least that is what I think, ask him.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah and a 3.3ghz dual-core was ahead of the quads, what's your point?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] Did you look at those benchamrks i posted....the 775 Quads are not far behind even the i7's in real world gaming performance.Daytona_178

Yeah and a 3.3ghz dual-core was ahead of the quads, what's your point?

So we're counting bad console-ports now? You're right, it's not a good example! My argument from the beginning has been that by the time more games really start using quad-core processors, the Q6600 (and all other LGA775 quads) will be such outdated tech that they won't be able to keep up anyways. I think that i7, i5, and maybe Phenom II will be borderline on being relevant quad-cores. I look to the NEXT generation to give us something that can justify paying for 4+ cores. I view the Core 2 quad and Phenom X3/X4 as gimmick processors for gaming rigs. There are, of course.. some programs that DO like as many cores as they can get. But they are so few and far between that it's an indication to me that we're just not in the "quad-core age" yet.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah and a 3.3ghz dual-core was ahead of the quads, what's your point?

hartsickdiscipl

So we're counting bad console-ports now? You're right, it's not a good example! My argument from the beginning has been that by the time more games really start using quad-core processors, the Q6600 (and all other LGA775 quads) will be such outdated tech that they won't be able to keep up anyways. I think that i7, i5, and maybe Phenom II will be borderline on being relevant quad-cores. I look to the NEXT generation to give us something that can justify paying for 4+ cores. I view the Core 2 quad and Phenom X3/X4 as gimmick processors for gaming rigs. There are, of course.. some programs that DO like as many cores as they can get. But they are so few and far between that it's an indication to me that we're just not in the "quad-core age" yet.

Get a brand new Sargas Sempron and be happy :P

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] Well the relatively slow Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz is still pulling nearly 70FPS compared to a similar dual which gets 84. Now that will make no noticable difference while playing BUT if a game comes out that requires a quad then that Q6600 would DESTROY that dual core....GTA IV for example (i know its not the best of examples but it knows how to use 4 cores so thats a good point about it).Slig0

So we're counting bad console-ports now? You're right, it's not a good example! My argument from the beginning has been that by the time more games really start using quad-core processors, the Q6600 (and all other LGA775 quads) will be such outdated tech that they won't be able to keep up anyways. I think that i7, i5, and maybe Phenom II will be borderline on being relevant quad-cores. I look to the NEXT generation to give us something that can justify paying for 4+ cores. I view the Core 2 quad and Phenom X3/X4 as gimmick processors for gaming rigs. There are, of course.. some programs that DO like as many cores as they can get. But they are so few and far between that it's an indication to me that we're just not in the "quad-core age" yet.

Get a brand new Sargas Sempron and be happy :P

My dad would be happy with that! For 40 bucks, maybe I will :D

[QUOTE="Slig0"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The only games that you'll see ANY performance gain in are those that are optimized for quad-core processors. I'm not just saying this because I use an overclocked E8400.. but there are VERY few games that will take advantage of the Quad. Try to look up a list of games that use quad-core processors.. and if they say Crysis does, they're lying.

I wouldn't get rid of the E8400 for anything less than an i7. The Q9550 will be better than an E8400 for HEAVY multi-tasking, video editing, hosting game servers, etc..

Just to make it easier for ya, here are a few games that DO use quad-core processors:

GTA IV

Supreme Commander

World in Conflict (runs great on a fast dual-core though, no quad necessary)

Source engine games (once again.. runs great even on a 2ghz athlon 64, so you don't need the quad)

You can look the rest up yourself :D

hartsickdiscipl

Death to quads! Freedom to duals!

LOL.. not at all. I just think that LGA775 quads are pointless for gaming rigs. By the time alot of games use quads, the ones made for that platform will be too slow to help anyways. Upgrading is all about timing and recognizing real-world price/performance versus what game developers have up their sleeve in the near future. I got my E8400 13 months ago, and I'm glad I didn't spend the money on a quad.. not with the way this thing overclocks.