quad core @2.3 or @2.6?

should i get a quad core 2.6 or a 2.3 and overclock it to 2.6?

should i get a quad core 2.6 or a 2.3 and overclock it to 2.6?

zahyr

the 6700 is better 8mb catche and faster speeds

do yuo think with the Q6700 and a xfx HD 4850 i can max out assassins creed and dead space?zahyr

do yuo think with the Q6700 and a xfx HD 4850 i can max out assassins creed and dead space?zahyr

You should just get a q6600 and overclock it to 2.66, its the same processor just different clock and cheaper so go for that instead.

Get the q6700 easy choice. q8200 doesn't even have Virtualizaiton tech, no xp mode in Win 7(Well it might run but slower).

Atleast I think the q8200 doesn't have VT, I know the q8400 doesn't.

The only choices i would consider are Q6600 and Q9550.X360PS3AMD05

i concur (haha), no but really, the Q9550 is awesome, i overclocked mine to 4.1ghz on air!:shock: and you can push it to like 3.4ghz on stock volts.

actually even the Q9450 is pretty good, but i think it's pretty close to the Q9550 in price,

but the Q9x50's have a larger cache, 12mb, same size as the core i7's. and it does make a difference,

me and a friend of mine benched for ourselves, an E8400 and an E6600, same clock speeds, the E8400 blew it away in 3dmark tests and games, only difference was the cache (8mb vs 4mb) and 65nm vs 45nm, (but 45nm just makes it cooler and use less power, no real performance increase.)

so that's my opinion

EDIT: actually my mistake, the i7's have an 8mb L3 cache, and like a 1mb L2 cache. idk how that helps.