This topic is locked from further discussion.
The Core 2 Quads were never appealing to me. It's non native quad core architecture (read: two Core 2 Duos glued together) isn't very efficient. I upgraded my E8400 to a Core i7 920 two days ago.
AdamK47
It's more efficient than AMD's native Quad-core design, unless Deneb shows some marked improvements (and it looks like it very well might at that).
Cool another fellow with I7 here. I have a I7 940 with 3.6 24/7 clock. I wouldn't even think about buying a Q6600 or any old Quads. Dualcore or I7 Quad makes more sense.redneckdouglasUh not to me, E7300 is all i would consider from there there is a gap between $120-$320 or how much the 920 i7 goes for...........
The Core 2 Quads were never appealing to me. It's non native quad core architecture (read: two Core 2 Duos glued together) isn't very efficient. I upgraded my E8400 to a Core i7 920 two days ago.
AdamK47
WOW, and i bet for 3x the cost you are getting much greater performance increases in games right? ;)
PS: the 3x is refering the silly cost of the mobo, ddr3 ram, and new tech cpu
Cool another fellow with I7 here. I have a I7 940 with 3.6 24/7 clock. I wouldn't even think about buying a Q6600 or any old Quads. Dualcore or I7 Quad makes more sense.redneckdouglas
depends on how much money you have to spend,,,a q6600 will give similar performance in many instances and costs a LOT less!
On multi-tasking, Q6600 is about 30% slower or even worse on some programs that supports more than 8 threads.redneckdouglas
LOL, so what? The Q6600 overclocked is still an absolute beast for a bargain price! The i7 can sometimes be upto 30% better but in games its barely any better,,,so for most people its a waste of money.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment