Guest
totot
  •  totot
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2008-05-27T22:11:51Z

 Soon I am going to make a new build. Would anyone NOT recommend this CPU? And if so - what alternatives would yuo recommend. The new build will be used mostly for gaming, internet  browsing and some office work.

 Thanks :)

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0Ghz, 6MBL2.

Crisis Causer
2008-05-27T23:46:48Z

That's an excellent CPU.  The only alternatives I could say would be to consider Quad-Core instead, like a Q6600, Q9300, or Q6700.  But the E8400 is cheaper than any of those, and clocked higher.  The higher clock means it would do better in programs optimized for single or dual-core compared to the quads (although for multitasking the quad is king of course). 

Q6600 is only a little more than E8400, so it's worth considering.  You can't go wrong with either, though personally I'm gonna put my vote in the Q6600 camp because it seems a little more future proof, and 2.4GHz is fast enough (although it should overlock to well above 3).

Der Meister
2008-05-28T15:27:21Z

 I say Q6600 as well, 4 core that can easily go above 3.0ghz no problem... 

SqUiD267
2008-05-28T15:29:55Z

 That is a excellent choice. I didnt even knew it was that cheap. Compare that to a 3.0 Ghz that runs around $1,000. I think you in good shape. Most programs arnt coded to take adavntage of quad core use anyways,

amdcrankitup
2008-05-28T16:09:48Z

That was my choice for my new build and I think its on sale at New egg.Great OCer!

Laggerzero
2008-05-29T06:46:19Z
I'd go with the option with a lot of headroom. the Q6600 is a great cpu for the price and a great OCer. Even if you don't OC it now its still an awesome choice and you can always do it later as well.
recoveringknowitall
2008-05-29T06:53:32Z

I'm still not completely sold on the idea that a gamer should opt for for a quad going forward in 08. I read somewhere that Alan Wake will be heavily optimized to take advantage of available cores and that the performance gains of 4 cores vs 2 were up to 30% in some cpu bound situations. With that said I still feel that clock speed and gfx card performance will be paramount as usual. A fast dual core will deffinately suffice and the wolfdale line looks great from top to bottom IMO... it's what I'd get if I were in the market right this minute. The beauty of the 8400 is the fact that even @ stock speed of 3ghz, it will easily handle 1080p gaming with a single gfx card. That constitutes ease of use in my book because although tweaking/OC'ing/pushing system to max is rewarding... it's nice to know you don't need to in order to experience all the bling graphicaly!

amdcrankitup
2008-05-29T07:27:38Z

recoveringknowitall wrote:

The beauty of the 8400 is the fact that even @ stock speed of 3ghz,

 

Ive seen reviews where its OC at 3.16 and up! Its priced decent and will go down!

totot
  •  totot
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2008-05-29T18:21:43Z
Thanks for replies. At this moment I do not see much reason to go for quad. I am getting the E8400, and that should be enough for what I need it for - for another couple of years.

Cheers :)

P.S.

I just found this article - might come handy for other readers 🙂.

http://www.guru3d.com/ar...-quad-core-processors/11 

Crisis Causer
2008-05-29T21:03:37Z

I just remember back in 2005-early 2006 a lot of people were saying "get single-core, for the same price you get more MHz and no games are optimized for dual-core so it's not worth it".  But now the heavy hitters are all dual-core.  I think the impact of dual-core -> quad-core will be less tan single-core -> dual-core was, but still I wouldn't poo poo it too much.