•  totot
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter

 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

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

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


 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,


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

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.

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!


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
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
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 :)


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

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.