Dual-core cpu

[pillar]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115032
^What do you guys think about this cpu? Should I go higher? I was given advice last yr to get a 6750, but not sure.

 

[Lafinass]

Had the e6600 up until recently, was reasonably happy with it. Overclocked to 3.0 on 333FSB on air cooling. Stable and smooth. It depends on the price difference really. Depending on what you are looking to spend, it's not much more up to the e8400.

 

[Sharp67]

IF your board can support it, i would recommend getting a Quad...the price isint much different from what i have heard from some of my friends.

 

[Thatguy]

You need to post your motherboard so that we known what socket you are using. If it is an intel board, that is fine.

If it is AMD, get this
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2905658

Five dollars more, way faster.

I'm not a fan of intel dual cores. Their quads are OK, but they are overpriced with excessive and unneeded cache. Plus, they are not true quad cores, as there are only 2 open lanes for processing. Just a fun fact, AMD releases their tripple core very soon, which cost a fraction of intel's quad cores, yet run almost exactly as fast as a quad.

But enough about my anti-intel quad core rant >

 

[Ryael]

I like Lafinass' referral for the e8400. The new Penryn's (Wolfdale is the desktop class) are great. They run cool, are easily overclocked, aren't power hungry, and FINALLY take real advantage of the dual-cores. I'm against quad-core simply because you will never need all that power. Software simply can't keep up, I mean we are just beginning to get into the early stages of dual-cores actually being fully utilized. If you're AMD, well then Thatguy sums it up nicely. (GO AMD!!!)

 

[MrQ]

One issue i have found with the e8400 is that their thermal reporting sensors are way off. Nothing the matter with the processor, just the sensors.

 

[Lafinass]

Yeah, that's a well known issue. I wouldn't do any drastic overclocking with the e8400.

 

[Dryft]

Regarding the E8400, I love mine. Also, you can get accurate temp readings now from RealTemp.

 

[pillar]

ok, well 1st off, ive checked out the 8400, & ill be honest, im not plannin on gettin it. i mean the min that i would go w/ is maybe 2.4 ghz & even then i dont think i would have much or any issues with games. besides, i really dont see myself spendin over 200 for a c2d cpu.

 

[Arn0t]

well i guess it depends on what you are going to use your pc for, gaming, i would go with a higher GHz because of the face it will load... personally i would say go AMD, but if you are not in the area of buying a new mobo... then like i said above, it depends on what its used for, and if its for gaming, what games you will be playing

 

[pillar]

well rite now, it really depends on whether im gonna get this computer tutor job or not. ill be startin my airport job next week, so i got that in the bag, but i really want this pc job, this way i know i can get the 8400 as well as a new mobo & possibly an 8800. but i mean the 6750 is 2.6 ghz, so it should be able 2 handle gamin w/o an issue. also i have a heatsink that hasnt been outta the box yet, so i know that itll keep the cpu nice n cool.

 

[jdcskillet]

Gonna be honest, I think it is worth spending the little extra and getting the 45nm chips. They are astoundingly fast at such low ghz's, and consume less power. I would also like to point out that I am a fan of AMD, so I probably wouldn't agree with the decision on a intel chip (even if they are doing slightly better right now...)

 

[Ryken]

Intel core 2 duo is more money, but they tend to run cooler and OC better from what I have read. That being said, I'm cheap and picked up the 3.2 GHz 6400+ for $159 and could not be happier.

 

[pillar]

hey skillet, welcome! no offense, but my current machine is intel, weve used intel all of our lives (exception bein my dad w/ his current amd turion 64 notebook) so ya that as well as if you were to check the latest stats from valve, it would show that more players use intel than amd (even tho i will admit that amd is really close).

 

[-nocturne=-]

core this, core that...

Given the choice between one 3ghz core, two 2.6ghz cores, and 4 2.2ghz cores... I'd take the single any day. And that's considering that I always multitask while on the pc, and otherwise it's recording tv shows and then re-encoding them (not too mention a gameserver or two).

 

[gildron]

Hmm... My personal opinion tells me to tell you to get an AMD. In my opinion (Once again, mine. So it isn't really all that objective.) AMDs are cheaper, and you get more for your money. Especially in the realm of dual cores. I currently have an X2 5600+ (2.8ghz dual core) and I really like it. I have never seen it tasked to anywhere near 100% by any program. Even while running three or four games (I like to try and break my system.) It is having no trouble.

Vista on the other hand.... Oh boy.

 

[Glitch]

I have the 6750 and love it. Absolutely LOVE it. Oc'ed to 3.4ghz and runs like a dream.

 

[jdcskillet]

I didn't say anything bad about intel...I just like AMD better because of the short pipelines in the chips. Its just easier to keep the machine working and not overloading it at the same time. However, that point is becoming more irrelevant as Intel continues to follow the path of shorter pipelining and slower clock speeds. Personally I find it incredibly interesting (seeing as I'm a CS major...), and I would not go back to the single core chips. It's awesome how you can split up the processing if people would actually code their programs to do so, until then I could see why you would want to hang on to that single core *cough*nocturne*cough*. Anyways, that's my two cents on the matter.

 

[pillar]

hey glitch im w/ ya on the 6750 cpu. im seriously thinkin bout gettin it myself as well.