Hardware 3.16 Duo VS 2.4 Quad

[Tylon]

I'm planning to buy a new processor, and can't decide on what to buy... So I thought that I can ask my dear tempers for help!

Remember, I will only use the computer for gaming

 

[xcalibur]

Quad-core should be to Dual-core what Dual-core was to single core. You could do yourself a favor an adopt early but I really think that it'll be a while before dual-cores are obsolete. Most recent gams are optimized for dual cores too and its a lot cheaper so the best bet would be to go with the E8500.
E8400 is exactly the same but a bit underclocked. I suggest you get that and just OC it yourself.

 

[Westside]

Quad-core should be to Dual-core what Dual-core was to single core. You could do yourself a favor an adopt early but I really think that it'll be a while before dual-cores are obsolete. Most recent gams are optimized for dual cores too and its a lot cheaper so the best bet would be to go with the E8500.
E8400 is exactly the same but a bit underclocked. I suggest you get that and just OC it yourself.

Actually E8400 is E8500 with less multipliers. E8500 has more overclocking potential, but not by much. With air cooling, the E8400 clocks up to 4.0GHz, with phase cooling (which costs a ridiculous $1500), it clocks up to 5.0GHz.

The Quad core is barely being adopted right now, most programs are single or dual core enabled. It may be a long while before we see alot of more than 2 thread enabled processes.

 

[wohoo]

Why not get the quad-core and overclock it a bit yourself?

But in case of pure gaming the E8400 or 8500 (whatever) might be a better choice at the moment.

 

[FAST6191]

The most cursory of searches says prices are near enough to consider equal (assuming the same mboard and all). Both are great processors and will overclock nicely.

Gaming, most games struggle to use 2 cores (most do not even have a worthwhile reason for directX10 yet) and while it is often down to the graphics card the cpu has been the limiting factor on more than a few occasions (my friends and I run SLI machines almost as standard). Extra clock is then pretty good.

I know you said gaming but,Video encoding (anything above about 1.5GHz (single core) and/or decent graphics is enough to handle nearly everything going when it comes to decoding if set up properly) is more inclined to use quad (if only in the split it into X part (where X is the amount of cores)). Clockspeed is still great (more video card encoders/APIs leave something to be desired and are consequently not used really beyond the "reference" encoders) but number of cores may just have the edge.

Basically go with the dual core.

@Westside search for the "wax" phase change cooling, liquid nitrogen is expensive but for most purposes "wax" works really well too (most implementations are not good enough for standalone but the extra cooling required is otherwise seen in 8 year old machines).

 

[Javacat]

I had the same decision to make a few months ago and at the last minute changed from dual to quad core. They can overclock very nicely (not that you really need to) and although there aren't many programs designed for two or more cores, it means that you are able to run a few more CPU intensive apps at once.

+ no matter which one you choose, for the most recent games you'll probably find that the graphics card is the biggest bottleneck

 

[fischju]

My E8200 gets easily to 3.2ghz on stock voltage with stock hs/fan, and that makes it equal to the stock Q6600 in performance.

 

[Zendrik]

If you're tight on money, just get an E8400. Its a 2.4 Duo. I'm actually using an E4600 in my gaming rig and it is an awesome chip. Looking at the E8400, it looks spectacular. But like Westside said, most programs are still single/dual core oriented and won't take advantage of all four cores. But to be future proof, by all means, get one of the 45nm Core 2 Quads. I suggest the Q9300 or a Q9450(2.5 and 2.66 respectively). Personally, I'm looking into getting the Q9450 but funds are kinda tight right now, so I'll stick with the E8400