For what it's worth, having a Core 2 Duo at 4GHz myself, I would not move to a Core i3 2100 unless it was given to me. I'd see the IPC as comparable (comparing the 4GHz Core 2 to the stock Core i3), maybe even in favor of the Core 2 at times, so it comes down to Hyper-threading. That makes it better obviously, but only in select situations, and not worth of a platform change alone. Go for nothing less than the Core i5 2500K.
Originally Posted by digiadventures;14643047
It's for old i3 540 I am talking about new i3 2100
It's really hard to find reviews comparing e8600 and new i3 2100 I guess because e8600 is so old now
Even if you did, you likely wouldn't find one that includes the Core 2 Duo E8600 at 4GHz. The Core 2 Duo E8600 alone is harder to find results for since they usually used the Core 2 Duo E8400 since it was more common. They did the same thing with the Core 2 Quad, often using Q6600 instead of Q9x50 results against Core i7 results when they came out. It makes the newer stuff look just that much better too, but I do see the sense in using the more common CPUs.
You've just to put in some guess work in those cases, but as I said above, it's an improvement for sure, but not a very worthwhile one in my opinion. Unless he needs the extra cores/threads and doesn't mind paying for that alone and otherwise doing what I'd see as a sidegrade, I think he should sit on what he has until he can afford better.Edited by Princess Garnet - 8/19/11 at 1:20pm