Originally Posted by slugzkea
Try it, I did, and if you look up reviews, at Q at 3.5 in gaming lost to an e8400 at 4.2
The Q6600 will be slower with EVERY PROGRAM
than an e8400 at the exact same clock speed unless:
1.) The program takes advantage of more than 2 cores
2.) You have other CPU intensive tasks in the background.
The e8400 has a more efficient architecture, making it about 8% faster at most tasks. Period.
If you're playing games most of the time, and not running a bunch of cpu intensive tasks in the background, get the frickin e8400, it is faster even at equal speeds as 95% of games won't use all 4 cores, and it is much easier to get to higher clock speeds.
If you're busy running a bunch of programs all the time, then get the 4-core CPU and call it good.
It is like comparing a 4Ghz P4, to the e8400 at 3Ghz. No contest, period. Clock speed isn't everything, it is about the architecture. So assuming you're not using more than 2-cores, this argument might as well be about an e
6600 (not q6600), and an e8400.
I'm not sure why this thread continues, this is a fairly simple concept to grasp......or at least I thought it was. Then again, polls show about half the people on OCN are kids/teens....