http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115036

vs

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115017

for the same price which is better overall (games, compiling programs, watching movies, multitasking, etc.) won't really be doing video editing or converting much so would I actually benifit from a quad core or should I just stick with the dual.

Reasons for buying: I have an e6600 right now that will be going into another system will also be upgrading to 4gbs of ram along with the new chip.

I'm loving the q6600 with the stock cooler and there is a lot of room for OC'ing with all the awesome heatsinks out there. There should be charts out to compare the two.

There are, and it is totally based on what I want to use it for. The quad core seems more practical for getting a small advantage on day to day processes but if I want to get a little bit more out of my games for the same price the E8500 overclocked a bit (4.1 in a lot of benches) beats out multicore with sheer speed. I am torn. I will probably end up going with the quad.

LB, what speed are you running yours at? I have a pretty nice cooler so I would probably just crank mine up as high it can go on default voltage and be done with it.

I'm using a stock Q6600 and I love it.

mine is just at 2.4ghz

Right now an 8500 would probably be better for games because the overclocking can just be ridiculous, 4.0 easy. Which is better for games currently. But if you are looking into a future a Q6600 would be better because it can easily get to 3.4 and more and more games are coming out that can use all 4 cores. Really depends on how long you are keeping it.

I don't really see myself keeping it as a primary computer for more than a year or two tops. I pretty much only spend money on rent and computer parts so I like to stay at least somewhat current. I think I will go with the q6600 anyway.

i dont have either, but based on the testing and reviews from hardware sites i visit on a normal basis, you'd be better off with the E8500 as the quad cores aren't really utilized well unless you're doing photo or video editing. And, as was previously stated, the OC potential is quite high... And also, as of now, not many applications are coded or optimized for more than 2 cores... So my vote would be for the 8500.. for now... Nehalem isn't far off and i think i read somewhere that AMD is supposed to be releasing their 45nm quad core parts by the end of the year.

Overall, I'd agree for most individuals but I think in Jeff's case the quadcore would be better.

He's a compsci and many compiling programs are being rewritten to take advantage of multiple cores, so for him its quite possible the quad core would be better. Yeah the e8500 would be better for gaming, but 3-4 years from now it won't really matter if he has a faster dual core or a slower quad core since they'd both be mediocre compared to future processors. Also he'd have to be gaming heavily to make that speed more worthwhile, but I think there are times when we all wish we had more cores.

I find the current situation very similar to when I bought my 4200 X2 back in 2006, everybody was like "OMG get a single core they clock better" but I definitely think that dual core was the way to go.

Well I am still waiting for the 400ish bucks my roommate owes me...although I think right now I am leaning more on grabbing a 24" monitor in light of all the TV shows starting new seasons. I am so torn...

get the monitor.

Oh he did.

Oh I did indeed.

O rly?