[thingie2]

Well I was going to go with a Q9450 quad for my new build, but some people say I should go for a E8500

Please post your opinions with reasons.

I will not only be using the PC for gaming, but also for video rendering etc

[thingie2]

Just noticed I typed title wrong, it should have been "which CPU" not "which PCU" if a moderator could change this for me please

[Carbon]

Overclocked, the 8000 series are essentially the same as quads in applications that support quad-cores and overpass them in speed in applications that don't (proof!). Two 45nm cores is going to beat four 65nm cores, no way around it.

[alex]

The new range of quad's are just not good value for money yet.

Neither is the E8500. Look at the (stock) increase compared to the E8400 and then look at the price difference.

If you're leaning towards gaming; go dual core (for the foreseeable future). Very few games make use of a quad.

If you're leaning toward rendering then I'd go quad; the majority of apps support a quad.

[thingie2]

Originally Posted by Carbon

Overclocked, the 8000 series are essentially the same as quads in applications that support quad-cores and overpass them in speed in applications that don't (proof!). Two 45nm cores is going to beat four 65nm cores, no way around it.

The Q9450 quad is 45nm

[Macmac508]

Nahh, afraid not. The QX9650 is 45nm, but that will set you back £600.

The Q9450 is a 65nm quad, there was a lot of speculation before it came out but it always has been a 65nm.

[thingie2]

Go here then click "View desktop processor specifications" the q9450 is under the 45nm heading

[Macmac508]

*hangs head in shame*

Mehh, I'm baffled. I just read one that says 65nm Technology. I guess that wouldn't make much sense it is Yorkfield after all.

Sorryy Bahhs. My bad.

[thingie2]

Yea, so, what you think now, the Q9450 better or the E8400/E8500?

[Carbon]

Yorkfield quad will be better than the dual, but only speculative (since hardly anything can use it). I'd go with the quad unless it's way more than the dual.