Processor Help

[hollis_f]

Hi All,

I'm looking at buying a new PC but I'm having problems with deciding what processor specs are best. Currently I'm looking at...

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad-Core Q8200 Processor (2.33GHz, 4MB cache, 1333MHz FSB)

vs

Intel® Processor Q6600 Quad Core™ (2.40GHz, 1066Mhz FSB, 8MB cache)


What's the difference between 'Quad Core' and 'Core 2 Quad Core'?

What will have the greatest effect on speed - More GHz on the clock speed or a faster FSB?

All other things being equal - which of those two choices would you pick?

[ChasP505]

The reason the Q6600 is more popular is it has superior L2 cache (2 x 4mb vs 4mb). Plus, it has a reputation of being a very "overclockable" processor, more so than the Q8200. That's why it's very popular with gamers and video and digital photography enthusiasts on a budget. I'm also in the process of building a new PC and I went with the Q6600.

[ohfawkitzlee]

I would consider the e8400 over the q6600, it has the extra L2 cache that would help out in DVD/Photoshop creation and the clock speed to make up for the lack of 4 cores. Unless you plan on overclocking the Q6600, 2.4GHz is on the slower side of Core 2 CPUs. For Photoshop or DVD creation, the Q6600 would be a great CPU, but I really doubt that you would be disappointed in the performance of the E8400, even though it has half the cores. The clock speed will make up for a bit of it, not to mention some of the improvements in CPU architecture going from the 65nm CPUs (Q6600 et la) to the 45nm ones (E8400 et la)

[tim]

Both have four cores. Check www.tomshardware.com for benchmarks, the PS benchmarks there use a lot of filters which isn't real world use - maybe consider the 3D benchmarks more. I doubt there's much difference in the real world. I have the Q6600 overclocked and it's good.

[tim]

Benchmarks linked from this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=598938). Don't that the 8200 is listed, but they'll have benchmarks for it somewhere on the site.