My vote goes to single core cpu. P4 FTW! (Dont flame me since it a discussion thread! )

Well.. Im kinda agreed that its depend on the usage on the user. Casual user that didnt use much processing power (just like me), they will think that normal single core are just more then enough for them.

Who says single core cannot torrent while encoding things?Juz slow abit only.

not many ppl can tolerate tat "juz slow abit only"....

---

Added on January 4, 2008, 7:46 pmu should had compared E2160 and E6750 at 3.5GHz b4 paying for it... RM600+ vs RM300+ but the performance not really noticable...

This post has been edited by t3chn0m4nc3r: Jan 4 2008, 07:46 PM

Looks like I stepped on someone's tail here. Ooops.
I also used single core before. Athlon 64 3200+. Currently only using it as a backup rig/server since got my new comp.

Quad-core gives you best value per processor. RM 900 / 4 compare to others, you're paying less per processor core.

Yeah.. paying almost the same price as E6850.

Phenom X4 9500 RM860

between E6850 and Q6600, which one is recommended? because the price is about the same rite? at pczone around 915, but when take a look at benchmarks from tomshardware.com, it shows that E6850 is better in overall performance, for Q6600, it only win in 3d rendering...

i'm planning to buy new rig, so now i'm confuse which processor i've to choose..i do 3d rendering, photoshop and other graphic stuff..

E6850 is true dual core, Q6600 is not a true quad core. Suggest you consider E6850.

Single Core user here.
P4 630, 3.0Ghz OC @3.6Ghz..
actually to me..I still feel satisfied with it..
compare to my friend new bought rig C2D E6550..n OC@ 3.1Ghz..
If say like encoding/decoding video..3d renderin..photoshop..
n playin new release games..
of course my speed is slower a lot n bottomneck my GC a lot...
but..i'm not a user tat always do encodin/decoding video..3d renderin..
n not always playin games...but only listen to music..suft the net..
download video n watch..n if juz doin tis stuff..i dun feel any slower than C2D or C2Q..with this CPU..I still feel satisfied..anyway..feelin wan to upgrade to athlon x2 5000+ BE already.. ^^

most people boast dual-core is good but fact of the matter is most people aren't even utilizing 50% the processing capability of 1 core most of the time.

I think most people doesn't even know their processor usage is that low?

both also gonna be obselete soon and stock is clearing out... might as well wait...

after waiting, new stuff come out. then new threads mushroom. then we're all back to square 1 again, by having to find out the details and feed _____.

edited : remove the word. you can put what you want la. the lazy, the clueless, the like-to-be-spoonfed.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Jan 5 2008, 02:59 AM

When Nehalem comes out sometime in 2009, Penryn/Yorkdale would be outdated also anyway. It's an endless waiting game bro.

At a high vcore for the E2160? No thanks...... Risk:benefit ratio not acceptable for me.... not to mention the heat.....

E6850 vs Q6600 performance quite close, but after overclocked it Quad Cores is in the lead.

Intel still have 45nm compatiblities issue, unless u pick a mid high end mobo P35 or X38.

repost due to image link problem.





source from here
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dua...uad/page20.html


the winner is clear.

but the E6750 is cheaper it would be better if they compare E6850 with Q6600.

Mana ade? It is not that straight forward.

If you look at that table, quad is good for video and 3D rendering but lose out on games and office apps. Disadvantage is quad is about rm300 more expensive and it is hotter, requiring better cooling for equivalent overclocks.....

In the end, it depends on what apps you use.......