Well, I utilizes all my 4cores@100% running Folding@Home. My PS3 is not spared too. Looks like I am a Folding freak!!!

so if im onli a gamer and not running those heavy software,
which shud i go for between dual-core and quad core?
i mean heavy games like crysis, world in conflict etc...

ya, but q6600 G0 has better ocibility.

hmm...quite true.
i see the chart wrongly...

haiya... juz a few months or weeks only ma... if nex year than no need to wait lo...

err... not really high... it's still below 1.4V... and temp below 60C... no risks... unless u use crappy Mobo and crappy PSU... if not everything should be fine... tat's wat slightly more pricey mobos are for...

I thought u wanted the most bang for ur buck? A E2160 isn't that ex anyway. Even if it fails in 1/2 years time(very short for a proc) u can always used the money u save to get a newer proc

Definitely best bang for buck but not with increased risk of damage. If need to RMA, then no more bang for buck wor.....

Anyway, next CPU I'm aiming for - Q9450

---

Added on January 8, 2008, 7:09 amReally? If that is the case, then the proc would be excellent. However, I think a lot of users had to set high vcore to get high OC, IINM.....

This post has been edited by kmarc: Jan 8 2008, 07:09 AM

For me...if I have that money, I sure will go for quad core...but I now is a student, can't afford to get quad core...so I will get dual core...like E8 series... maybe wait for it to be a bit more cheaper...

If u using Nvidia Chipset board...no need wait 45nm Quad or Core2Duo....Nvidia chipset no support those Processor

if i got money, sure go for quad lo..

definitely quad core even at crysis very high, you might need 4 cores 2 power up all the graphics with higher end GC too

I will go for Quad too.
More PPD in folding.

-pWs-

Thumb for you mate!

totally maniac folder haha

knowing that you had a reserve extra power is good feeling already.. doesn't matter if it is used or not.. the more the better.

still using single core though..

Fold sama2.

-pWs-

sooner or later.. there will be no dual core or quad core.. there will be a more n more core in one single die chip.. i wonder when it will be..

n then all application will be bigger n storage may exceed 1 Terabyte..

GC oso can get fully advantages of this supermulti core.. n maybe GC oso can get quad core.. who knows..

Well this is what u call technology..and were always chasing to be on par with it..

ur OC ok wat...

More cores = better even if you don't have applications to take advantage of it. Thread scheduling is done by the operating system at the end of the day and if the operating system can use all cores and dispatch all threads efficiently, thus if buying an octal core were cheaper than 2 halves and thus was value for money, there's no reason i wouldn't recommend it for a better operating system experience. Well that's provided the bottleneck is with the processor.

^erm empire23, i really don't get what u're trying to say here. Even if u can't make use of quad core it's still better?

I'm not talking about performance bro. No doubt, in multithreaded apps more cores would win anytime. What I'm talking about is overall VALUE. That too depends on usage. I am totally fine using a single core to do my assignments and BT all day long, but I would be the 1st to say they're total sh1t for video encoding(not to mentin gaming n encoding at the same time, which i do sometimes ). Let me put it this way, not everyone would get the same value from a certain part. For average daily use, IMHO a single core would give the best value atm. Whereas anything else(gaming, video processing, etc etc) multicore all the way