So, I'm thinking about building up a computer. This would be my first time and I was just wondering what CPU I should get. My budget is at most $250, preferably around $200. The most expensive chip that I would consider getting at the moment is the intel Q9450, but from what I've read it's gains are unsubstancial from the Q6600 and it's $100-$150 bucks more, so I'm not too interested in it. Most software/games are not designed around quad cores so the gains is not nearly as much as it potencialy could be. So, I'm just wondering what you guys think I should get. Thanks. If you have any comments or things I should know, please tell me.

So, I'm thinking about building up a computer. This would be my first time and I was just wondering what CPU I should get. My budget is at most $250, preferably around $200. The most expensive chip that I would consider getting at the moment is the intel Q9450, but from what I've read it's gains are unsubstancial from the Q6600 and it's $100-$150 bucks more, so I'm not too interested in it. Most software/games are not designed around quad cores so the gains is not nearly as much as it potencialy could be. So, I'm just wondering what you guys think I should get. Thanks.

If you have any comments or things I should know, please tell me.

If you can overclock id do an E8200 or a Q6600. Both have a lot of OC head room. Throw an Arctic 7 Freezer Pro on it, and youve got even more room.

If you can overclock id do an E8200 or a Q6600. Both have a lot of OC head room. Throw an Arctic 7 Freezer Pro on it, and youve got even more room.

[color=#b5b5ff]Since I never really multi-task, I look down on getting more cores than needed, so I would definitely say the E8400 over the Q6600. It depends if you're the kind of person who likes to burn DVDs and play high-def games at the same time.[/color]

Since I never really multi-task, I look down on getting more cores than needed, so I would definitely say the E8400 over the Q6600. It depends if you're the kind of person who likes to burn DVDs and play high-def games at the same time.

Get the E8400 for it's faster FSB, and get DDR3.

Get the E8400 for it's faster FSB, and get DDR3.

Get the intel Q9450, Even if it doesnt help As much Now, It will in the future, So mine as well get it instead of having to rebuy one again.

Get the intel Q9450, Even if it doesnt help As much Now, It will in the future, So mine as well get it instead of having to rebuy one again.

Quad core plz :P

Quad core plz

[quote=name:DT_Battlekruser][color=#b5b5ff]Since I never really multi-task, I look down on getting more cores than needed, so I would definitely say the E8400 over the Q6600. It depends if you're the kind of person who likes to burn DVDs and play high-def games at the same time.[/color][/quote] The thing is the difference in price is only about $25 so if you think that the Q6600 is really any better I wouldn't mind paying for it. From your argument though the E8400 probably is a better choice though. [quote=name:Doodle77]Get the E8400 for it's faster FSB, and get DDR3.[/quote] Yeah, I was considering DDR3, it's so expensive at the moment though... and you have to get a motherboard that supports it...

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

Since I never really multi-task, I look down on getting more cores than needed, so I would definitely say the E8400 over the Q6600. It depends if you're the kind of person who likes to burn DVDs and play high-def games at the same time.

The thing is the difference in price is only about $25 so if you think that the Q6600 is really any better I wouldn't mind paying for it. From your argument though the E8400 probably is a better choice though.

Quote from Doodle77[MM]

Get the E8400 for it's faster FSB, and get DDR3.

Yeah, I was considering DDR3, it's so expensive at the moment though... and you have to get a motherboard that supports it...

I really love my Q6600, can handle anything you throw at it.

I really love my Q6600, can handle anything you throw at it.

[quote=name:Falkoner]Quad core plz :P[/quote] Personally, I use an Intel Quad-Core processor and used it for most of my Virtual Machines. Works fast and effective but can crash sometimes.

Quote from Falkoner

Quad core plz

Personally, I use an Intel Quad-Core processor and used it for most of my Virtual Machines. Works fast and effective but can crash sometimes.

You can go with the Q6600, but by this point with Intel's ever growing market share, I'd take a small performance hit and go with the AMD Phenom X4 9850. However, you can pick up the AMD X3 8400 for... $110 on TheNerds.net (must be a special) or ~$155 elsewhere. I hope that you meant a $250 budget for the cpu alone (which is what I think you meant). Honestly, you'll be happy with just about any $125 plus dual/quad core offering on the market today. I know you didn't ask for a gpu suggestion either, but I would definitely go with the AMD 4850 ($200) or 4870 ($300). Best price/performance ratios in that market.

You can go with the Q6600, but by this point with Intel's ever growing market share, I'd take a small performance hit and go with the AMD Phenom X4 9850. However, you can pick up the AMD X3 8400 for... $110 on TheNerds.net (must be a special) or ~$155 elsewhere. I hope that you meant a $250 budget for the cpu alone (which is what I think you meant). Honestly, you'll be happy with just about any $125 plus dual/quad core offering on the market today. I know you didn't ask for a gpu suggestion either, but I would definitely go with the AMD 4850 ($200) or 4870 ($300). Best price/performance ratios in that market.

dual core!

dual core!

[quote]The thing is the difference in price is only about $25[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]The thing is, the E8400 is "better" unless you're actually going to utilize all four cores. Right now, there aren't very many applications that do this, so you won't likely be getting what you paid for unless you're the person that runs multiple applications at the same time, in which case the quad core is a better deal. Some people would recommend the quad core because in the future, as quad cores become more prevalent, more applications will be designed to utilize all four cores, so you're future-proofing yourself. With all the cores used, the Q6600 is going to do more, so it just depends on how much you expect to use the cores. Me, I'm still stuck on a socket-939 2.4 GHz Athlon 4000+ single core. Stupid thing fell in price by 45% three months after I got it (damn Intel). Really though, it's your call.[/color]

Quote

The thing is the difference in price is only about $25

The thing is, the E8400 is "better" unless you're actually going to utilize all four cores. Right now, there aren't very many applications that do this, so you won't likely be getting what you paid for unless you're the person that runs multiple applications at the same time, in which case the quad core is a better deal.

Some people would recommend the quad core because in the future, as quad cores become more prevalent, more applications will be designed to utilize all four cores, so you're future-proofing yourself. With all the cores used, the Q6600 is going to do more, so it just depends on how much you expect to use the cores.

Me, I'm still stuck on a socket-939 2.4 GHz Athlon 4000+ single core. Stupid thing fell in price by 45% three months after I got it (damn Intel).

Really though, it's your call.

I would say Intel E8400 due to price and it packs the punch that is needed.

I would say Intel E8400 due to price and it packs the punch that is needed.