I stopped paying attention to the performance and quality of components a long time ago so feel stuck in the middle of a minefield! 80% tinternet 15% processing RAW images 5% games (but may increase) Im tempted by the quad cores but i'll only benefit when playing games.... and im not sure ill find the time for games or the money for a graphics card which will scale a performance over the C2D. Ill spend maybe £50-£75 on a graphics card. £116 gets me a.... C2D 2.9ghz 1066mhz 3mb E7500 £140 C2Q 2.3ghz 1333mhz 4mb Q8200 £165 C2Q 2.4ghz 1066mhz 8mb Q6600 Will my gaming experience be improved if I choose one of these cpus over another? Will my processing power be increased by choosing one over another. Surely there are very few programs that would make use of quad cores? My digital imaging is done in maxdslr and/or maximdl. I suppose they operate similar to photoshop or something like that. Oh, and i'll be using Win XP. Should I consider AMD? Phenoms start at £95. I dont have a budget other than cheap as possible so long as it does what I want. Though im not too keen on the idea of a P4/Celeron/Sempron.
Q6600 is a good choice, it will be better for image editing and newer games. Reports suggest it overclocks pretty well. If those activities are occasional then the cheapest option will do in my opinion but going quad will future proof you for little longer. This might be worth a read PCGH - PCGH Review: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 versus Q6600 and Phenom X4 - Intel, Prozessor, CPU, Core 2, Quadcore, Quad-Core, Q8200 As for going AMD, note sure as Intel seem to have the upper hand at the moment. You might want to keep an eye on PC Buy It, they had Q6600 for £131.
i would recommend going for the intel q6600 Go Kentfield, its a bad ass chip pick them up for around £110 now maybe less. they are fantastic overclockers can take them from 2.4 to around 3.6. I've had my q6600 upto 3.8ghz air cooled. I've heard reports of some people taking them above 4ghz marker!!
