I'm more of a gamer, so which one is better:

Q6600 or E8400?

Q6600:
4X2.4 GHz Stock

E8400:
2X3.0 GHz Stock

I'm not planning on overclocking.

People say that the E8400 is better than the Q6600 on gaming, because not many games support the quad core processing, and will not use all of it's cores or will load all the work on only 1/2 cores.

My friend said that 4X2.4 (9.6) is higher than 2X3.0(6.0) so it has to be better. The diffrence is 3.6 GHz.

I already bought an E8400, but i'm thinking about upgrading to a Q6600 if it's any better.
If the diffrence in performance is lower than 30%, then i'd rather spend the money on buying a better video card.

No offense but your friend is not correct, 2.4 is taken from 266*9, and 3.0 (333*9). The Q6600 is best bang for the buck if you plan to overclock, but since you are not overclocking and game a lot, I would just go with the E8400.

It depends on whether you want to future proof your system.

The E8400 is miles faster for now, but in a few years when Games and apps are all multithreaded efficiently, then the Q6600 may be top dog.

I wouldn't get a Q6600 though, too much of a gamble for now. Remember you can always sell the E8400 and get a quad core when you know you will benefit.

A Quad has more "raw" processing power, yes, but not all tasks can harness it. Some tasks are purely sequential and do not benefit from multiple cores. The classic "real world" example is that it doesn't take 1 month for 9 women to have a baby.

Most 1st person shooters will benefit (just a bit) more from fewer, but faster cores. RTS, on the other hand, benefit from multiple cores. But nothing is quite black and white. When having only 2 cores, games will lose more performance from background applications (legit or spyware ) than Quads.

Well you don't even want to think about the future because most likely we won't see true multithreading support in videogames and most main stream software for another 4-5 years. That's assuming that the industry sticks with multicore cpus, and program developers agree with that being the case.

Keep the E8400 and save your money....even though you say you aren't planning on OC'ing the E8400 is ridiculously easy to OC.

I only play FPS, like counter-strike: source, call of duty 4, half life 2, etc.
Thanks for the help everyone I think i'll stay with my E8400 untill the QX9775s get cheaper by a HUGE margin. ($1500 wtf)

I think the Q9650 (3.0GHz, not Extreme) is due Q3 2008 for about 500$.

Yep, the Q9650 is coming out in Q3 of this year.

O.o 600$ cheaper than the extreme version.

Next thing they'll have would be a Q9775...

See this is why this forum is so annoying!!! I have been thinking about E8400 or Q6600 as well. I thought I had decided on the Q, but now I'm back to thinking the E8400.

Life was so much easier when it was just one core and how much you could spend!

Just like any consumer product, you have to understand what it is for and identify your needs. Quads will be a bit more future-proof (like 3+ years systems) and better for heavy multi-tasking, media encoding (ripping DVD to DivX and the like) and anything multi-threaded (Seti@Home, rendering, ...). Any other case, I would stick with dual.

I don't fit any of the criteria above, I just went for the E8400 6 months ago, but I will probably end-up with a quad during the next 12-18 months if the gaming industry starts benefiting it (ie: if Diablo 3 needs it ).

Worst case scenario, just ask Ron Popeil what you need to buy .

Miles faster?

When you compare both at stock speeds thats one thing. But running both at 3ghz, then what?

Getting the 8400 would be best, especially if you want an easier path to OC to 4ghz, and you know that you will not be doing hardly any multitasking, and you don't plan on buying any new software or upgrade your OS.

Also, if you know you only need roughly 40gb of HD space, you shouldn't buy a HD that is 300gb or 1TB. And if your using XP, then you should only get 3 1gb sticks of RAM. Any more would be a waste, just like having 2 more cores. And if your using a monitor that can only do 1024x768, getting a video card with 1gb of ram would be another waste.

Edit:

Hope you sense my sarcasm in this post.

It really doesn't matter which one you decide to get they will both be good for running your games. Personnally I went with the E8400 because I read how easy it was to OC. See my sig... I am running it at 3.6 on stock Voltage and its a fast son of a $*#<!&. Most games now don't even support Dual Cores and Dual GPUs. Relax and make a purchase.

Well I got my cpu and everything:
My Setup:
E8400
Biostar TP35D2-A7 Motherboard (Intel P35&ICH9)
Hitachi Deskstar 7200RPM 16mb Cache IDE Harddrive
2X1 GB Ballistix DDR2/800
EVGA 9800gtx 512mb 738/1733/2200 (not sure, close to that speed)
Right Now:
I bought my e8400, which wasn't compatible with my biostar mobo, so i got a 2.8ghz p4 (without actually p4 fan&heatsink), used my e8400 box fan&heatsink, and the system will shut down after a 1/2minutes. The cpu probably was overheating. Now i'm going to buy another processor from fry's and probably a cheap celeron 1.8ghz box. only 45$ at a local store. Man i'm pissed D: well i might not get the celeron, return the e8400 for 30% off what i bought and get a q6600, but i'm still not sure about q6600....

q6600 is worth 1.75 E8400 you do the math

e8500 or q6600 or q9450 with nvidia

q6 rules all - one chip to rule them all and one chip to bind them!