Which would be the better investment?

[markag]

Ok, I'm currently building a computer with these specs

-xfx 680iLT MOBO
-2GB OCZ SLI 800MHz Ram
-Seagate 250GB 16MB cache SATA hard drive
-LiteOn 20x DVD burner
Processor:
-Q6600 or E8400
GPU:
-8800GT or 8800GTS 512mb

Which processor should I go for.  I primarily will use my PC for gaming, but I do office type work as well.  I've heard that in games currently Core 2 Duos are performing better than stock clocked Core 2 Quads. If I were to go with the Q6600 I would probably overclock it to 3.0GHz or so.  Also, do you think that the future looks better with a quad core?  I don't want to have to upgrade my processor in a year.

I'm confident that I would be happy with either the 8800GT or GTS. My monitor is 1680x1050, so I won't be going to any higher resolutions than that.  I would rather have the GTS, but if money doesn't allow it then I will get the GT.

My main source of stress about this build is the CPU though. I can't seem to decide between 2 and 4 cores.  What are your opinions on the matter?

[machineman9]

If you are into gaming then quad core and the 8800GTS would be perfect... but here are some things to think about:

For the price and quality, the 8800GT is practically as good as the GTS or up to the GTX I think. The 8800GT is cheaper and only a tad side 'worse' (if you can call it that) than the 8800GTS

As you are into gaming the Quad Core would be my preference. Lots of games are going into utalising 4 cores over 2. All dual core compatible things should work fine with dual core. The only performance boost will really come when the games fully utalise these extra cores... so it would be an investement for the future.

So for quality and money I would get the quad core and the 8800GT.

[Mermaid Man]

At the present time, a faster dual core is preferred over a slower quad core. Granted you could overclock the quad to dual speeds, but you can also overclock the dual to even higher speeds.

Quads are useful if you do lots of video/audio encoding work, 3D Studio, DV editting etc.

Buy a Quad core when they're fully supported at that time, not before. In six months time faster, cheaper quads will be available, so you can then upgrade from the 8400.

FS-X and Supreme Commander can utilise quads, but I'm not sure of the performance increase. I remember reading a review that single-dual was a large jump in performance in SC, but dual-quad brought very little (only helped when having multi-player on the huge maps)

[markag]

This helps me out a bit.  I know that video/image editing benefits from more cores, but I wasn't really sure how many games out there support or utilize all four cores.

My issure is I would like to "future proof" my PC as much as possible without spending too much money, but I would be willing to spend slightly more now so I don't have to upgrade in 6 months.  I'm waiting on my tax return check, and that will probably determine what I get.  I believe that at the moment, the GPU is more important the the CPU, so I may save some money from the processor and get the E8400. Then take the money I saved and get an 8800GTS.  

Does Crysis perform better with 4 cores?  I haven't been able to find a definitive answer. I know it isn't flight sim related, but I really want to play that game and have it look good.

[Mermaid Man]

"Does Crysis perform better with 4 cores? "

No. It was advertised to support quad, but it doesn't. It doesn't even support SLI or Crossfire (yet) It's not a great game anyway, it's pretty but it's way too short. COD 4 is a much better FPS.

You could put the extra into a better CpU heat sink/fan, it'll allow you to overclock more which'll help. The 8xxx line have a smaller die process, which means less heat, so you'll be able to clock higher

[Mermaid Man]

oops