Which intel chip?

[KevinUK]

So what is more important, L2 cache or clock speed?

£215 12M 4 core 2.66ghz 1333mhz
£200 6M 2 core 3.33ghz 1333mhz

I don't do any compiling or unzipping large files. Just standard office stuff and gaming. I think mhz is more important but don't know where L2 cache is used.

And any ideas when the intel extreme chips will fall to £200 ish? Their specs look sweet but not worth £600 I will either get this chip or wait on extreme range.

intel.jpg

[nath]

I'm pretty sure the general consensus is that not enough software makes use of the quad core to make it worth it, unless you've got something specific in mind. Kryt would give you the definitive answer but unfortunately he's got slightly more pressing matters to deal with at the mo

[KevinUK]

Pff whats more important! Get the man a PDA!

Yeah I thought core wasnt as good yet. The "big L2 number" made me question the choice though. I'll go with dual but now need to decide on the HD4870...

[Mazling]

Most people will see more of a benefit from higher clockrates than from more cores. Go for one of the energy efficient dual-core intel chips - that's your best bang for buck imho.

[Embattle]

You can OC the Q9450 if you want, although it already has a higher TDP due to the 4 cores which is also why it appears to have more cache. As I've stated in the past, there isn't a need for quad core PCs when it comes to general use as only certain programs can take advantage of them.

The Extreme editions will never be cheap, they are a low volume chip for people with too much money

[Helme]

Go for a DualCore, cheaper and better for almost everything(video encoding is the big Quad thing, the rest the lower clock kinda makes it get outperformed).

Oh and I would personally get an E8400, it saves quite alot of cash and it clocks nicely, still your graphic card would probably give out before the CPU nowadays