ntel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6700 (2.66GHz) or Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad pro

Need help deciding.ntel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6700 (2.66GHz) or Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad pro
Same here, this is being asked across many boards atm.From what I gather everybody has a different opinion , heres a few variations:1) Quad Core is pointless because games wont use it before the TRUE quads are out1 Counter ) Penryn only has 4 more MB L Cache , its not a big increase over Qseries (but overclocks better, uses less watt), TRUE NATIVE doesnt come out until 2009. (Basically not worth the wait)2) EXX50 (2.6+) is better, because higher clock speed will be more important.2 Counter ) The difference between say 2.4 GHZ Quad and 3.0 GHZ is not that big - around 5-6-8-9-10 FPS difference in SINGLE THREADED %26 2-core only , Quad core will be more future proof for those games (which are coming Q4 and 2008) will have more optimization for Quad Cores)3) 2 Core higher clockspeed is better now for CURRENT games (which is true).3 Counter ) But most games now dont even need a Duo Core at all to max (Including STALKER) , Crysis only needs E6600 for Ultra High (Confirmed by Crytek CEO) so why have have higher speed Duo Core, whena Quad Core will already max CURRENT games anyway (But with slightly slower loading times).I dont know, some people thing ''Quad is for bragging rights, all flash no show'' or ''High clocked 2 Cores is just for GHZ whores''.Its all a gamble, personally I'm leaning towards Quad Core, I'm not an Frame-rate or Overclocker junkie, I jsut want some future proof hardware , I dont find Penryn (6 months off) worth the wait, I could get a Q6600 now , leave it at stock or slightly O/C it , and save that future penryn money towards the Nvidia 9800 series which would overall give a much bigger improvement in games.No doubt some people will correct me on this ... I dont mind, I cant predict the future , but logically 4 cores > 2 no matter how you look at it, also 8 MB Cache > 4 MB L Cachentel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6700 (2.66GHz) or Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad pro
Thanks for the input.
it depends if you're doing a lot of video and sound editing, photoshoping, endoding, decodingor otherapplication that utilizes quad core to get the task done faster. if you're only doing gaming and nothing else, just gete6600. but then again, the price difference between e6600 and q6600 is not that muchafterJuly.
[QUOTE=''SDxSnOOpZ'']it depends if you're doing a lot of video and sound editing, photoshoping, endoding, decodingor otherapplication that utilizes quad core to get the task done faster. if you're only doing gaming and nothing else, just gete6600. but then again, the price difference between e6600 and q6600 is not that muchafterJuly.[/QUOTE]Indeed, E6600 would definatly be enough for along while, but since there isnt a massive price gap I'm not so sure it would be a wise choice, I mean check this out: Lost Planet, a System hogging game, which makes some use of the Quad cores, already has a nice performance improvement even at stock speeds of Q6600 ... I mean whats stopping most future games that support it from following suit?