# What to get Q9400 or E8400?



## sapetto (Dec 30, 2009)

OK i want to upgrade my CPU and i have a great deal on E8400 and Q9400 (both have the same price). So i was wondering which one to get - the Duo or the Quad, the 4 cores or the 2 cores? 
I will be using the CPU with my current system in the specs. I use my PC mainly for gaming and Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. And i will OC the CPU.
Oh and will the PSU be enough


----------



## scope54 (Dec 30, 2009)

i say get the quad and overclock it, i keep seeing more and more games using all four cores and getting a performance boost out of it.


----------



## dark2099 (Dec 30, 2009)

An upgrade at PSU couldn't hurt, and the Q9400 would help with any heavy processing that Photoshop or Illustrator would do, but games only need dual cores at most, so quad wouldn't give too much boost on that.


----------



## Fourstaff (Dec 30, 2009)

I would go for the quad. You probably shouldnt oc your proc to keep your psu happy though.


----------



## JackAttack (Dec 30, 2009)

I wish people would be more precise regarding some of the comments made. WHAT games use 4 cores?
I can't think of 1 that comes to mind.
I don't want to knock the quad...but really...what games?
I have a Duo Core e8400 and it is really fast. I can play America's Army 2.8.5 and 3.0, or COD MW2 maxed out with absolutely zero hesitation. 
I also have 2 other computers linked via router that play online games all at the same time, and I play music and IM while doing this.
No hesitation, no lag, just smooth sailing.
I love my Duo Core, it kicks butt!


----------



## Fishymachine (Dec 30, 2009)

JackAttack said:


> I wish people would be more precise regarding some of the comments made. WHAT games use 4 cores?
> I can't think of 1 that comes to mind.



GTA 4,Cryotasys,Alien vs Predator,i believe games on the dirt2 engine(grid 2+f1 09),maybe even crysis 2,just to name what spring into mind


----------



## CDdude55 (Dec 30, 2009)

Go with the quad, more and more games are utilizing multiple cores and it will give you a decent advantage over lesser core CPU's, but as stated that PSU isn't gonna give you much to any headroom for overclocking.


----------



## Kantastic (Dec 30, 2009)

You can't go wrong with more... more is always better!


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Dec 30, 2009)

JackAttack said:


> I wish people would be more precise regarding some of the comments made. WHAT games use 4 cores?
> I can't think of 1 that comes to mind.
> I don't want to knock the quad...but really...what games?
> I have a Duo Core e8400 and it is really fast. I can play America's Army 2.8.5 and 3.0, or COD MW2 maxed out with absolutely zero hesitation.
> ...



GTA 4, mutliple RPG games, and i garentee its already ganna be 2010 and quad cores are going to be a requirment for many games, or ill drop dead. I would say see if you can get a Q9450 why, because that 50 at the end add double the cache, inturn means that you will get the performance of a dual core, and all the current games, and future titles which frankly 75% of the market will be coverd in quad cores, and AMD will own most that 25% of dual cores by the mid 2010 right?. So expect game creators to use 4 cores because they can, also because acctualy consoles have 3 or more cores(xbox 360 and ps3) so it will be easier for them to port using all 4 cores, but it will be a resource hog. 

I say get the q9400 because most the market is being fluded with quads(and most the shit AMD sells can be and ussualy is being unlocked to a quad core). Watch games chug processor. Also a quad is nice if you have 2 cards, because dual cores horribly bottle neck a GTX 260 dual card setup or above i belive. Dual cores right now are great for every game, but there going out of door fast and really soon. REALLY SOON. The low end in the market is going to be the dual cores, Intels i3 launches, and whatever AMD decides on keeping on the market next year.


----------



## ERazer (Dec 30, 2009)

quad for Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, and u can crunch with it


----------



## sapetto (Dec 31, 2009)

Thanks for the help all, now i going to get me a Quad


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 31, 2009)

Get your self a new PSU before you get a firey case when your PSU fries its self due to being total trash.


PSU first, Quad after.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Dec 31, 2009)

aCid888* said:


> Get your self a new PSU before you get a firey case when your PSU fries its self due to being total trash.
> 
> 
> PSU first, Quad after.



i agree get a new psu,i would get the corsair 550w psu which will be perfect for your rig.


----------



## sapetto (Dec 31, 2009)

My two Corsair sticks are these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184 so i guess i will be able OC the CPU only at 3200Ghz, 8x400.  On the other hand according to the PSU calculator site my E2180 is more wattage hungry than a 3200ghz Q9400 (146w for the E2180 and 134w for the Q9400). Can i trust the PSU calculator ?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Dec 31, 2009)

sapetto said:


> My two Corsair sticks are these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184 so i guess i will be able OC the CPU only at 3200Ghz, 8x400.



You are aware you can OC RAM also? This was done using DDR2 800 Crucail Ballitix RAM http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=645110


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Dec 31, 2009)

In my country, the Q9400 is more expensive than a Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.4GHz, and it costs the same as an Ahtlon II X4 620 + 785G board. 

I'm completely against people spending more money on the almost-dead and overpriced LGA 775.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Dec 31, 2009)

> I'm completely against people spending more money on the almost-dead and overpriced LGA 775.



I'll agree with you when 775 doesn't have enough CPU power to handle any game or application on the market today. Which judging by how my 9650 performs, will be 2 or more years from now.


----------



## Sensi Karate (Dec 31, 2009)

I have a E8400 and am going to stick with it until I get an i7 or i5 down the line. I only use GIMP as a signature making program and mostly play games so I'm fine with the E8400. Also most games are only utilizing the dual core setup and even if it can use a quad core, I'm not going to upgrade to a Quad LGA775 just because of a marginal increase. For your case its understandable and a Quad would be the way to go if your not thinking of upgrading to the i7 or i5 later on, but I'll sit it out a few more months and get something that will increase my performance much more.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2009)

I say go with the quad, which is sounds like you already have.  When you overclock it, you probably won't get it to the 4.0GHz that the E8400 will hit, but you don't need 4.0GHz.  Remember, a quad is also a dual, and if you hit 3.6GHz(which shouldn't be a stretch for you motherboard), then you have a dual-core at 3.6GHz also, but with two extra cores.  And really there isn't a game out that can't be maxed out on a 3.6GHz quad core.  Hell, really there isn't a game out there that can't be maxed out on my 3.0Ghz X3220 quad, the GTX260 tends to max out way before the CPU does.  And the quad will help a lot more in Photoshop and Illustrator.



ToTTenTranz said:


> In my country, the Q9400 is more expensive than a Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.4GHz, and it costs the same as an Ahtlon II X4 620 + 785G board.
> 
> I'm completely against people spending more money on the almost-dead and overpriced LGA 775.



Several problems with your statement.

1.) The 965BE might be cheaper for just the processor.  However, once you factor in the extra for the board, and DDR3 RAM it becomes a lot more expensive.

2.) It might be the same price for the 620 + 785G board.  However, the Q9400 hands the 620 its ass on a silver platter with all the trimmings, in games and everything else.  We are talking 15+FPS difference in games where the FPS actually matters(games that tend to get under 60FPS very easily, FarCry 2 for example).  Also, the Q9400 would easily overclock better in his P5Q-E than the 620 would in a cheap 785G board.  Just to give an idea, both star at roughly 2.6GHz, but even on the best AM3 overclocking boards, the 620 only tends to managed 3.2-3.4GHz, and I doubt 3.0GHz would happen on a cheap 785G board that comes in the combo.  On the other hand 3.2GHz on a P45 P5Q-E is nothing for the Q9400, in fact 3.6GHz shouldn't be a stretch with some tweaking as most P45 boards easily do 450FSB.  And remember, clock for clock, the Q9400 already outperforms the 620, but given the fact that it would overclock higher, it really outperforms the 620 then.  Plus, again, the extra cost of DDR3 means going this route is more expensive also.

3.) You can make the arguement that you don't need to go with DDR3, you can stick with DDR2 and AM2+.  Well in that case, if you go with option 1, it is still more expensive, a lot more expensive when you consider a good motherboard.  If you go with option 2, I'll give you that it would be the same price, granted less performance, but the same price...  BUT, you are still stuck with a platform that is just as "almost-dead" as LGA775, as everything is pointing to the next round of AMD processor not supporting DDR2, and hence not supporting AM2+.

So really, in your "go AMD" logic.  He either has to pay more for more performance, pay more for less performance, or pay the same for less performance and be stuck in the same "almost-dead" situation.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Dec 31, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I'll agree with you when 775 doesn't have enough CPU power to handle any game or application on the market today. Which judging by how my 9650 performs, will be 2 or more years from now.



My opinion has nothing to do with CPU power.

1 - A quad-core LGA 775 costs as much as a similar-performance quad-core AM2/AM3 + medium range motherboard. 

2 - The LGA 775 is dead, no more CPUs are being launched, no more motherboards, upgradeability is zero.

3 - The medium range AM2/AM3 motherboard will support the future 6-cores from AMD. Upgradeability and longevity is guaranteed for at least a year and a half.



Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense at all to spend money on new high-end LGA 775 CPUs, when the same amount could be spent in an upgradeable AMD system with the same performance.



The stupid thing is, Intel is charging a premium price for EOL and underperforming CPUs, and some people are still buying those.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 31, 2009)

get a quad, my quad is underclocked and undervolted and its way too much proc for me


----------



## assaulter_99 (Dec 31, 2009)

If I were you, i'd keep the cash for a couple more months, then get an i5 or i7 build. I was gonna upgrade my cpu too, but felt that for the time being it aint worth it, especially on 775 (was thinking bout a q9***) but i'll just keep my cpu till i really need more firepower.


----------



## CDdude55 (Dec 31, 2009)

ToTTenTranz said:


> My opinion has nothing to do with CPU power.
> 
> 1 - A quad-core LGA 775 costs as much as a similar-performance quad-core AM2/AM3 + medium range motherboard.
> 
> ...




Actually it does have to do with what you need the computer for, just because an older socket isn't the newest or have much to any new CPUs coming for it, doesn't mean no one should still be using that platform. For a gaming system the LGA 775 platform is still doing very well, the Phenom II's are barely an upgrade over them in terms of power. The AM2/AM3 socket is more flexible, but future proofing is pointless in the world of technology.


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Dec 31, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Several problems with your statement.
> 
> 1.) The 965BE might be cheaper for just the processor.  However, once you factor in the extra for the board, and DDR3 RAM it becomes a lot more expensive.



Who mentioned DDR3?? There are as many 785G DDR2 boards as there are DDR3 ones, and they cost the same.

Of course, he would keep the same memory.



newtekie1 said:


> 2.) It might be the same price for the 620 + 785G board.  However, the Q9400 hands the 620 its ass on a silver platter with all the trimmings, in games and everything else.  We are talking 15+FPS difference in games where the FPS actually matters(games that tend to get under 60FPS very easily, FarCry 2 for example).


Far Cry 2, you say?





Unless he's playing @1024*768, everything is just graphics limited. The core *i5* gets a 9 fps advantage (62fps for 620, 71fps for i5).
And The Q9400 is a lot slower than the Phenom II 945 @3.1 GHz, which only has an 8fps advantage over the Athlon II X4 620.




newtekie1 said:


> Also, the Q9400 would easily overclock better in his P5Q-E than the 620 would in a cheap 785G board.  Plus, again, the extra cost of DDR3 means going this route is more expensive also, and in the end gives worse performance.
> (...)
> 3.)  You can make the arguement that you don't need to go with DDR3, you can stick with DDR2 and AM2+.  Well in that case, if you go with option 1, it is still more expensive, a lot more expensive when you consider a good motherboard.



Any, and I mean *any* 785G motherboard will overclock the Athlon II 620 to over 3.3GHz.

I overclocked my 620 in my HTPC to 3.3GHz in an Asrock 780G, with old-as-hell DDR2 533MHz memory sticks (in a non-officially supported 2*1GB + 2*512MB configuration) -> with the default bios. 





newtekie1 said:


> If you go with option 2, I'll give you that it would be the same price, granted less performance, but the same price...  BUT, you are still stuck with a platform that is just as "almost-dead" as LGA775, as everything is pointing to the next round of AMD processor not supporting DDR2, and hence not supporting AM2+.



Everything is pointing to what??

Here, straight from AMD:



MaximumPC]Eat that Gulftown: AMD officials have not only confirmed that it will release a hexa-core processor next year – but it will be backwards compatible with existing AM3 and [B]AM2+ motherboards.[/B][/QUOTE]

You think I'd be wrong about the first step in my whole point?




[QUOTE=CDdude55 said:


> Actually it does have to do with what you need the computer for, just because an older socket isn't the newest or have much to any new CPUs coming for it, doesn't mean no one should still be using that platform. For a gaming system the LGA 775 platform is still doing very well, the Phenom II's are barely an upgrade over them in terms of power. The AM2/AM3 socket is more flexible, but future proofing is pointless in the world of technology.



"*Future proofing is pointless in the world of technology.*"? 
Only if you don't upgrade at all and just buy a whole new system every 4 years or so. Otherwise, that statement makes no sense at all. 
I'm actually kind of shocked to see a statement like that in a forum like TPU.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2009)

ToTTenTranz said:


> Who mentioned DDR3?? There are as many 785G DDR2 boards as there are DDR3 ones, and they cost the same.
> 
> Of course, he would keep the same memory.



Correct, but the AM2+/DDR2 platform is just as "almost-dead" as the 775 platform that he already has, so it makes no sense to move to AM2+ from 775.  As I already pointed out.




ToTTenTranz said:


> Far Cry 2, you say?
> 
> [url]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1548/gaming03.png[/URL]
> 
> ...



Yeah, I guess you can look at benchmarks that don't even have the Q9400 listed...

Or we could look at a direct comparision between the two processor:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=106&p2=76

Funny how the 620 doesn't top the Q9400 in a single test...

If you don't like Anandtech, look at the 620 review here, it doesn't have a Q9400 in it, but it does have a Q*82*00, which manages to pretty much match the 620 despite being clocked 300Mhz lower and having 2MB less cache than the Q9400...

So again, going with the 620 combo, same price...worse performance...still an almost-dead platform...

Going with the Intel upgrade wouldn't exactly be paying more for less here would it?



ToTTenTranz said:


> Any, and I mean *any* 785G motherboard will overclock the Athlon II 620 to over 3.3GHz.
> 
> I overclocked my 620 in my HTPC to 3.3GHz in an Asrock 780G, with old-as-hell DDR2 533MHz memory sticks (in a non-officially supported 2*1GB + 2*512MB configuration) -> with the default bios.



Not likely.  Even the review here shows the 620 only managing 3.6GHz on a 790FX board, one of the best overclocking boards for AM3 processor out there actually.  On the same token, I've seen a good 790X only manage 3.1GHz.

So, sorry, but a cheap bundled 785G board is not likely to hit anything higher than 3.2GHz.  It might happen, but it isn't likely.



ToTTenTranz said:


> Everything is pointing to what??
> 
> Here, straight from AMD:



Did you even read the article?

No where does AMD actually say AM2+ will be support.  In fact the only part that even hints at it that actually comes from AMD is: 





> "We are all about platform longevity and long-lived upgrade paths"



The articles auther seems to have taken it upon himself to assume that means AM2+ will be support, but I don't see anything offical from AMD.  I would think, if they had actually made a direct statement as such, we would see something like "Our Haxa-Core processor will not only support AM3, with an integrated DDR3 memory controller, but also support AM2+ with an integrated DDR2 memory controller".  Instead we get an indirect "We are all about platform longevity and long-lived upgrade paths"...

Plus, a littl further in the article, we see mention that the new processor will have an integrated DDR3 memory controller...with no mention of an DDR2 controller...thats odd, I would expect, while they were on the topic of memory controllers and mentioning what the processor will have, they would actually mention a DDR2 memory controller if it had one...

Oh, and of course there is the little blurb about it being a deriviative of the sic-core opteron release already...which lacks a DDR2 memory controller...



ToTTenTranz said:


> You think I'd be wrong about the first step in my whole point?



Yes.

You seem to have made an assumption, or believed the assumptions of others.  Personally, I don't assume anything based on very vague statements, I wait until it is made official.

However, I will say that the desktop market tends to shadow the server market, and AMD has already dumped DDR2 on the server side, so it isn't a bad assumption to assume that AM2+ won't be supported much longer.  Even if, and that is a big if, it is supported with the next six-core chips, it likely won't be support after those...

Basically, your whole argument is to do a platform change, for the same amount of money, which would yield worse performance at stock, and worse performance overclocked, simple because there is a very slight chance that AM2+ might see six-core processors, which the OP will probably never need considering he is still looking at a dual-core as a possibility...  Again, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  Face it, AM2+ is pretty close to being dead, it might be ever so slightly less "almost-dead" as 775, but it ain't too far behind.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 31, 2009)

Simple answer: Get the quad, more threads are always a plus.


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 31, 2009)

As I said before, get a new PSU before you bother upgrading anything else.

Chieftec 450W.....if it even stays alive long enough to put out close to 450w I would trust it as the ripple will be stupid. :shadedshu


----------



## francis511 (Jan 1, 2010)

For games like gta 4 and last remnant , a dual core just isn`t enough. But i5 or phenom II are the obvious ways to upgrade to quad.


----------



## JackAttack (Jan 2, 2010)

francis511 said:


> For games like gta 4 and last remnant , a dual core just isn`t enough. But i5 or phenom II are the obvious ways to upgrade to quad.



What a statement. "Just isn't enough"...lol) Where do you get your information from?
I just got GTA4 last night and it plays flawlessly on my rig. I have MORE than enough power to play that game (which is a childish game anyways, stinks so bad I gave it to my kid)
Yea...I'm overclocked, thats the benefit of the e8400.
I don't see the reason to go to quad when the software of today doesn't require it.

Heres COD Multiplayer maxed out because the game is capped at 91 fps max






Heres COD MW2 Singleplayer


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 2, 2010)

JackAttack said:


> What a statement. "Just isn't enough"...lol) Where do you get your information from?
> I just got GTA4 last night and it plays flawlessly on my rig. I have MORE than enough power to play that game (which is a childish game anyways, stinks so bad I gave it to my kid)
> Yea...I'm overclocked, thats the benefit of the e8400.
> I don't see the reason to go to quad when the software of today doesn't require it.
> ...



When you start to jack the settings up in GTA4, a quad definitely becomes necessary, especially if you leave the instant replay feature enabled(forgot what it is actually called since I haven't played the game in so long).  However, the game is definitely playable and enjoyable on a dual-core for sure, and still looks amazing, the insane settings that GTA4 allows are...well insane.  They really go beyond what is necessary.  The developers pretty much just unlocked the highest settings the engine is capable of, just as a sort of "hey, look at what it can do" sort of thing.  While most game developers cap the max settings far lower than what the engine is actually capable of to make sure that the highest settings are playable on mid-range rigs.

I find that dual-core owners really like to defend the dual-core processor.  And they tend to use a lot of false logic to do it.  Yes, the E8400 can overclock, but so can the Q9400.  Now, the Q9400 tends to hit slighly lower speeds, due to the lower multipler mostly, but 3.6GHz isn't a stretch on the OP's P45 board.

Most dual-core owners like to talk about how there isn't anything currently out today that they can't max out.  And while that might be true, there are already games that come very close. So what happens in a year?  Is the dual-core still going to be enough to max out games?  No.  It is barely enough now.  So why not go with a quad?  If you are making an upgrade, there really is no good reason not to go with a quad, short of price, which doesn't apply here since the E8400 and Q9400 are the same price.  The Q9400@3.6GHz will last a lot longer than the E8400@4.0GHz.  Really, there isn't anything on the market today that can't be maxed out with even a 3.6GHz dual, which the Q9400 is and then some.  The games that will need the extra power in the future, will also be games that benefit from 4+ cores...

And as for the screenshots, COD4 and MW2 aren't really CPU intense games to start out with.  On top of that, the single player one is in the training part of the game, where there are no computer generated players/enemies.  Once you start to add those in, the CPU usage goes up.  In your screenshots, the CPU is likely going mostly idle.  Multi-player has not computer controlled enemies, and neither does the training section of the singleplayer.  However, games like GTA4, with hundreds of computer controlled people and computer controlled cars, and physics with detailed destructable cars tend to really eat up the CPU.


----------



## JackAttack (Jan 2, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> And as for the screenshots, COD4 and MW2 aren't really CPU intense games to start out with.  On top of that, the single player one is in the training part of the game, where there are no computer generated players/enemies.  Once you start to add those in, the CPU usage goes up.  In your screenshots, the CPU is likely going mostly idle.  Multi-player has not computer controlled enemies, and neither does the training section of the singleplayer.  However, games like GTA4, with hundreds of computer controlled people and computer controlled cars, and physics with detailed destructable cars tend to really eat up the CPU.



Most likely going idle? LOL, ok then

I think not...heres a different single player shot "IN ACTION" as you suggested. How's that.
Hmmm...the "future".
And when the time comes that a Dual Core doesn't keep up, I'll just go to an i7. For less than a thousand dollars I can get one up and running...chicken feed.
I just can't see wasting the money now when it's not necessary. Especially on a Socket 775 processor.
In his case though, the prices are the same, so it's a moot point. Hey, buy the Quad if you think thats faster. I don't think so.


----------



## Fishymachine (Jan 3, 2010)

so you don't think that people created a game that's severely bottlenecked by a dual core(unless it's cooler by LN2) and more importantly that they won't continue doing that in the next couple of months...by they way did you also defended FX when 8800GTX and Crysis just ruler out?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 3, 2010)

JackAttack said:


> Most likely going idle? LOL, ok then
> 
> I think not...heres a different single player shot "IN ACTION" as you suggested. How's that.
> Hmmm...the "future".
> ...



Actually, the CPU is still probably going quite idle in the shot, or any COD shot you can show.  Why?  Because FPSers don't tend to use the CPU all that much, the exception being ones that have extremely high levels of physic.

The games that do need the power, will use the Quad, and it will be faster.  The games that still play maxed out on a dual will play maxed out on a slower clocked quad.

You want something to really show something, how about the CPU usage while I was playing Prototype:






It is nearly maxing out all 4 cores.  A dual-core, even at 4.0GHz, would not handle Prototype at max settings like my quad is capable of.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 3, 2010)

id get the quad. 775 doesnt matter. lets face facts. most 775 procs even when not OC'd can match or beat their amd counterparts. quad allows for better upgrade paths graphics wise. etc. i dont see 775 as dead as of yet. i see i5 and i7 as entusiest builds were as 775 is highend and can easily hold demand. Now i strongly disagree with the dual core statment. from my 6400 (3.9Ghz) 2x E7200's (4.5Ghz) my old brisbane x2 (3.0ghz) my 6400+ x2 3.2Ghz compaired to 2x Q6600's some amd quad to my i7 that more cores always helps. in games and other things. the desktop might not feel more snappy but everything else does. What do i honestly think? the people that are complaining are butt hurt because they are still running dual cores and athey are getting tired of seeing threads that say omg dual core is uber old upgrade the more the merrier and its needed. at which point their cliche response is omething like "no its not their are like 0 multi threaded apps and all my games run fine please disregard my chip had to be at 5ghz under ln2 with 4 295's to make it happen though" "and ya thats why i think dual core is te roxors because with no AA and medium detail at 1440x900 my mw2 rockz and i beat all the 14 yr/o's online. kthnx" -dual core fanboi.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2010)

sapetto said:


> OK i want to upgrade my CPU and i have a great deal on E8400 and Q9400 (both have the same price). So i was wondering which one to get - the Duo or the Quad, the 4 cores or the 2 cores?
> I will be using the CPU with my current system in the specs. I use my PC mainly for gaming and Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. And i will OC the CPU.
> Oh and will the PSU be enough



Having owened both, of the two I would recommend the E8400, it overclocks like a dream you can reach 3.8 - 4 GHZ with little effort and offten on 1.3625 voltage, the advantage of quad core is only atainable with multi threaded apps , and most games and regular programs only use 2 cores if they are multi threaded. If you use Photoshop, Illistrator, Maya, ect. You may be slightly better served with the quad core, but an E 8400 at 4 GHZ will easily slap the quad core around. As for over clocking the Q9400 it was temprimental in my experience. Also I had a hell of a time getting it past 3.3 GHZ and having it be stable if you really want to go quad core, I recomend just spending the extra money and grabbing a Q9550 or Q9650, the Q9550 carrys double the L2 cash, and costs only about 60 dollars more, and I have been able to push my Q 9650 to a rock solid 4.1 GHZ, and the difference between a Q9550 and Q9650 is rather minimal.
I would also for sure replace the PSU, with a more reputable brand preferably. Antec, Corsair, Cooler Master, Silverstone, Theramltake, Zalaman are all brads I highly recommend. Brands such as BFG, Gigabyte, Kingwin, OCZ, Rosewill, XFX, though make tempting offerings, I would recomend you stay far away from them. 

A couple of good all around PSU's from a good reliable manufacturers I can recomend are:
CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005
Thermaltake Purepower W0100RU 500W  : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153052
SILVERSTONE ST56F 560W ATX  : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817163112
COOLER MASTER eXtreme Power Plus RS-500 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171031

Hope this is helpfull with your upgrades.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 4, 2010)

That's some good info!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's some good info!



I see you have an E 8400 if your interested in going past 3.6 GHZ check out this.


----------

