are they worth the money?

yes but only at 2.2 ghz or higher

This was the one I was planning on getting; Intel® Viiv™ Core™ 2 Quad-Core Q6600 Processor (2.4GHz, 8MB cache, 1066MHz FSB)
sounds good enough, think al but it 2moro

I'll probably be looking into an Q6600 on my next build. They aren't that much more expensive than the top notch Core Duo's, so why not spread the load across for 4 cores instead of 2?

__________________

Why not a dual Xeon?

I dont really care about quad or duo anymore. They are just as good, it only benefits on what you are doing. Sure both are fast and good for encoding movies, music, gaming. But rendering, parsing, it kinda sucks. Dont focus to much on the cpu, video card, ram, are key parts too.

__________________
Xbox 360 - 2 Games - 2 Controllers - 120GB Elite - Dead
PS3 - 23 BD Games - 13 PSN Games - 9 Controllers - 320GB - Alive
Wii - 6 Games - 4 Wiimotes - Alive
PC - Overkill - God like :]

Gaming Generations | XnogarD Production - Soon!!!

I might actually go with an AMD phenom quad core for my next build after doing some research (not in depth I might add)

But it seems to me that AMD have one up on intel at the moment by ditching the outdated FSB concept in favour of a faster system... I might give it a try anyway, by the time I want to build another system (6-12 months away) then they should have sorted out the problems with the level 3 cache on the phenom CPUs hopefully

__________________

amd phenoms are currently slower than their intel counterparts, but more stable, and run at less heat, using less power
i still recomend them, i've had 3 C2D cpu's, and all 3 have died on me for various reasons..

__________________
http://xsgfx.com/images/jdv1198464634p.jpg
thanks to .:MAG:.