If his budget is that low, it would be stupid to spend that much money on a case. Top priority is always CPU + GPU (and cooling obviously, but any Antec case is good enough - and buy a fan for £10 for the CPU) I recommend you buy a Q6600 and clock it to 3.0 ghz (I clocked mine to 3.2 with a shit cooler, but still it stays less than 40 degrees)
I agree I made a mistake recommending that case. But I have to admit I was tired last night and proberbly wasn't thinking to clearly and no wonder I chose a case I knew off the top of my head. Just ignore the case recommendation please.
If you don't have enough money to get the Q6600 I suggest you wait. Buying the E8400 instead of Q6600 now is like buying a 8800GT instead of an ATI 4870.
Ok, just read this
Link to Tom's Hardware and I guess that they are pretty much the same, except that the Q6600 has a wider range of it's processing power, as it excels in the Video/Image editing area where the E8400 doesn't.
And Xyloxi why would you get a quad core "for the sake of getting a quadcore"? Nobody gets a quad core just because it's a quad core, and even though it's (only) 2..4 Ghz it has 4 cores, and as I already mentioned, this one is very easy to clock to a good stable 3.2 Ghz (at least) which will make your CPU as good and as worthy as a CPU for £400 (I take it you don't know a lot about PC's so that's why I compare in prices and not specifications)
I was just saying that KS gave no reason for picking the Q6600 over the E8400 other than "your getting a quad core." Anyways, both of the processer are easy to overclock, as it has been proven that the E8400 can go up to 4.4GHz without Water Cooling
here.
Also thanks for assuming that I don't understand the specifications and I can only relate to prices.
