Why don't you save up a little bit more and get a P55 based system instead since socket 775 is dead and intel no longer support that platform.
Socket 775 is not an unsupported platform. It isn't even discontinued.
PCSX (as well as most games) don't really benefit from Quad cores. If you are tight on cash, a "simple" core 2 duo 8600 will net you better performance for much less. Also, if you are running XP or 7, then 2GB is more than enough.
The E8600 is not a simple CPU in the way you're describing. What you're trying to go for is a good price for performance CPU. The E8600 is not that. It's overpriced (I think you can get some Core i7s and/or Core i5s for less). An E8400 or E8500 would be what you're looking for.
Core2 and socket 775 is a thing of the past. There will be a few more CPU additions to the platform, but otherwise it's at a virtual dead end.
Core i5 and the socket 1156 platform is more future proof because it's Intel's new platform. Raw performance-wise, i5 doesn't offer much more performance over Core2, though I would still go with i5 because it's future proof.
While this is sound advice in reason and theory, and while I do pretty much agree with it, I equally don't. "Futureproofing" is a joke with PCs.
This is just one example, but look at early quad core Core 2s. Everyone who bought those Q6x00 CPUs have something that will likely be too slow by time enough things that seriously needs them is out. During their time, they payed more for them than they would had for a faster, cheaper Core 2 Duo, and all the while had a slower (lower clocked) CPU, just to have two more cores that were barely ever used, especially in real world use to a good extent. Kind of funny.
Another example was the rage about the GeForce 9x00 GPUs being so fast and great, that when I built my PC, I put a GeForce 8600 GTS in as a stopgap rather than getting the GeForce 8800GT. That was a big mistake. The GeForce 9 series was a joke, and I had to get a GeForce 8800GT anyway (The GeForce 9 cards at first were alot more expensive but not much faster, save the 9800GX2 which I wasn't interested in).
There's more (some even in favor of waiting, such as when I delayed my build a month for Wolfdale), but I'm showing you a point that there exists another side to it.
Nobody knows what Intel will do with it's sockets, so the Core i5 may be no more future proof than to someone getting a decent Core 2 now. What if it's discontinued or relegated to the budget sector? What if the user wants to get a higher end CPU? Intel split the high and low with different sockets. Anything higher than what's out now probably won't be "that" much faster for that socket in the future (that's a long-winded guess obviously, but my point is, we don't know).
Most people don't upgrade CPUs too often. That may make you think future proofing is the way to go with them, but it's a gamble. You can buy smart to an extent, but I honestly think the best advice is
"get the most you can with your budget now". That is the key. There's
always more around the corner. Sandy Bridge is coming. What socket will it use? Due to newer chipsets needed for newer CPUs, you usually need a new motherboard anyway (unless it's of the direct previous generation, then a BIOS update may suffice). Don't bother trying to guess and play the infinite waiting game. Who care's how old/what stage it's in of it's life? It's price and performance are what matters. The Core 2, while nearing it's own end (I'm not arguing that point), is still plenty fast, and it fits the gap between AMD's cheaper CPUs and Intel's top dog Core i7/Core i5/Core i-whatever. There's still uses for it.
