advice on cpu for gaming pc build

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
The bottom line is, in my opinion: Any E8400 owner should only worry about upgrading their GPU in the next 3 years or so.

The E8400 will take care of all your gaming needs when it comes to CPU power.

well Im 90% sure that the E840 is what I am going with there are cases where the quads do make sense for gaming. in games like Far Cry 2 when you are using a 4870X2 or running gtx280 in SLI having a quad can make a huge difference. the reason is that you get to a point where cant oc the dual core any more and therefore the extra cores will help. of course I wont be running anything like that but within 2 or 3 years more mainstream cards will have that kind of performance. I mean look how silly dual 6800gt cards are even compared to a 9800gt.

in my situation where I will be running probably no better than the equivalent of a single gtx280 for the next 12 to 18 I should be just fine. for longer term use and/or a higher graphics card setup the quad would be the better choice.

E8400 + Top-of-the-line GPU = Gaming bliss for many years to come. Don't forget that GPUs tend to show their age much earlier than CPUs. That's why I'm advocating that ANY decent Duo paired with any powerful GPU will be all you need to feel and indeed BE a gamer.

I agree with you for the most part but like I said if gaming on the very high end is your priority then the quad is the better investment.

 

[Tempered81]

I'd take a q9650 or qx9650 over an E8400 if all 3 were the same price. Probably take an E8600 over all of them, though.

Economically, E8400 makes sense, so does an E8500. Hopefully you get an E0.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I'd take a q9650 or qx9650 over an E8400 if all 3 were the same price. Probably take an E8600 over all of them, though.

Economically, E8400 makes sense, so does an E8500. Hopefully you get an E0.

At first I thought of getting the E8600... but yeah, the E8400 is just perfect and cheaper. Plus, it overclocks to E8600 speeds like it's child's play Of course on the higher OC the E8600 will have an advantage of 300mhz more or less. Let's I can OC my 8400 to 4.3ghz... you can probably take an E8600 to 4.6+ghz.

And to Toyota: Yes, I agree that Quads will be better in the long run, but that does not mean a good Duo won't do the job as well. They will man!

Like I said, any owner of a decent Dual core CPU doesn't even have to worry about getting another CPU until like 2011 or so

 

[Munky]

By 2011 you will probably upgrade your cpu regardless of what you buy today. If you only upgrade once every 3-4 years then a quad is obviously a better investment, but even a qx9750 will be no better in 2011 than a AMD 5000 x2 is today.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Originally posted by: munky
By 2011 you will probably upgrade your cpu regardless of what you buy today. If you only upgrade once every 3-4 years then a quad is obviously a better investment, but even a qx9750 will be no better in 2011 than a AMD 5000 x2 is today.

If anything, the only thing holding back the AMD 5000 X2 is its tiny cache. 512kb x 2 (1mb total).

Still, that CPU will most likely keep up with gaming needs throughout 2009. So I don't see any reason why an E8x00 or even an older E6x00 won't last twice as long... if not more, for games.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: munky
By 2011 you will probably upgrade your cpu regardless of what you buy today. If you only upgrade once every 3-4 years then a quad is obviously a better investment, but even a qx9750 will be no better in 2011 than a AMD 5000 x2 is today.

thats sort of how I am looking at. it just seems to make more sense to build a brand new pc for 800-900 bucks every 18-24 months then it does to stick more money in it for little to no return. although if I had other needs besides gaming and porn surfing then then the quad would be worth the extra money.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer

Originally posted by: munky
By 2011 you will probably upgrade your cpu regardless of what you buy today. If you only upgrade once every 3-4 years then a quad is obviously a better investment, but even a qx9750 will be no better in 2011 than a AMD 5000 x2 is today.

If anything, the only thing holding back the AMD 5000 X2 is its tiny cache. 512kb x 2 (1mb total).

Still, that CPU will most likely keep up with gaming needs throughout 2009. So I don't see any reason why an E8x00 or even an older E6x00 won't last twice as long... if not more, for games.

the 5000X2 is a dog for current gaming. it severely hampers even a 4670 and will make having a high end card almost a complete waste. I know this for a fact and thats the whole reason for me wanting a new pc.

 

[Nightsilencer]

"the 5000X2 is a dog for current gaming. it severely hampers even a 4670 and will make having a high end card almost a complete waste. I know this for a fact and thats the whole reason for me wanting a new pc."

Are you sure about that? My bro still keeps his AMD 5200 X2 + 8800gt and he even got higher FPS than I did in crysis... and basically any game... Well, I have a crappy 8600 GT DDR2... but still, I assure you, that PC of his still runs anything and he plans to keep it for a long time still.

There's just no game that doesn't run decently on his PC.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
"the 5000X2 is a dog for current gaming. it severely hampers even a 4670 and will make having a high end card almost a complete waste. I know this for a fact and thats the whole reason for me wanting a new pc."

Are you sure about that? My bro still keeps his AMD 5200 X2 + 8800gt and he even got higher FPS than I did in crysis... and basically any game... Well, I have a crappy 8600 GT DDR2... but still, I assure you, that PC of his still runs anything and he plans to keep it for a long time still.

There's just no game that doesn't run decently on his PC.

yes I am sure. at 1280x1024 and highest playable settings in games I got 30% or better performance out of using my 4670 with Q9300. I have also used a 9600gt and 8800gt in my system and it doesnt help the minimum framerates. in fact in most cases the 8600gt that I originally had even got the same minimum framrates. the 8800gt offered no more performance at 1280 than the 9600gt. the 5000 X2 sucks and even a 1.8 -2.0 Core 2 due will beat it in most games.

take a look at how bad the 5000 X2 holds a 4870 back in Far Cry 2. http://www.pcgameshardware.com...CPU_benchmarks/?page=2

look how bad it hold a gtx280 back in Crysis. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

and those were at real high graphics levels and resolutions that people play at not even cpu bound. anybody that thinks a 5000 X2 is decent for gaming especially with a high end card doesnt know what they are missing out on.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Well, yeah looks like your CPU is kinda bad for games. But as you can see, the E8400 is right behind the top Quad core So that says a lot about it! Do you believe me now when I say that a decent dual core will keep you gaming happily for a long time?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
Yes, I know that. But I'm actually glad you mentioned that because this is a very different case. The oldest X2's and Pentium D's already had SMALL amounts of cache even for games back in the day.

Now, these top Duos of today were clearly made to be able to handle anything you throw at them for a long time. Especially the E8x00 family of CPUs. 6MB cache, SSE4.1, 3GHZ (a very good stock speed) and the list of features goes on... but I think you must admit it's hard for these top Duos to be out of juice for games in 2 years.

Maybe the lower ones like E2180 or E2200 will stuggle by then... but even then are highly overclockable... which might make them stand their own for a bit longer than that.

And yes, while I agree that any Duo will not be top of the line in 3 years, my point is that they won't suck at games either. Not with these specs.

CPU cache is not the be-all end-all you seem to think it is. Large amounts of cache are only useful if the CPU architecture is designed to exploit it. That's one of the reasons why some Pentium D's with 2x as much cache as an AMD X2 were still inferior in gaming scenarios.

And as I stated previously, E6x00 C2D's are already beginning to struggle with some games with advanced physics, AI, and large resolutions. Folks with AMD X2's (such as myself) and E2x00 and similar CPU's are in even worse shape.

There's a HUGE difference between "kick ass" and "won't suck". You've been stating that E8x00 will "kick ass" in games for the next 2-3 years. This will not be the case. If you say that E8x00 "won't suck" for games for the next 2-3 years, then I would agree with you.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
Yes, I know that. But I'm actually glad you mentioned that because this is a very different case. The oldest X2's and Pentium D's already had SMALL amounts of cache even for games back in the day.

Now, these top Duos of today were clearly made to be able to handle anything you throw at them for a long time. Especially the E8x00 family of CPUs. 6MB cache, SSE4.1, 3GHZ (a very good stock speed) and the list of features goes on... but I think you must admit it's hard for these top Duos to be out of juice for games in 2 years.

Maybe the lower ones like E2180 or E2200 will stuggle by then... but even then are highly overclockable... which might make them stand their own for a bit longer than that.

And yes, while I agree that any Duo will not be top of the line in 3 years, my point is that they won't suck at games either. Not with these specs.

CPU cache is not the be-all end-all you seem to think it is. Large amounts of cache are only useful if the CPU architecture is designed to exploit it. That's one of the reasons why some Pentium D's with 2x as much cache as an AMD X2 were still inferior in gaming scenarios.

And as I stated previously, E6x00 C2D's are already beginning to struggle with some games with advanced physics, AI, and large resolutions. Folks with AMD X2's (such as myself) and E2x00 and similar CPU's are in even worse shape.

There's a HUGE difference between "kick ass" and "won't suck". You've been stating that E8x00 will "kick ass" in games for the next 2-3 years. This will not be the case. If you say that E8x00 "won't suck" for games for the next 2-3 years, then I would agree with you.

Well, if when the timeline I used as an example comes (2008 to 2011) we see current C2D "not sucking" in games, I think it's a pretty big statement for these CPUs. You seem to be more knowledgeable about CPU's than I am (i'm by no means an expert, i'm not even in the Tech field - just an informed user) so I am asking you this: aren't the current C2D able to exploit the cache they were given? Aren't they a huge improvement over the netburst architecture? Not to mention they wipe the floor with AMD X2's... so while we are talking of Dual core CPU's all the way through, we must make a distinction between them... and it seems to me that the current 45nm C2D are ready to take future gaming by the horns.

And don't forget that I am not saying that C2D will still be all the rage in 3 years... I know they won't, and when I say they will "kick ass" by then, all I meant to say is that they will still be up to the job.

What are your thoughts?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
How many of you dual core users have experienced running games on a quad core?

I use to have a Q9300 & I would prefer to be running my games on a quad core. As you can see in my sig, I am currently building another quad core based around the DDR3 I used on the Q9300 system. I played games like COD4 & Unreal Tournament 3. Refer to 1st sentence 2nd paragraph.

well I will just repeat what I aid earlier..... I have been looking at benchmarks all day long. at the settings most people use a quad core will be slightly faster clock for clock in only 2 or 3 games. that difference can be made up with just a slightly higher cpu speed on the dual core. in other words I should get the same performance out of a stock E8400 as I would a Q9550.

Far Cry 2 is probably the most muti threaded game out there and yes even at real world gameplay settings a quad core will beat a dual clock for clock. but the higher clocked dual core cpus will keep up. that means either way you are going to end up with the same performance. at stock speeds the E8400 will deliver 95% of the gaming performance as the Q9550 for only half the price.

then you will never know the difference, enjoy :roll:

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
Well, if when the timeline I used as an example comes (2008 to 2011) we see current C2D "not sucking" in games, I think it's a pretty big statement for these CPUs. You seem to be more knowledgeable about CPU's than I am (i'm by no means an expert, i'm not even in the Tech field - just an informed user) so I am asking you this: aren't the current C2D able to exploit the cache they were given? Aren't they a huge improvement over the netburst architecture? Not to mention they wipe the floor with AMD X2's... so while we are talking of Dual core CPU's all the way through, we must make a distinction between them... and it seems to me that the current 45nm C2D are ready to take future gaming by the horns.

And don't forget that I am not saying that C2D will still be all the rage in 3 years... I know they won't, and when I say they will "kick ass" by then, all I meant to say is that they will still be up to the job.

What are your thoughts?

I'm no expert, just been around a long time

Yes, C2D effectively utilizes larger amounts of cache than previous CPU's. However, there is certainly a law of diminishing returns. For example, if you take an E7200 CPU, which has 3mb cache, and clock it at 3 ghz and compare it to an E8400, which has 6mb cache, the E8400 is only a few percentage points ahead in games.

The reason that C2D "wipe(s) the floor" with X2 and Netburst is... C2D architecture is vastly superior. You could run all 3 architectures at the same speed with the same amount of cache, and 90% of the time the C2D would win out pretty easily.

I'm not trying to state in any way that dual-core is not "up to the job". It is. In fact, my X2 4100+ is overclocked to 3 Ghz, my 8800gt is oc'd by about 19%, and I can play FC2 @ 1680x1050 with most settings on "very high", a couple on "high", and no AA. I'm hardly a hard-core gamer, so that performance in sufficient for me.

there are situations where quad-core can be very beneficial. Encoding and engineering programs can really benefit from quad-core. Multitasking can benefit a bunch. The main problem becomes the relatively lousy I/O performance of hard drives.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Nightsilencer
Well, if when the timeline I used as an example comes (2008 to 2011) we see current C2D "not sucking" in games, I think it's a pretty big statement for these CPUs. You seem to be more knowledgeable about CPU's than I am (i'm by no means an expert, i'm not even in the Tech field - just an informed user) so I am asking you this: aren't the current C2D able to exploit the cache they were given? Aren't they a huge improvement over the netburst architecture? Not to mention they wipe the floor with AMD X2's... so while we are talking of Dual core CPU's all the way through, we must make a distinction between them... and it seems to me that the current 45nm C2D are ready to take future gaming by the horns.

And don't forget that I am not saying that C2D will still be all the rage in 3 years... I know they won't, and when I say they will "kick ass" by then, all I meant to say is that they will still be up to the job.

What are your thoughts?

I'm no expert, just been around a long time

Yes, C2D effectively utilizes larger amounts of cache than previous CPU's. However, there is certainly a law of diminishing returns. For example, if you take an E7200 CPU, which has 3mb cache, and clock it at 3 ghz and compare it to an E8400, which has 6mb cache, the E8400 is only a few percentage points ahead in games.

The reason that C2D "wipe(s) the floor" with X2 and Netburst is... C2D architecture is vastly superior. You could run all 3 architectures at the same speed with the same amount of cache, and 90% of the time the C2D would win out pretty easily.

I'm not trying to state in any way that dual-core is not "up to the job". It is. In fact, my X2 4100+ is overclocked to 3 Ghz, my 8800gt is oc'd by about 19%, and I can play FC2 @ 1680x1050 with most settings on "very high", a couple on "high", and no AA. I'm hardly a hard-core gamer, so that performance in sufficient for me.

there are situations where quad-core can be very beneficial. Encoding and engineering programs can really benefit from quad-core. Multitasking can benefit a bunch. The main problem becomes the relatively lousy I/O performance of hard drives.

Yes, I know you never meant to say Dual Core CPUs aren't "up to the job" because, they absolutely are. What I was trying to get from you was how do you think Dual Core CPUs (current C2D mainly) will fare in gaming tasks in the given timeline?

Glad to hear your X2 still serves you well, btw

 

[Tempered81]

I really don't see any CPU competing with OC'd E8xxx's until games go multi-threaded. Deneb, Yorkfield, and Nehalem are the only competitors. Nehalem being the best, and look how it does overclocked against Penryn:

http://spacemaster.sx-team.com...afikoni/Water/FEAR.png
http://spacemaster.sx-team.com...ikoni/Water/crysis.png
http://spacemaster.sx-team.com.../Water/3D%20M%2006.png
http://spacemaster.sx-team.com...ater/3dM%20Vantage.png

E8400, 8500, and 8600 can clock higher than this

 

[malkuth74]

Is this really an issue... All of us that have or in my case getting Duo Core 3.0 CPU have monther boards that support both DUO and Quads.. So in 1 to 2 years all most DUO users have to do if they bought the right motherboard is buy the now dirt cheap Quads and install them and get another year or more out of an 2 year old system.

 

[FalseChristian]

Originally posted by: malkuth74
Is this really an issue... All of us that have or in my case getting Duo Core 3.0 CPU have monther boards that support both DUO and Quads.. So in 1 to 2 years all most DUO users have to do if they bought the right motherboard is buy the now dirt cheap Quads and install them and get another year or more out of an 2 year old system.

Finally a voice of reason.:thumbsup:

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: FalseChristian

Originally posted by: malkuth74
Is this really an issue... All of us that have or in my case getting Duo Core 3.0 CPU have monther boards that support both DUO and Quads.. So in 1 to 2 years all most DUO users have to do if they bought the right motherboard is buy the now dirt cheap Quads and install them and get another year or more out of an 2 year old system.

Finally a voice of reason.:thumbsup:

no not really. the Core 2 is already being replaced this week so in a year or two its quad cores will have already been phased out because of the new socket. prices will likely stay the same until then and could actually go up.

 

[edplayer]

I don't thinks Core 2 Quads will be phased out within one year. Prices will stay about the same though. So, it looks like $150ish will be the cheapest S775 quad (for the Q6600, apart from limited sales)

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: FalseChristian

Originally posted by: malkuth74
Is this really an issue... All of us that have or in my case getting Duo Core 3.0 CPU have monther boards that support both DUO and Quads.. So in 1 to 2 years all most DUO users have to do if they bought the right motherboard is buy the now dirt cheap Quads and install them and get another year or more out of an 2 year old system.

Finally a voice of reason.:thumbsup:

Huh?

So, basically, it's buy a Dual now, and then buy a Quad in the future? That's buying 2 CPU's when you can buy a Quad now and just leave it in there. I don't think there are going to be much faster Quads in the S775 pipeline, are there?

If you think you'll want a Quad in the near future, and don't plan on converting to Nehalem during that time, you may as well go Quad now and sit on it for a while.

And, as Toyota said, there is a possibility that highly desirable "legacy quads" could actually increase in cost (comparatively), at least for a time. Earlier this year I sold an Opteron 165 on Ebay for more $$ than a more powerful current X2 or C2D cost.

 

[Nightsilencer]

Well, this is all very pretty, but it still boils down to this: A C2D is still a very viable option if you want a CPU for gaming. And I say viable because it will keep you gaming for at least another couple of years and likely even beyond that, so you won't have to upgrade your CPU for the next 2-3 years. unless you are an upgrade freak.