Any more than Athlon II X2 240 needed for 1280x1024 gaming?

[KatanaBob]

Topic. I'm torn between athlonII x2 240, x3 425, x4 620 and PHII 550. Would any of these be a waste of money at 1280x1024 gaming? Looking at benchmarks in reviews, all of the processors seem to get 60-70+ fps anyway, so I'm wondering if there's any point in going above x2 240 for gaming.

CPU will be coupled with Gigabyte 770 MA770T-UD3P, 4gb ram and a 4850 on a 17" 1280x1024 monitor for gaming.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

Since it's not much more $$ than the others, and you'll have the extra cores in case you get into heavy multitasking & whatnot.

 

[Regs]

The Phenom 2's are really a good value no matter what your performance needs are. That's the way I look at, why settle for much less performance for less than marginal savings? AMD Phenom II 925 Deneb 2.8GHz x4 will likely be your best choice for around 160 dollars. If you really want to save the 60 or so dollars, get the AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz 2 x 512KB .

 

[richierich1212]

Just get the 620 then. Overclock it a bit and you'll be set. Unless you get a 550 that unlocks of course.

 

[HannibalX]

I would go with the PHII 550 but that's just me.

 

[fffblackmage]

Just get the 620 then. Overclock it a bit and you'll be set.

+1

 

[nyker96]

Athlon II X2 240 should be enough for 1280 for a hd 4850 card, which is maxed out by a E6300 level cpu like x2 240. shouldn't be a problem. I personally light game on a 1280 monitor with 4850 almost every game runs well with it. but if you want something more future proof in case you up your vid card get a x3 720 be, that one will be pretty decent for later when you upgrade to a better vid card so the cpu won't be a bottleneck.

 

[hans007]

+1

the 240 might be better than a 620 at some games at stock.

its 200mhz faster and has more L2 cache per core.

if its a newer game that requires more than 2 cores, might want to get the 620

 

[cusideabelincoln]

the 240 might be better than a 620 at some games at stock.

its 200mhz faster and has more L2 cache per core.

if its a newer game that requires more than 2 cores, might want to get the 620

But for those types of games the 620 is going to be more than fast enough to get good framerates.

So yeah, my vote goes to the 620. Or another option is a Phenom II X3 like the 710 or 720. The Athlon II 425 would probably also be another solid option.

 

[KatanaBob]

Hi guys, thank you so much for input!

I went ahead and got a x2 240 with a 4670 instead. To be honest, I felt kinda guilty for wanting the 4850 - I don't think I game enough to justify it (busy student).

I'm still interested in what you have to say though. If the prices were like they are in my country:

x2 240: ~85 USD

x3 425: ~110 USD

x4 620: ~150 USD

x2 550 BE: ~150 USD

I figured with these prices, the x2 240 was the most bang for the buck. Was it a wise choice?

 

[cdbular]

Have you considered the Phenom II X3 720?, it sells for 119 USD

Edit: I guess you don.t live in the us. So I think that X3 720 won't be as cheap here.

I would choose the X3 425 since you get another core for 25 bucks. I have read some asrock boards could unlock the fourth core.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Hi guys, thank you so much for input!

I went ahead and got a x2 240 with a 4670 instead. To be honest, I felt kinda guilty for wanting the 4850 - I don't think I game enough to justify it (busy student).

I'm still interested in what you have to say though. If the prices were like they are in my country:

x2 240: ~85 USD

x3 425: ~110 USD

x4 620: ~150 USD

x2 550 BE: ~150 USD

I figured with these prices, the x2 240 was the most bang for the buck. Was it a wise choice?

If you do not game that much, i think it is a wise choice. But everything depends on the workload.

I myself am looking at a MSI 770-C45 + Athlon II 250 + HD4770. It will be more then enough for my needs. I hardly do any video work.
Mp3 conversion will be sort of on the fly with this system. And when youngsters want to play it is more then sufficient too. I am still deciding between an 250 and an athlon II 240e ( the energy efficient version). But for as far as i have seen is the difference in idle 3 watts and under maximum load 10 watts. My monitor of choice will be a dell 2209wa. Expensive, but pleasant for the eyes.

 

[hans007]

Hi guys, thank you so much for input!

I went ahead and got a x2 240 with a 4670 instead. To be honest, I felt kinda guilty for wanting the 4850 - I don't think I game enough to justify it (busy student).

I'm still interested in what you have to say though. If the prices were like they are in my country:

x2 240: ~85 USD

x3 425: ~110 USD

x4 620: ~150 USD

x2 550 BE: ~150 USD

I figured with these prices, the x2 240 was the most bang for the buck. Was it a wise choice?

definitely seems like the best choice per dollar. the x2 550 is especially expensive there i guess.

here a x4 620 retail is about $100. you can sometimes get them on ebay for $80-85 oem.

the x2 240 is about $65 retail, and maybe $50 on ebay or something oem so its a much more difficult choice (seeing as a 620 is only $35 more and only 50% more not 100% like for you)

 

[cbn]

Topic. I'm torn between athlonII x2 240, x3 425, x4 620 and PHII 550. Would any of these be a waste of money at 1280x1024 gaming? Looking at benchmarks in reviews, all of the processors seem to get 60-70+ fps anyway, so I'm wondering if there's any point in going above x2 240 for gaming.

CPU will be coupled with Gigabyte 770 MA770T-UD3P, 4gb ram and a 4850 on a 17" 1280x1024 monitor for gaming.

Thanks in advance!

Your CPU choice should have nothing do with resolution you plan on running.

Either the CPU is sufficient to process the software at reasonable speeds or it is not.

Processing different resolutions is a completely separate issue and is purely handled by the video card.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Hi guys, thank you so much for input!

I went ahead and got a x2 240 with a 4670 instead. To be honest, I felt kinda guilty for wanting the 4850 - I don't think I game enough to justify it (busy student).

I'm still interested in what you have to say though. If the prices were like they are in my country:

x2 240: ~85 USD

x3 425: ~110 USD

x4 620: ~150 USD

x2 550 BE: ~150 USD

I figured with these prices, the x2 240 was the most bang for the buck. Was it a wise choice?

Yes you made a wise choice. The 620 and 550 are pretty damn expensive. Although I do think an equally wise choice, if you could afford the extra $25, would have been the X3 425. That seems a reasonable price for a processor with an extra core.

 

[jvroig]

Your CPU choice should have nothing do with resolution you plan on running. Either the CPU is sufficient to process the software at reasonable speeds or it is not. Processing different resolutions is a completely separate issue and is purely handled by the video card.

+1, very informative. My best friend is a game developer, and he generally says the same thing. While CPU power is necessary for stuff like AI, all the "pixel stuff" is handled by the video card, so whether you have 1 million or 2 million pixels on screen doesn't matter for the CPU, but does to the GPU.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Your CPU choice should have nothing do with resolution you plan on running.

Either the CPU is sufficient to process the software at reasonable speeds or it is not.

Processing different resolutions is a completely separate issue and is purely handled by the video card.

Partially true, the rare occasion where the cpu cannot handle the calculations and supply the graphics card with data fast enough only happens at very low resolution as for example 640* 480. As long as games are written where the gpu has more work then the cpu there is nothing to worry about. Most games are still single threaded. Or at least multi threaded at the basic level. Even a dualcore is perfect for an incidental gamer. And 1280 * 1024 seems to me high enough to keep the gpu busy.

 

[JimmiG]

Your CPU choice should have nothing do with resolution you plan on running.

Either the CPU is sufficient to process the software at reasonable speeds or it is not.

Processing different resolutions is a completely separate issue and is purely handled by the video card.

Just what I was going to say.

The key to building a balanced gaming system is to match the CPU with an appropriate video card for the resolution you play at. It also depends on which games you play - some are more CPU bound while others depend more on the GPU/video card. Also some games like higher clock speeds while others benefit from more cores or more cache on the CPU. It's really not as simple as it should be and you'll have to make compromises at any sub-$200 price point (two faster cores vs four slower cores, for example)

But generally, you don't pair an i7 with a 9600GT (unless you're Dell), and you don't spend $400 on a brand new 5870 if you have a 19" monitor, or an old 3800+ Athlon X2 system...

The X2 240 should be a good match for the 4670, and the 4670 is great for 1280x1024 gaming in all expect the most demanding titles.

 

[SunSamurai]

240 was 60$ for me on newegg.com.

Its more than enough for all but the top GPUs right now. You can OC it for future GPU upgrades.

No reason to spend more if youre gaming mainly.