Cpu for games and overclocking..

[TheSpy007]

Both these cpus will be about the same price when in late july. The e6850 would be able to overclock better based on initial estimates. But for the next year which cpu would be the best for games (at 1920x1200) and nice for overclocking.

 

[f4phantom2500]

hm...i can see how quad cores could come into their own for gaming over the next year, so that might be a good choice, but you can bet that the dual core will overclock better and run almost every current game better.

 

[MarcVenice]

crysis is gonna use additional cores on qauds for physics calculations. If you can get a qaud to OC to 3.2ghz, it shouldn't be holding you back in games compared to a e6850 oc-ed to 3.6-3.8ghz. Dualcores have been out for a while, and I really feel that more and more software writers are picking up on the fact that soon everyone will own a dualcore, and are thus writing the software in such a way that it can benefit from all those extra cores, and it's picking up steam and it will only go faster and faster.

 

[BoboKatt]

Yah I am in the same boat and in fact that boat is gonna be jammed packed full of people when the July price drops come along. The quad core or not quad core issue will rage on for a while. Over all it sounds like a no-brainer -- the "future" seems to be the more cores the better right? For now with what technology is, unless a revolutionary way comes along to do with one core what currently runs faster/better/smoother with two? I don?t see this changing and although I would presume the diminishing return thing comes into play for 4 or 8 cores etc, I still think it holds true.

As others said if you are simply concerned with what will OC more and run games faster I would go 100% for the e6850. This will be one sweet chip I hope. At this point these CPU?s are already so powerful and will run efficiently and will be able to make up any shortcomings to a quadcore by simply Oci?ng them higher than a quad core can. As for games I really don?t care what optimizations the developers will make, I cannot see a VAST improvement with a higher amount of cores. I am just praying of software (and games) to really and fully take advantage of multiple cores and as others said you would think software developers would be jumping all over this -- heck when dual cores trickle down to ultra low budget computers and laptops you would think all new software would be developed from the ground up with this in mind. However in the past I?ve always loved my dual core mainly for what ?else? it can do in the background or simultaneously while I game or work etc not necessarily that I could do one thing faster.

For my work I spend countless amount of time decoding and encoding video. Also I spend an absorbent amount of time compressing and uncompressing (using winrar etc) of massive data or video files for distribution for work. I originally used an older Intel P4 and then went to an AMD X2-4800+, which I still use and love. I was impressed to see the performance difference between the two of them in my work and I attributed it all to the Dual core phenomenon, However when I switched to an Intel C2D e6600 I was SHOCKED to see the difference in performance gains with the C2D (oc'ed of course). I mean I always thought the X2 was fast and this comparison is from a dual core to a dual core! I would love to see what a quad core would do for me but will I see the same type of tangible improvement?? I really hope so.

If a quad core shaves 5 or 6 minutes off a currently 35-40 minute job... sign me up.

 

[drakore]

Be forewarned overclocking quads on air is hard and does not yield the greatest results