E6600 vs. 4400+ (WoW)

[NYslipstream]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forums, but read your website on a daily basis. It's a great plethora of information, and handy to peruse when making computer decisions. With that in mind, I thought that I'd pose a question to all of you.

I have an AMD 4400+ and X1900XT combo, and I play a lot of World of Warcraft. My FPS are usually around 60. Do you consider that bad or good? I was wondering if I upgraded to a Conroe E6600 if I'd see any improvement, or would it be negligible? The reason I ask, is because my father needs a new computer asap, and I was going to sell him my 4400+ and motherboard, then shell out the difference for the E6600. Kind of like a win-win situation for both of us. Still, I was wondering if I'd just be better off keeping what I have for the next year or so, and then just having my father get a new system. That's my dilemma, and I'm having a hard time deciding. I game in 1600 x 1200 res., with most of the eye candy on (Samsung 204B 20.1").

It's not that I really have a problem with the 4400+ (ocassional stutter at times in WoW), but just wondered if this upgrade would be that beneficial to me, and playing WoW. I wouldn't do this if my father didn't need a new computer, so it's kind of put me on the spot to make a decision. Your input and feedback would be greatly appreciated, and I thank you in advance.

 

[Kromis]

Don't upgrade. You already have a "good enough" processor, IMO.

 

[NYslipstream]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Don't upgrade. You already have a "good enough" processor, IMO.

So basically, in terms of World of Warcraft, the gains wouldn't be worth the money?


Thanks for responding, Kromis.

 

[stevty2889]

At 1600x1200 you will be graphics card limited, so a CPU upgrade wouldn't do much good.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yep, not much. Going Crossfire or SLI would actually be more cost effective, or just wait for the next gen graphics 60fps min is more than playable

 

[Enig101]

30fps is enough for WoW to look and play smooth.

 

[NYslipstream]

Thanks for the replies guys. Yes, everything that's said makes sense, and it would be just a frivolous purchase. I just wanted to hear other people's feedback.

Just out of curiousity, what kind of FPS are people getting with WoW (with a similar setup to my own)?

 

[theteamaqua]

games are heavily GPU depandent ... save ur mooney n get good GPU like G80 which should come in November

i had to upgrade from pentium 4 to Core 2 Duo.. cuz Pentium 4 is just too slow in everything. but i wont upgrade CPU for like a year or so. i am saving soem money on graphics like R600 or G80 GeForce 7950 GX2 equivelant.

 

[NYslipstream]

Yeah, I guess it was really just nitpicking, and the marketing blitz by Intel that got me thinking about this. Standing pat until R600 or G80 seems like the best choice, as you said. Seems like we're living in a technological boon, as things just get faster and faster in the span of months from one another. It's harsh on the wallet, but it's nice to have so many choices available to us.

Thanks again for the replies.

 

[cmdrdredd]

All you're doing is playing WoW and you want to upgrade? My god :roll:

 

[NYslipstream]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
All you're doing is playing WoW and you want to upgrade? My god :roll:

No. I bring home quite a bit of work from the office, which includes a good share of multitasking and having multiple windows open. I also like to download music, encode movies, et cetera. I pretty much use my machine for everything, and I couldn't be without it. I'm not really into the first person shooters, but have played them in the past. I prefer mmorpg's, and am anxiously awaiting Vanguard : Saga of Heroes.

 

[RallyMaster]

4400+ should be perfectly fine for what you do. However, you can try getting 2GB of RAM. That'll increase those FPS a bit

 

[NYslipstream]

Yes, I have 2GB of RAM, it's in my sig. I see you're getting an X2 4200+, I hope you like it and that things go smoothly. I really like my 4400+, it was more of the curiosity of newer technology.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: NYslipstream
Hi everyone. I'm new to the forums, but read your website on a daily basis. It's a great plethora of information, and handy to peruse when making computer decisions. With that in mind, I thought that I'd pose a question to all of you.

I have an AMD 4400+ and X1900XT combo, and I play a lot of World of Warcraft. My FPS are usually around 60. Do you consider that bad or good? I was wondering if I upgraded to a Conroe E6600 if I'd see any improvement, or would it be negligible? The reason I ask, is because my father needs a new computer asap, and I was going to sell him my 4400+ and motherboard, then shell out the difference for the E6600. Kind of like a win-win situation for both of us. Still, I was wondering if I'd just be better off keeping what I have for the next year or so, and then just having my father get a new system. That's my dilemma, and I'm having a hard time deciding. I game in 1600 x 1200 res., with most of the eye candy on (Samsung 204B 20.1").

It's not that I really have a problem with the 4400+ (ocassional stutter at times in WoW), but just wondered if this upgrade would be that beneficial to me, and playing WoW. I wouldn't do this if my father didn't need a new computer, so it's kind of put me on the spot to make a decision. Your input and feedback would be greatly appreciated, and I thank you in advance.

A guy in my guild even has a Conroe setup and the 7950 and his framerates also drop into red at certain times. I have a 4600+ and an X1900XT and the same things happens to me, it just seems no matter what you build its going to happen with the game.

 

[renozi]

WoW is locked at 60fps max anyways. Plus the graphics were meant to be playable to almost all computers out there. And of course not all computers are monster gaming machines like yours. So with that being said upgrading to an E6600 won't make a difference, nor will upgrading to a faster gfx card. Best to save money!!!

----------------------------------------
LvL 61 Human Warrior!! Woot!

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: renozi
WoW is locked at 60fps max anyways. Plus the graphics were meant to be playable to almost all computers out there. And of course not all computers are monster gaming machines like yours. So with that being said upgrading to an E6600 won't make a difference, nor will upgrading to a faster gfx card. Best to save money!!!

----------------------------------------
LvL 61 Human Warrior!! Woot!

Good man w/ knowledge.^^
I have a 4400 89w and overclocked it to 2800mhz. I get equal or better performance than FX62 (in cinebench 3dmark3 and spi) I can not be happier for spending 1/4th of an FX62. I do AutoCAD on a just bought 22" LCD. I am in heaven working on the big screen.
As was suggested, save or spend it on 22" LCD, better cooling, nicer case, better PSU, etc. You're not missing any performance (lacking new tech) with that 4400 you have.

 

[harpoon84]

Nobody here actually answered your question with something that would back up their statements: benchmarks. Everybody just 'assumes' that the 4400+, being a relatively fast processor, would be enough for WoW. Well, it certainly *is* enough to be very playable most of the time, but an E6600 *would* provide a noticeable performance boost, which, I believe, was your main query in starting this thread.

This link should prove useful to you:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996945,00.asp

They are comparing WoW performance between an X2 5000+ and E6600 system.

Look carefully at the graphs and compare how often the framerate dips on the X2 5000+ compared to the E6600. Clearly the E6600 provides a more 'stable' and 'consistent' framerate. This is not to say the X2 5000+ performs poorly, I'm sure the game is still totally playable, but it certainly has more framerate dips (or stutters as you call them) than on the E6600.

Considering your X2 4400+ is ~10% slower than an X2 5000+, I can see why you mentioned there are occasional stutters in WoW.

So to answer your question: Yes, an E6600 would improve your WoW experience by eliminating the majority of the framerate dips or stutters.

But I have my own question for you - Is it worth the expense to change your entire platform just for one game?

I personally don't think it's worth the $$$ or hassle reinstalling everything, when you can easily overclock your current CPU to FX-62 levels of performance and have it perform almost as well as a stock E6600. Yes, I'm aware the E6600 can be overlclocked as well, but if it's already 'fast enough' at stock speeds to run WoW smoothly, then overclocking it to 3GHz+ won't make many noticeable improvements to performance. It's the law of diminishing returns kicking in.

PS. To everybody saying games are all totally GPU dependant nowadays - you are wrong.

WoW is a prime example of this.

As a general rule, MMORPG, online FPS games like BF2 and CS:S, RTS and flight sim based games are all heavily CPU dependant. This is not to say they don't require a decent GPU - of course they do. But the above mentioned genre games *do* scale with faster CPUs at a noticeable rate.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84


PS. To everybody saying games are all totally GPU dependant nowadays - you are wrong.

WoW is a prime example of this.

Like you know your stuff? Or just hot air?
Read the forum on that link and the article by Anandtech and find how wrong you are and misinforming the poster here. WoW is GPU limited and that article by that person was bias toward intel. He turned off anisotropic filtering, antialiasing, and lowered the resolution to make the test CPU bound. WoW is one game that is so dependant on GPU (Not CPU as you misguided soul claim).

by Anandtech
Graphics performance in WoW is primarily limited by three settings: Resolution, Terrain Distance and Anisotropic Filtering. Not too surprising is the fact that these three settings are also responsible for the greatest impacts on overall image quality.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2381

To the poster: please make sure who is talking and do your thorough search. A lot of people (Mainly Intel infested fanboys roaming everywhere these days) have agenda when post. Be very careful. Several poster here gave you good advise not to waste your money. If You are concerned about stuttering go to this site and follow the guide how to fix AMD's dual core stuttering in games, and installing the drivers/optimizer.
Also look into SLI or crossfire (depending what you have).
Good luck and be careful on the ill advises.

 

[modn00b]

Originally posted by: NYslipstream
Thanks for the replies guys. Yes, everything that's said makes sense, and it would be just a frivolous purchase. I just wanted to hear other people's feedback.

Just out of curiousity, what kind of FPS are people getting with WoW (with a similar setup to my own)?

Well, I know many devoted WoW'ers that would kill for a steady 20-30fps while in pvp or raiding the big dungeons. 60 would be other worldly for some. Me...I get 50ish in the wild, and 20ish in BWL/MC.

Cheers.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84


PS. To everybody saying games are all totally GPU dependant nowadays - you are wrong.

WoW is a prime example of this.

Like you know your stuff? Or just hot air?
Read the forum on that link and the article by Anandtech and find how wrong you are and misinforming the poster here. WoW is GPU limited and that article by that person was bias toward intel. He turned off anisotropic filtering, antialiasing, and lowered the resolution to make the test CPU bound. WoW is one game that is so dependant on GPU (Not CPU as you misguided soul claim).

by Anandtech
Graphics performance in WoW is primarily limited by three settings: Resolution, Terrain Distance and Anisotropic Filtering. Not too surprising is the fact that these three settings are also responsible for the greatest impacts on overall image quality.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2381

To the poster: please make sure who is talking and do your thorough search. A lot of people (Mainly Intel infested fanboys roaming everywhere these days) have agenda when post. Be very careful. Several poster here gave you good advise not to waste your money. If You are concerned about stuttering go to this site and follow the guide how to fix AMD's dual core stuttering in games, and installing the drivers/optimizer.
Also look into SLI or crossfire (depending what you have).
Good luck and be careful on the ill advises.

Yeah, like anyone should trust YOU of all people OcHungry FFS. Everybody on this forum thinks you're a lunatic like Sharikou.

I'm just presenting my view based on my research. Many people have commented on improved WoW performance after upgrading to C2D. You are just upset because your beloved AMD is no longer bleeding edge for gaming.

The OP is asking about whether an E6600 will improve the framerate 'stutters' in game, and the simple answer is YES. Those stutters aren't caused by a GPU limitation, but rather during scenes that require lots of CPU grunt, such as when there are lots of characters/interactions on screen.

That article I linked to shows a FRAPS recording of live in game framerates. You are saying that the article is 'biased' because they don't turn on AA/AF, and yet framerates often drop down to 45fps on the X2 5000+, whereas the E6600 rarely drops to such levels. Doesn't that mean for WoW to be 'GPU limited' you will always have to stay below 45fps? And for a slower X2 4400+, does that mean 'GPU limited' are settings that mean your framerate stays below 40fps at all times?

Doesn't seem like an ideal situation to me.

 

[gramboh]

On another note, since you have a ready buyer for your system (your dad), you should go for, I know I would. Half the pain of upgrading is finding buyers and parting out your previous system.

Why not upgrade if you can afford it (that's the question to ask yourself) and can get a good price on the 4400+ system to your dad? That way, when G80/R600 rolls out, you have a faster system to drop it into.

 

[Ranulf]

If you raid a lot, pvp a lot with mucho action going on AND you plan on playing newer games at a decent clip I'd say upgrade in the next 6 months or so to conroe once many of the bugs are worked out and there are a lot of mobos on the market as well as seeing what the expansion brings to the game in terms of spells/effects that need more power. I can't see your system being that bad as it is. My system runs wow fairly well at 1280x1024 and its pretty old. IIRC, WoW still limits dual core systems to 60fps (my core duo laptop with a 7300 varies from 30-60fps or so). Price performance wise IMHO, its not worth it to upgrade at this time since your 4400 is fairly new (or did I read that wrong?). If it bugs you enough in game and you can afford it, well hells bells bro, go for it.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Yeah, like anyone should trust YOU of all people OcHungry FFS. Everybody on this forum thinks you're a lunatic like Sharikou.

Sometimes smear tactics by like of you works for a short time. But at the end most people are fair minded and will spot the offenders as soon as speak. Just because I am defending AMD does not make me a bad person or not trust worthy. But to have an ill agenda and mislead people (just as you have done w/ WoW) is immoral, unethical and not short of criminal action. If I spot the offenders and set things straight, of course I realize that I should face the consequences and be ready for their mod swings and smear tactics. They have been caught cold handed and they are as dangerous as a threatened snake.

To OP:
incase you decide to upgrade (sell present system to Dad), AM2 is not a bad choice either (along w/ the advise given to you on core 2 upgrade). At least you know there are plenty boards to choose from, you can do SLI in almost any board below $120, and can upgrade CPU to K8L w/ a good AM2 board (yes AM2 is compatible w/ K8L). At the end you've spend less than an Intel's platform and no worries on the future upgrade.
If decide on core 2's make sure you have adequate cooling (look around and hear it from those who own conroe and are complaining about heat). Cooling system should be of a concern to you since your system is used for gaming most of the time (longer period under heavy load).
Any ways, Good luck and be careful what you hear or who's talking.

 

[gramboh]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Sometimes smear tactics by like of you works for a short time. But at the end most people are fair minded and will spot the offenders as soon as speak. Just because I am defending AMD does not make me a bad person or not trust worthy. But to have an ill agenda and mislead people (just as you have done w/ WoW) is immoral, unethical and not short of criminal action. If I spot the offenders and set things straight, of course I realize that I should face the consequences and be ready for their mod swings and smear tactics. They have been caught cold handed and they are as dangerous as a threatened snake.

To OP:
incase you decide to upgrade (sell present system to Dad), AM2 is not a bad choice either (along w/ the advise given to you on core 2 upgrade). At least you know there are plenty boards to choose from, you can do SLI in almost any board below $120, and can upgrade CPU to K8L w/ a good AM2 board (yes AM2 is compatible w/ K8L). At the end you've spend less than an Intel's platform and no worries on the future upgrade.
If decide on core 2's make sure you have adequate cooling (look around and hear it from those who own conroe and are complaining about heat). Cooling system should be of a concern to you since your system is used for gaming most of the time (longer period under heavy load).
Any ways, Good luck and be careful what you hear or who's talking.

WTF? Your first and second paragraph BLATANTLY contradict each other, you are clearly not showing an objective state of mind when you suggest AM2 over C2D based on the possibility of K8L upgrade (which could be over 12 months away, at the very least, possibly 18). Honestly, buying AM2 and using it for 1-1.5 years intead of C2D because of the possibility K8L AM2 might be better at that time? Insanity.

Also, you were called out on the other thread about percentage gains in overclocking with a fundamental flaw in your math/analysis. Basically you were arguing that somehow AMD A64 gains more benefit from an OC than a C2D because of a single benchmark (SuperPi). You were saying in essence that C2D doesn't scale linear with clock speed, what FUD, especially with C2D offering MORE performance per MHz than A64.

You need to admit that you are an AMD fan and have a bias against Intel. There's nothing wrong with being a fan (although I have no idea why you'd be a fan of anything besides performance per dollar for computer hardware, I've owned both AMD and Intel back and forth over the years) but when you spread FUD/misinformation because of your bias, that is WRONG.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: gramboh

Originally posted by: OcHungry
Sometimes smear tactics by like of you works for a short time. But at the end most people are fair minded and will spot the offenders as soon as speak. Just because I am defending AMD does not make me a bad person or not trust worthy. But to have an ill agenda and mislead people (just as you have done w/ WoW) is immoral, unethical and not short of criminal action. If I spot the offenders and set things straight, of course I realize that I should face the consequences and be ready for their mod swings and smear tactics. They have been caught cold handed and they are as dangerous as a threatened snake.

To OP:
incase you decide to upgrade (sell present system to Dad), AM2 is not a bad choice either (along w/ the advise given to you on core 2 upgrade). At least you know there are plenty boards to choose from, you can do SLI in almost any board below $120, and can upgrade CPU to K8L w/ a good AM2 board (yes AM2 is compatible w/ K8L). At the end you've spend less than an Intel's platform and no worries on the future upgrade.
If decide on core 2's make sure you have adequate cooling (look around and hear it from those who own conroe and are complaining about heat). Cooling system should be of a concern to you since your system is used for gaming most of the time (longer period under heavy load).
Any ways, Good luck and be careful what you hear or who's talking.

WTF? Your first and second paragraph BLATANTLY contradict each other, you are clearly not showing an objective state of mind when you suggest AM2 over C2D based on the possibility of K8L upgrade (which could be over 12 months away, at the very least, possibly 18). Honestly, buying AM2 and using it for 1-1.5 years intead of C2D because of the possibility K8L AM2 might be better at that time? Insanity.

Also, you were called out on the other thread about percentage gains in overclocking with a fundamental flaw in your math/analysis. Basically you were arguing that somehow AMD A64 gains more benefit from an OC than a C2D because of a single benchmark (SuperPi). You were saying in essence that C2D doesn't scale linear with clock speed, what FUD, especially with C2D offering MORE performance per MHz than A64.

You need to admit that you are an AMD fan and have a bias against Intel. There's nothing wrong with being a fan (although I have no idea why you'd be a fan of anything besides performance per dollar for computer hardware, I've owned both AMD and Intel back and forth over the years) but when you spread FUD/misinformation because of your bias, that is WRONG.

Here we go again another smear tactic.
The K8L is due less than 6 months (Q1 07) and in Nov/Dec of this year we will see 65nm's (not sure if it's K8L thu).
About the other thread you ilude to: There is no mistake in the math and I posted a credible (World Record) document showing core 2's performance vs speed. I also showed my own spi at 2 speeds for the proof. I cant explain how people like you and that harpoon keep misleading people and twist information that says otherwise?