• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How long will a E6400@ 3.2GHZ "future proof" me for gaming?

H

Hajpoj

Senior member
I was wondering about this, where speed won't be an issue but the number of cores will be.

As more multithreaded apps and games emerge, they'll take advantage of more cores. In light of this, I think the best investment is quad core or at the very least the cheapest chip you can get by on now.
 
well, dual-cores have been out for a few years now and there are still very few actual programs that use multiple threads. it still may be a few years until multi-threaded applications really gain traction but Core2Duos will hold out for a little while. Kentsfield is definitely not worth the investment, with Penryn (45nm) and Nehalem-C (32nm) before the next decade.
 
and it will be the same with any cpu u get now... it will be fine until u buy a piece of sw that it can't run fast enuf for u... the time horizon will probably be the same as your previous chip, unless your usage pattern changes...
 
Depending on the game technology. Also depends on your gaming preferences. 1-2 years. Maybe 3 years if you you're lucky.
 
But what about the usability of my motherboard and it's parts?

2~3 years from now could I find an old quad-core and maybe upgrade to 4GB of ram(possibly 8(4x2GB)) with minimal cost and make 5 years out of it?
 
well, the problem with your board is that it will only support Kentsfield. Penryn, as it stands, will not use Skt775 or a 1333MHz FSB. Kentsfield is power hungry and has a huge heat dissipation power. You'd be better suffering until next year to pick up a Penryn on the new Nehalem microarchitecture (Skt??? w/ a 1600MHz FSB)
 
Originally posted by: PCTC2
well, the problem with your board is that it will only support Kentsfield. Penryn, as it stands, will not use Skt775 or a 1333MHz FSB. Kentsfield is power hungry and has a huge heat dissipation power. You'd be better suffering until next year to pick up a Penryn on the new Nehalem microarchitecture (Skt??? w/ a 1600MHz FSB)
Click to expand...

"Penryn family processors are supposed to be socket-compatible, meaning that on the desktop we will see them introduced as LGA-775 CPUs." - Today's article on Anandtech.

Even if they run at 1600FSB, any decent overclocking motherboard today can easily handle it.
 
Regarding motherboard compatibility, Intel says manufacturers will have to update their BIOSes and might need to make minor electrical changes to accommodate the new chips. The company said it couldn't guarantee compatibility, but it suggested that some currently-shipping motherboards should have no trouble supporting the upcoming chips.
Click to expand...

TechReport, Jan 07 Article
 
i think next year, the Core2 CPU begin their slow decline into obsolescence along with single core CPUs

i got 'lucky' with my single-core CPU ... it still plays *almost* any game as well as the much faster dual core ones --at my low resolution 14x9 ... and my rig is well over 3 years old

here's my *reasoning* why it will happen so quickly

ALREADY we have *one* game that DOES take excellent advantage of the third core and to a lesser extent the 4th in major battles at high resolutions ... SC

and it is just the first .... and it is quite easy to "build in" multiple threads if you start from 'scratch' in stead of "adding" it in in patches/

it *used* to take 3 years to bring a major game title from concept to 'gold' ... and now it is down to less than two ... in some cases with completely premade engines ... as little as ONE year ... and with Cross-platform titles being a "must" for Devs, expect the PC to get left out in the optimizing department ... so you will NEED a beefy rig to play the DX9 and 10 games just to equal the consoles ... nevermind blow them away with an uber-rig

So ... we can expect FULL DX10 games next year ... optimized for Quad core
i'd say the 'picky' among us will fell 'left out' with their E6400s

word to the wise 😉
 
Originally posted by: apoppin

word to the wise 😉
Click to expand...

eh??? hmmm... thought i heard something, but i guess not... guess i'll just go back to stuffing an x2 into yet another old 939 box...
 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2955&p=3
Looking to the future, one thing that is clear is that multi-core solutions are truly becoming the norm.
Click to expand...

😉

keep right on stuffing ... i am talking next year when your x2's will be *struggling* with multi-threaded DX10 games
:laugh:

upgrading the old is always good ... and my post is not aimed at you but to the OP who asked a *specific* question about multi core and E6400@ 3.2GHZ being "future proof" for gaming

it *isn't*
 
i haven't seen much myself, but my kid tells me stuff he's read says that dx10 is supposed to have performance enhancements, not just eyecandy add-ons, so it may actually take less cpu to run some of the games...

stranger things have happened (but not very often)... maybe your ee will take u into the next decade!!!


 
As more software goes multi-threaded your processor will get to stretch its legs more.

How long it lasts really depends on how demanding you are and how much you want from your processor. With an up-to-date graphics card it should last in games for a least 3 years.
 
Originally posted by: cubeless
i haven't seen much myself, but my kid tells me stuff he's read says that dx10 is supposed to have performance enhancements, not just eyecandy add-ons, so it may actually take less cpu to run some of the games...

stranger things have happened (but not very often)... maybe your ee will take u into the next decade!!!
Click to expand...
i wish

have your kid check into DX10 *deeper* ... the initial differences .. for the DX10 "patched-in games" like Crysis ... will be about higher textures and resolutions along with an emphasis on the performance advantage of DX10 over 9c

but shortly ... with the *full dx10 games* in development right now ... still an "early" title, Alan Wake will be Vista only DX10 and optimized for multiple cores ... we will see massive improvements in graphics as Devs can take advantage of Shader instructions that are literally many hundreds of instructions long - even thousands ... i believe most current games run up around 100.

that is gonna take some *major* HW muscle and Dual core is simply not gonna cut it for the demanding gamer at high resolution

my opinion and my *prediction* 😛

you guys should spend more time in video .. i know i missed a lot by staying away from here
 
My P4 has served me well, in april I'm *supposed* to be building my parents a rig for their office with $800....well I'm stuffing them with all my old components and giving myself an *upgrade*...

Ah, they'll never know the difference and a P4 @ 3.6GHZ with 2GB of ram will fine for them.
 
Actually, you'll be cpu-bound as soon as you buy an 8800GTX, since they're cpu-bound with an E6600, until it reaches 3.4 Ghz. And you'd need to clock your E6400 to 3.5-3.6 Ghz to equal an E6600 @ 3.4 Ghz.
 
That was in F.E.A.R., a somewhat multithreaded game. I found the experiment a guy at XS had done, with about 75 screenshots. If it wasn't XS, it was extremeoverclocking.com or .org, IIRC.
 
Originally posted by: craftech
Isn't it cheaper in the long run to get a Playstation 3 or an XBox 360?
Click to expand...
What's your point? Isn't it cheaper to buy a Huffy than a Porsche, also?😀
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: craftech
Isn't it cheaper in the long run to get a Playstation 3 or an XBox 360?
Click to expand...
What's your point? Isn't it cheaper to buy a Huffy than a Porsche, also?😀
Click to expand...


I don't game so it is probably from a lack of knowledge that I asked. My 30 year old son has a Playstation 1 and 2 and swears by them over computer gaming because they always work flawlessly with little additional cost. He has played computer games and doesn't see the advantage over stand alone consoles whose technology is dedicated solely for gaming. He is thinking about the Playstation 3 when the price comes down. With LCD displays now the expense has risen even further in order to get one that looks good displaying computer driven games without ghosting, etc. Maybe you could explain to a non-gamer what is better about what appears to be a never ending upgrade expense with obstacles to overcome on a regular basis. Is it the SPECIFIC games themselves? 🙂

John
 
Originally posted by: Hajpoj
But will we be cpu bound when multithreaded games hit? That is the question dear watson!
Click to expand...

completely

Core2 ain't gonna 'cut' it
it doesn't cut it - right now - with Supreme Commander ... compared with running it with 4 cores ... and it will only get *worse* ... uh, better 🙂

and craftech every time someone tries to explain the advantages of PC over consoles we get a giant flame war 😛

it's all about PC 'mods' and the ability to run at much higher resolutions and textures than the consoles
 
re why pc games... if u r into strategy games, then i believe that the pc is the only choice... if u r into shootem ups, then console is fine...
 
Originally posted by: craftech
Isn't it cheaper in the long run to get a Playstation 3 or an XBox 360?

John
Click to expand...

Only if you already own a really nice HDTV and home theatre sound system.

Otherwise it's cheaper to simply build a gaming PC.

Also this entire thread is sheer conjecture because no one can predict the hardware requirements of games in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top