Is a 3.2Ghz E2xxx still a good gaming CPU?

[VirtualLarry]

I have two rigs with E2140s @ 3.2Ghz, 400Mhz FSB, DDR2-800. They also have Radeon 1950Pro and GT video cards in them.

I originally built them for budget gaming rigs, although I've barely used them for that. One has been sitting on my floor for months, and the other is running my MagicJack and SeventeenorBust.

I'm just wondering if I should keep them and use them, or whether I should sell them, and whether or not they would make good current gaming rigs (in order to sell).

The correlary question to that is, should I upgrade the graphics cards in order to sell them?

They also have 4GB RAM, 320GB WD SATA HD, and 20X IDE DVD burners. ThermalTake 430W PSU.

(Note, I'm not asking for prices, I know about the no price checks rule.)

Perhaps a better question might be: are there any games that a 3.2Ghz E2xxx will not run satisfactorily? Even with possibly upgraded graphics?

 

[angry hampster]

Upgraded graphics will be a much more effective upgrade than a new proc in those machines. Cache size does matter quite a bit in some newer games. I don't recall which ones in particular, but someone ran a test on here just a few weeks ago showing about a 15% increase in framerates every time cache doubles in size.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Perhaps a better question might be: are there any games that a 3.2Ghz E2xxx will not run satisfactorily? Even with possibly upgraded graphics?

It's definitely 'good enough' to run games, seeing as how it should roughly match a ~2.5GHz C2D in games which is well above the recommended specs of most games. I wouldn't pair a very high end GPU with it as it'll probably start bottlenecking, but it should do OK with something like a HD4830/4850.

 

[Concillian]

They're fine, but the newer e5200 is better, and only $85 new. You would have to exceed the value of the e5200 which is faster per clock and also has higher overclock capability (~3.0-3.1 stock voltage, 3.4 to 3.7 typical on air with a very few going ~4.0)

So they still have use, but you have to let them go cheap enough for people to want it over an e5200... or you need to find a sucker.

But yes, it's still good enough to run pretty much any game adequately for most.

 

[brencat]

The E2140 at 3.2ghz is more than adequate for a GTX260. It may bottleneck a 4870x2 or a very high-end sli setup, but that's it. I'd stick with it unless you've got the upgrade bug bad. And then, I'd only jump to an E8400 as the E7200/E5200 wouldn't be significant enough for me.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Concillian
They're fine, but the newer e5200 is better, and only $85 new. You would have to exceed the value of the e5200 which is faster per clock and also has higher overclock capability (~3.0-3.1 stock voltage, 3.4 to 3.7 typical on air with a very few going ~4.0)

I could drop in some E5200s, but I don't think it would be worth it from a resale perspective. As a matter of fact, in SeventeenorBust, my 3.2Ghz E2xxx is FASTER than an E5200 @ 3.75Ghz. This is because the E5200s are far more severely FSB-limited, some hit walls as low as 310FSB. My E2140s run at 400FSB.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Uh, the FSB makes a very minimal impact on performance, so I don't see how a 3.75 GHz E5200 will be slower in real-world applications than an E2xxx at 3.2 GHz. Who cares about seventeenorbust anyway?

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

I could drop in some E5200s, but I don't think it would be worth it from a resale perspective. As a matter of fact, in SeventeenorBust, my 3.2Ghz E2xxx is FASTER than an E5200 @ 3.75Ghz. This is because the E5200s are far more severely FSB-limited, some hit walls as low as 310FSB. My E2140s run at 400FSB.

My comment was mostly in regards to mentioning you might want to sell them. I was not suggesting getting an e5200 to replace it, performance improvement is too small to justify there.

 

[Denithor]

A better question would be, do you really want to sell overclocked machines to the general public as gaming rigs? I know my answer for that question...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Denithor
A better question would be, do you really want to sell overclocked machines to the general public as gaming rigs? I know my answer for that question...

Would that be "a resounding yes"? Or something else. 🙁

They're quite stable, they crunch for me 24/7 for months at a time. But if I upgrade the graphics (say, to a 4850), I'll have to upgrade the PSUs. I have some Antec Basiq 500Ws that I picked up for $30 ea at Microcenter, 18A each on two 12V rails. Should be enough for a 4850, I hope.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Perhaps a better question might be: are there any games that a 3.2Ghz E2xxx will not run satisfactorily? Even with possibly upgraded graphics?

It's definitely 'good enough' to run games, seeing as how it should roughly match a ~2.5GHz C2D in games which is well above the recommended specs of most games. I wouldn't pair a very high end GPU with it as it'll probably start bottlenecking, but it should do OK with something like a HD4830/4850.

Would you like to qualify that statement?

Running, say, a 4870 @ 1920x1200, I'll be damned if an E8400 over an E21XX OC@ 3.2 changed an unplayable game to playable.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
[Would you like to qualify that statement?

Running, say, a 4870 @ 1920x1200, I'll be damned if an E8400 over an E21XX OC@ 3.2 changed an unplayable game to playable.

Reread my post, where did I state that it'd be unplayable? I said it'd start bottlenecking the higher end GPUs, and I stand by that statement. An E8400 @ 4GHz would absolutely slaughter an E21x0 @ 3.2GHz when matched with a 4870.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Ichigo
[Would you like to qualify that statement?

Running, say, a 4870 @ 1920x1200, I'll be damned if an E8400 over an E21XX OC@ 3.2 changed an unplayable game to playable.

Reread my post, where did I state that it'd be unplayable? I said it'd start bottlenecking the higher end GPUs, and I stand by that statement. An E8400 @ 4GHz would absolutely slaughter an E21x0 @ 3.2GHz when matched with a 4870.

On what game @ 1920x1200? I don't think any game besides really old ones or something like Supreme Commander would be CPU bottlenecked at that resolution.

And if E2*** were still being sold, an E2160 + GTX 280 would probably beat an E8400 + HD 4870 if we used the sum of their prices.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm quite happy with my Phenom at 2.8GHz, I can't imagine your processor at 3.2 would really hamper your gaming.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Ichigo
[Would you like to qualify that statement?

Running, say, a 4870 @ 1920x1200, I'll be damned if an E8400 over an E21XX OC@ 3.2 changed an unplayable game to playable.

Reread my post, where did I state that it'd be unplayable? I said it'd start bottlenecking the higher end GPUs, and I stand by that statement. An E8400 @ 4GHz would absolutely slaughter an E21x0 @ 3.2GHz when matched with a 4870.

On what game @ 1920x1200? I don't think any game besides really old ones or something like Supreme Commander would be CPU bottlenecked at that resolution.

And if E2*** were still being sold, an E2160 + GTX 280 would probably beat an E8400 + HD 4870 if we used the sum of their prices.

Who said the OP games @ 1920 x 1200? I'd say most budget gaming rigs would be running 22" 1680 x 1050 LCDs at best, otherwise the LCD costs more than the entire system!

But even at that res, there are plenty of games that can benefit from a high end CPU if paired with a high end GPU. Off the top of my head, besides Sup Com which you already mentioned, theres FSX, Crysis, GRID, Far Cry 2, Age of Conan, NWN2, WiC, UT3, CoH, TF2 all of which have been benchmarked and are CPU bound to various degrees.

As for the E2160 + GTX280 beating an E8400 + HD4870, I wouldn't be so sure, thats quite an unbalanced setup and even overclocked to 3GHz+ the E2160 would be a big bottleneck in many games I'd imagine, unless you play at 2560 x 1600 or something. It'd make for a decent article though if some site decided to explore it further, whats ultimately better for gaming, a budget CPU + high end GPU or a mid range CPU + slightly slower GPU?

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Denithor
A better question would be, do you really want to sell overclocked machines to the general public as gaming rigs? I know my answer for that question...

Why not? If they're stable and cool it doesn't matter, especially since he won't be offering them with a warranty (I assume). Some fools would leap at the chance to own an "OVERCLOCK3D!" PC with a few LED fans thrown in.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Ichigo
[Would you like to qualify that statement?

Running, say, a 4870 @ 1920x1200, I'll be damned if an E8400 over an E21XX OC@ 3.2 changed an unplayable game to playable.

Reread my post, where did I state that it'd be unplayable? I said it'd start bottlenecking the higher end GPUs, and I stand by that statement. An E8400 @ 4GHz would absolutely slaughter an E21x0 @ 3.2GHz when matched with a 4870.

On what game @ 1920x1200? I don't think any game besides really old ones or something like Supreme Commander would be CPU bottlenecked at that resolution.

And if E2*** were still being sold, an E2160 + GTX 280 would probably beat an E8400 + HD 4870 if we used the sum of their prices.

Who said the OP games @ 1920 x 1200? I'd say most budget gaming rigs would be running 22" 1680 x 1050 LCDs at best, otherwise the LCD costs more than the entire system!

But even at that res, there are plenty of games that can benefit from a high end CPU if paired with a high end GPU. Off the top of my head, besides Sup Com which you already mentioned, theres FSX, Crysis, GRID, Far Cry 2, Age of Conan, NWN2, WiC, UT3, CoH, TF2 all of which have been benchmarked and are CPU bound to various degrees.

As for the E2160 + GTX280 beating an E8400 + HD4870, I wouldn't be so sure, thats quite an unbalanced setup and even overclocked to 3GHz+ the E2160 would be a big bottleneck in many games I'd imagine, unless you play at 2560 x 1600 or something. It'd make for a decent article though if some site decided to explore it further, whats ultimately better for gaming, a budget CPU + high end GPU or a mid range CPU + slightly slower GPU?

Well, about 1920x1200, you quoted me, and that's what I said.

The LCD should be the most expensive part of a system, it's the part that directly interacts with the user. Decent 24" monitors can be had =<$500 anyway.

"various degrees" is vague. It means nothing. Unless we're seeing huge gains or the ability to play at higher settings, it's a moot point.

There's a difference between "bottleneck" and "performs more poorly". At 1920x1200, as an example, the games in which a GTX 280 beats a HD 4870 will produce similar results with an overclocked e2160 and e8400, respectively. A GTX 280 > an HD4870, and that, is for the most part, that.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Denithor
A better question would be, do you really want to sell overclocked machines to the general public as gaming rigs? I know my answer for that question...

Would that be "a resounding yes"? Or something else. 🙁

They're quite stable, they crunch for me 24/7 for months at a time. But if I upgrade the graphics (say, to a 4850), I'll have to upgrade the PSUs. I have some Antec Basiq 500Ws that I picked up for $30 ea at Microcenter, 18A each on two 12V rails. Should be enough for a 4850, I hope.

Not a good idea to sell a system as "overclocked". In the end, the 2150 is still only worth a 2150, no matter what clocks you run it.

I'd part out the systems and sell the components separately. You'll probably get more money in the end.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Well, about 1920x1200, you quoted me, and that's what I said.

It doesn't mean I agree that its relevant. As I said earlier, most budget gamers aren't sporting 24" LCDs.

The LCD should be the most expensive part of a system, it's the part that directly interacts with the user. Decent 24" monitors can be had =<$500 anyway.

22" makes much more sense for a budget system, they're around $200 and the lower resolution doesn't require a top end GPU to maintain playable framerates, but lets agree to disagree on this.

"various degrees" is vague. It means nothing. Unless we're seeing huge gains or the ability to play at higher settings, it's a moot point.

Thats because I listed a whole list of games that are CPU bound to differing levels. But if you want further clarity, FSX is 'extremely' CPU bound, AoC, WiC, NWN2 and TF2 are 'very' CPU bound, whilst Crysis, FC2, CoH, GRID and UT3 are 'somewhat' CPU bound.

There's a difference between "bottleneck" and "performs more poorly". At 1920x1200, as an example, the games in which a GTX 280 beats a HD 4870 will produce similar results with an overclocked e2160 and e8400, respectively. A GTX 280 > an HD4870, and that, is for the most part, that.

Of course theres a difference, when I say bottleneck I don't mean games are unplayable, but that they are limiting the GPU in attaining maximum framerates. My E4400 at stock (2GHz) bottlenecks my 8800GTS, but games are still playable. For example GRID framerates drop down to the 30s in heavy traffic. It doesn't affect driving much but its low enough to affect enjoyment of the game. With the E4400 overclocked to 3GHz however, minimum framerates don't drop below ~45fps, and my 8800GTS is now the limiting factor, which is where I want it to be.

Now with a higher calibre of GPU such as a 4870, the CPU requirements grow as well to avoid bottlenecking. I honestly don't think an E21x0 @ 3.2GHz is enough to fully feed a 4870, especially in the more CPU bound games.

 

[Ichigo]

So basically, you took part of what I said, ignored the rest, and argued based on premises that were an incomplete summation of what I actually wanted to say. Thanks.

The fact is, the most money should be spent on the GPU and the LCD if all you want is the best gaming experience. Making compromises with the LCD and GPU to get a better CPU is madness. Not to mention, people shouldn't buy a 4870 and up for a "budget system". They'd probably stick with 4850's.

Don't be facetious.

And my point is that at resolutions for which people would actually be buying a 4870 and up, a CPU matters far less than the choice of GPU, period. CPU-bound games are generally not demanding games, either because they're old or because they're being played at 1024x768. I'd take an E2160 overclocked + GTX 280 over an E8400 and an HD 4870 because I would get better overall performance at 1920x1200. There's no way around that.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: IchigoI'd take an E2160 overclocked + GTX 280 over an E8400 and an HD 4870 because I would get better overall performance at 1920x1200. There's no way around that.

How would you know for sure? I think that is a contentious point at best, for example in most RTS games the E8400 + HD4870 would blow away the E2160 + GTX280. The HD4870 (especially the 1GB version) is really not that far behind the GTX280, it'd depend a lot on the game engine which config comes out ahead, its not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Ichigo, an E2160 @ 3.2 GHz is only as fast as an Athlon X2 6400+. The 1MB L2 cache is really holding back the Core 2 architecture in gaming applications. At resolutions of 16x10 and 19x12 I have no doubt an E8400 + HD4870, even at stock, will outperform an overclocked E2160 + GTX 280. I know the following article does not feature a GTX280 or single HD4870, but I think it can show you how severly a low-end processor bottlenecks a high end video card. Oh and the new Core i7 multi-GPU articule form Guru3D is a good demonstration as well:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=3

Just compare the 6400+ to an E8400/E6850.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Ichigo, an E2160 @ 3.2 GHz is only as fast as an Athlon X2 6400+.

What??? How fast is an A64 X2 6400 - 3.2Ghz? You're saying that an AMD64 is just as fast as a C2D? You know that's not true. C2D has like 30% IPC advantage over an AMD64 at the same clock speed. Even with 1MB L2.

Edit: From those benchmarks you linked, an UNDERCLOCKED E6320 @ 1.6Ghz is equal to an AMD64 X2 @ 3Ghz. There are no 1MB L2 cache C2Ds listed in those benchmarks. Even if the 1MB L2 C2D has a 15% performance disadvantage compared to the 4MB L2 C2D, it's still going to blow away an AMD64. For example, if you consider a 3.2Ghz E2xxx to be equal in performance to a 2.66Ghz 4MB L2 C2D like the E6700, then compare that to the AMD64 6400+ @ 3.2Ghz. 72 FPS compared to 57FPS, it blows it away! In fact, it's faster still than a Phenom 9950!

In short, you're way incorrect. Especially from trying to use that linked benchmark as proof.

 

[Tempered81]

neat benchmark comparing different cpus with a gfx card:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=6

 

[Denithor]

e2140 @ 3.2GHz will fall somewhere between e5200 & e7200 stock performance. So still adequate for most gaming duties.

The only exceptions will be games that take advantage of quadcore processors, but the newer duals will have the same disadvantage in those games.

EDIT: Jared's benchmark shows e2180@3.2GHz matching an e7300@stock. This is for cpu-bound resolution, as GPU load increases the contribution from CPU decreases. So if overclocked e2180 can handle CPU bound gaming it won't be an issue at all as GPU takes over more of the load.