New CPU Education Needed

[JackSpadesSI]

I used to play a lot of games on the PC until college when I switched to consoles to save money. Therefore my current desktop is a 1.8 GHz P4. Of course, back in 2001 games would only even recommend up to about 1.4 GHz so I didn?t even have to worry about game requirements.

I?m so far out of the loop now with modern requirements that I?m a bit over my head. I?ve been looking at system builds for a while, but I keep getting hung up on the CPU speed.

I want to build a computer that will be used for the latest and greatest games, iTunes, and web surfing. How much processor power do I really need?? I look at the E8500 and like its speed, but then look at the Q9650 (for twice the cost, unfortunately) and like its cores.

I have this unfounded fear of buying something under 3.0 GHz (hence me only looking at the Q9650) because I feel like 2.something wouldn?t be enough improved over my 1.8 GHz P4. The new i7?s don?t even reach 3.0 GHz (without overclocking ? and I won?t even consider the ridiculously-priced Extreme editions) so obviously there is more to the matter than the clock speed or else those would be considered sub-par chips.

Your help and advice would be appreciated before I go crazy.

 

[yh125d]

An e8500 despite being under 3gHz is probably in the area of 8-12x as fast as that P4. Generally speaking, if games are your primary focus a fast dual core is better than a slower quad. Although, if you use secondary apps that are multithreaded (meaning they utilize both cores) or play alot of quad-optimized games, a quad would be the better solution. an e8x00 processor even running at stock speeds is plenty of power to play any game out today well. It's ability increases substantially more with overclocking

 

[videogames101]

Things have changed since P4, even a 1ghz C2D will decimate a P4.

Clock speed isn't everything, architecture means (and always has meant) alot.

 

[AstroManLuca]

The P4 had an architecture specifically designed to allow for huge clock speeds but it did very little per cycle. It wasn't a terrible CPU for its time but it was definitely the least efficient per clock. A 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo is faster than a 3.6 GHz Pentium D (dual core P4), so you can imagine how much faster a 2+ GHz Core 2 Duo would be than a 1.8 GHz single-core P4.

Right now the E8400 looks like a great deal. 3 GHz, 6 MB of L2, lots of overclock potential, and not even very expensive.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Things have changed since P4, even a 1ghz C2D will decimate a P4.

Clock speed isn't everything, architecture means alot.

Exactly !

I can say that a Q9550 will easily OC to 3.2, and thats all the power you need in any game today. A good video card on top of that is a requirement, but even a $250 card will get you great performance in most all the games.

(except the highest resolution on 2-3 video cards in SLI.)

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Originally posted by: yh125d
An e8500 despite being under 3gHz is probably in the area of 8-12x as fast as that P4.

The E8500 is a 3.16 GHz, right?

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Maybe things will change if this system build goes well for me (first attempt) but I?m pretty phobic of upgrading a whole system at once. That being said, what sounds like the better approach?

Building a C2D system now and upgrading the CPU in 12-18 months to a fast C2Q but then be maxed out with nowhere else to improve, or?

Straining my budget (and therefore my marriage) to build an i7 setup with plenty of room to grow with future CPU upgrades.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: JackSpadesSI
Maybe things will change if this system build goes well for me (first attempt) but I?m pretty phobic of upgrading a whole system at once. That being said, what sounds like the better approach?

Building a C2D system now and upgrading the CPU in 12-18 months to a fast C2Q but then be maxed out with nowhere else to improve, or?

Straining my budget (and therefore my marriage) to build an i7 setup with plenty of room to grow with future CPU upgrades.

Get whatever fits your budget. In this case the c2d should be plenty.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: JackSpadesSI

Originally posted by: yh125d
An e8500 despite being under 3gHz is probably in the area of 8-12x as fast as that P4.

The E8500 is a 3.16 GHz, right?

yeah

9.5 x 333 = Core speed

EDIT: why did no one catch that!? WTF

I'd suggest a C2Q for the newer games coming. UT3 has always utilized all 4 cores. CODWAW is multi-thread optimized.

 

[edplayer]

You didn't list a budget or how you expect to use your new computer

I am going to make suggestions on best "bang 4 the buck" and normal computer use (gaming being the most demanding app)

A few cpu suggestions. For dual core, the E7400 and the E5200. The E5200 is the best bang 4 the buck cpu out now. Around $70. The E7400 is $100 at Microcenter currently. Gets you 1MB more of L2 cache and SSE4.1 (I believe). Both cpus stand a very good chance to get to the 3.6GHz range which seems to be where gaming performance really levels off. If you want a quad core the Q9400 is available for $180 at Microcenter. You can also find older Q6600 cpus for about the same price.

 

[yh125d]

Heh, I didn't even pay attention that he had referred to an e8500, I just read the "hesitant to buy under 3gHz" and went to town

 

[Markfw]

I say lets start with budget first. There seems to be use for a quad, but not sure on the budget.

Rough 1st guess:
C2Q Q9550 $280
Good motherboard $150 (might even be high)
4 gig ram PC-8500 (why not) $60 (high)
4870 video card $195 after rebate (at least the one I saw)

And whatever hard drive $100, reuse everything else, except maybe a new DVD burner, $25

$615 if I add right in my head.

Edit, forgot $50 for a good HSF to OC, a MUST !!

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
$615 if I add right in my head.

$860 including the $50 HSF not including any possible taxes/shipping

 

[edplayer]

another "MUST" is a case and powersupply (at least for most people)

but I think he just wants cpu advice

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I say lets start with budget first. There seems to be use for a quad, but not sure on the budget.

Rough 1st guess:
C2Q Q9550 $280
Good motherboard $150 (might even be high)
4 gig ram PC-8500 (why not) $60 (high)
4870 video card $195 after rebate (at least the one I saw)

And whatever hard drive $100, reuse everything else, except maybe a new DVD burner, $25

$615 if I add right in my head.

Edit, forgot $50 for a good HSF to OC, a MUST !!

He probably needs a new PSU too. As I recall, back when the P4 was new, 300-350W was considered plenty. Not sure I'd want to run an overclocked C2Q and a 4870 on a 6+ year old PSU.

EDIT: Beaten. And besides, this basically involves replacing all your components, though I guess you could keep your old case.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I say lets start with budget first. There seems to be use for a quad, but not sure on the budget.

Rough 1st guess:
C2Q Q9550 $280
Good motherboard $150 (might even be high)
4 gig ram PC-8500 (why not) $60 (high)
4870 video card $195 after rebate (at least the one I saw)

And whatever hard drive $100, reuse everything else, except maybe a new DVD burner, $25

$615 if I add right in my head.

Edit, forgot $50 for a good HSF to OC, a MUST !!

He probably needs a new PSU too. As I recall, back when the P4 was new, 300-350W was considered plenty. Not sure I'd want to run an overclocked C2Q and a 4870 on a 6+ year old PSU.

EDIT: Beaten. And besides, this basically involves replacing all your components, though I guess you could keep your old case.

MY adding was bad, so yes $960 including a good 700 watt PSU (I like the OCZ stealthstream, a rebadged Fortron, I have 4)

 

[Kraeoss]

yea a q9550 should suit u nicely for like a yr or so till the i7 platform prices drop significantly or better upgrades are created just remember the card is 80 % the gaming experience the cpu is the 20 % hehe..... so just get something for now like E8500 or a Q9550 and your good to go :thumbsup:

 

[dflynchimp]

performance per watt and performance per clockspeed have drastically improved when compared to the P4.

In fact, the pentium 4 is probably the most inefficient cpu to date when you look at computes per clock, because it sacrificed some efficiency in that department and instead focused on performance through high clock speeds. Even the Pentium 3 had better performance per clock. Intel's mobile line from the pentium M to core duo to core 2 duo on the desktop are actually closer archetectural descendants to the Pentium 3, P4 and PD (both netburst) having become a dead end for them.

I'd venture that performance per clock is roughly doubled for many single threaded operations, with multithreaded software seeing the benefits of increased core counts. Some apps will see even larger increases due to Core's archy overhaul. This is a generalization of course, because the archetectures of Core is so different from P4 (short versus long pipelines for one) that it's really apples and oranges in some departments. Even netburst had some areas where it scaled decently (although for the most part it was walloped by AMD's K8 line).

To put things in perspective, the single 1.8GHz AMD Athlon 64 3000+ completed most tasks around the same speed as an 3.0GHz P4, and a 1.8GHz Athlon X2 3600+ would rival a 3.0GHz Pentium D (since it is just a doubling of the 1.8GHz K8 core, the 3600+ moniker being more arbitrary in this case). The conroe based Core 2 Duo had about a 25% performance advantage per clock when compared to AMD's 64 and X2 64 lines, so you could guestimate a 3.0GHz Core 2 duo to be as fast as a theoretical 3.75GHz Athlon X2, which in turn would equate a 6.25GHz Pentium D

so roughly double the speed per clock. Be happy. Now's a good time for buying cpus.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I guess I didn't provide a budget because I am more interested in generic CPU advice than I am about system building. Nothing wrong with that, though, so my budget is ~$1100 for everything besides a monitor or speakers.

I just bought a Samsung 2433BW 24" LCD (1920x1200) and I'd like to game at that resolution. Graphics settings turned up would be nice, too. Of course, like Kraeoss said, that's more of a GPU topic and I'll post something about that in that thread soon.

As soon as this system is built I'll be picking up Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2, and The Witcher so that should give you guys an idea about my spec requirements. I'm actually building this system in anticipation of StarCraft II and, eventually, Diablo III (supposedly, less graphically demanding than the others).

Other stuff I'm considering since this is sort of a system thread now:
HD 4870 1GB
4GB DDR2-800
GA-EP45-UD3P
WD 1TB HDD
750W PSU
Vista 64-bit

I've been looking at the E8500, but I'm not sure if I need/should want either of the quad-core processors (Q series/i7).

 

[dflynchimp]

yeah, I'm stoked that SC2 is coming out in the future. Your other hardware picks look good. you should tally up everything besides the cpu and gpu so you know what kind of money you'll be left with, because in the end your budget is going to be one huge jousting match between more juice for one at the cost of the other.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Good choice on the mobo. Hope your getting the 1TB WD Black drive.

 

[NoSoup4You]

The E7400 is an incredible value at $119. Plus, you won't need an expensive mother board to overclock it. Any board that can run 400fsb will let you clock it up to a potential 4.2Ghz.

It really depends on the games you play. I couldn't care less about Unreal Tournament or GTAIV (already played it on 360 to death), so an E8400 was all I needed when I upgraded 5 weeks ago. Dual core still kills in most games, and they're so cheap that even if they're obsolete in two years, who cares? Hardly much lost on the investment.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

If you're looking for incredible value, I do suggest you get the E7400. Since you seem to have in mind to upgrade in a year or two, the E7400 will definitely tide you over. It is more than fast enough than the E5200 to justify the price difference, and priced low enough below the E8400 to make it a better value, especially if you overclock.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
It is more than fast enough than the E5200 to justify the price difference, ...

Not on a price/performance level. 42% premium (using the $100 option vs $70) for NOWHERE near a 42% increase in performance. I would still pick the E7400 but the E5200 is the bang 4 the buck king right now.

His budget is large enough so the $30 shouldn't bother him but just because you budget that doesn't mean its a good idea to spend it all. He could save some of it for his planned quad core upgrade in the future. Also that 750W psu is overkill for what he is considering. A high quality 500W psu would work well for an overclocked quad plus an overclocked 4870

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Yes, the WD 1TB HDD I'm looking at is the Caviar Black (so highly recommended on this website, how could I pass it up?).

Is the Core 2 platform dead with i7 out, or will new chips still roll out? I've heard talk about an upcoming E8700 at 3.5GHz (does anyone know when this is due because I may try to wait just to pick up the E8500 after the inevitable price drop... but I don't know how long my itchy trigger finger can wait). Will they continue to drop new C2Q's, too? It'd be great to pick up a 3.0+GHz for $100-$150 in 12-18 months.