Overclocking: e8400 vs e8500 vs e8600

[TidusZ]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: TidusZ

Also, does anyone have benchmarks of a wolfdale vs a q9xxx, preferably with both of them overclocked to some extent? .

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0

Well, this really confuses things. Looks like I'd get probably about the same frames in most games at 3.8 quad vs 4.3 dual, so I'm kinda just paying 180 bucks for a good size boost in stuff that uses the 4 cores. I am still undecided, will have to see how I'm thinking on purchase day. Thanks a lot for the link btw, exactly what I was looking for, and endless googling wasn't helping me.

 

[Phew]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
Well, this really confuses things. Looks like I'd get probably about the same frames in most games at 3.8 quad vs 4.3 dual, so I'm kinda just paying 180 bucks for a good size boost in stuff that uses the 4 cores. I am still undecided, will have to see how I'm thinking on purchase day. Thanks a lot for the link btw, exactly what I was looking for, and endless googling wasn't helping me.

Keep in mind that all those benchmarks were at absurdly low resolutions. At resolutions you actually play games at (16x10+), any CPU over 3 GHZ (dual or quad) will give you the same framerates, as you will be limited by your GPU, not your CPU.

Now, in a year or two you may need a quad for gaming, but I figure pay $150 for a good dual now, and when you NEED a quad down the road, you'll be able to get one cheap (and still be able to sell your dual) so you'd come out ahead. However, I figure by the time that quads are necessary for gaming, socket 775 will be obsolete anyway, so you'll want to upgrade your whole system.

Now, if you do video encoding or something, all bets are off; get a quad now.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Phew

Originally posted by: TidusZ
Well, this really confuses things. Looks like I'd get probably about the same frames in most games at 3.8 quad vs 4.3 dual, so I'm kinda just paying 180 bucks for a good size boost in stuff that uses the 4 cores. I am still undecided, will have to see how I'm thinking on purchase day. Thanks a lot for the link btw, exactly what I was looking for, and endless googling wasn't helping me.

At resolutions you actually play games at (16x10+), any CPU over 3 GHZ (dual or quad) will give you the same framerates

I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything "over 3ghz" is the same at high-res.

4ghz vs. 4.5ghz 16x10+
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=530527

2ghz vs. 4ghz 16x10 4xAA:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...647744&image_id=839050

 

[udneekgnim]

non-OCed CPU comparisons

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2336852,00.asp

 

[Phew]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything "over 3ghz" is the same at high-res.

My statement was in response to all the suggestions that the OP get a quad instead. A dual at 3 GHz and a quad at 3 GHz will give you the same framerates at high resolutions, as udneekgnim's link above shows.

That may not be true in a year a two, who knows?