Quad Vs Duo Which is best for games??
- Thread starter allyrocky
- Start date
Depends a little on the games you play, but often, like 90% of the time, a faster clocked c2d will outperform a slower clocked quadcore.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
At the same clock speed and generation, it makes little difference at this moment aside from a tiny handful of games like SupCom. Soon, stuff like Alan Wake will show up, it's supposed to be pretty demanding, and support QC.
Anyway, a 3ghz dual core beside a 3ghz quad core, both will be indistinguishable for current gaming pretty much. If you're buying to use the system for several years, I'd recommend the quad, you'll probably get more usable life out of it + higher resale. Look at the original S939 X2's, they're pretty old right now, but still sellable for $$. Original S939 A64s, not so much.
Overclocking is your friend, for general/gaming usage and someone not terribly experienced, I recommend the following :
(1)- Read the AT guides for OC
(2)- Grab a recommended mobo that many use successfully with the cpu/video you want to use
(3)- Get the best video card you can afford
(4)- Overclock your rig to a moderate amount (I don't really recommend taking things to extremes in this regard)
Anyway, a 3ghz dual core beside a 3ghz quad core, both will be indistinguishable for current gaming pretty much. If you're buying to use the system for several years, I'd recommend the quad, you'll probably get more usable life out of it + higher resale. Look at the original S939 X2's, they're pretty old right now, but still sellable for $$. Original S939 A64s, not so much.
Overclocking is your friend, for general/gaming usage and someone not terribly experienced, I recommend the following :
(1)- Read the AT guides for OC
(2)- Grab a recommended mobo that many use successfully with the cpu/video you want to use
(3)- Get the best video card you can afford
(4)- Overclock your rig to a moderate amount (I don't really recommend taking things to extremes in this regard)
I'll chip in and say the odds begin to favor the quads even more so if you like to have your computer doing more stuff in the background while you are gaming. Such as ripping, burning, encoding, archiving, backing up, etc.
If you don't multi-task with apps running in the background then dual-core is likely going to give you all the performance you'll ever notice when it comes to gaming, spend an extra $100 on a better vid card at that point.
If you don't multi-task with apps running in the background then dual-core is likely going to give you all the performance you'll ever notice when it comes to gaming, spend an extra $100 on a better vid card at that point.
So guys Should i buy a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad??..i think of buying 8800 GT..but waiting fot the release of 9800gt/gtx
Well I don't think we can rightly recommend anything without you telling us your budget constraints as well as what else you are doing with the computer (now or expectations in the future).
Generally these kinds of discussions revolve around the trade-offs of overclocking, so knowing whether you will OC the system factors into the recommendations as well.
Generally these kinds of discussions revolve around the trade-offs of overclocking, so knowing whether you will OC the system factors into the recommendations as well.
hmmm I was considering a q6600 over a e8400 for a bit then through research i decided a e8400 would clock higher and give me better game performance. They are both nice chips but then again I think the higher clocked e8400 is better for games only and by the time games really start using 4+ cores more I will have a faster quad core I can through in my x38 mb if I like. If you arent planning on upgrading from this cpu anytime soon or plan on doing non gamming stuff with the pc then it might be a tossup.
Yes.
You really can't go wrong buying either the Q6600, Q9450, or E8400. All are great CPU's, and for most games, you will be video card limited anyway.
Hey guys, I have a E6300 C2D at the moment and am thinking about buying a new Wolfdale, maybe E8400 or E8500. What kind of differences in performance can I expect (in games mostly)? Will I see decreased load times? Less stutter? Considering that I don't do a lot of encoding/Photoshop, etc. , do you guys think it would be worth the upgrade?
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
What speed are you running the E6300? Compared to a stock E6300 an E8xxx would show a substantial increase, but comparing to a well overclocked E6300 the difference wouldn't be too much.
If your running stock overclock it, if your already overclocking it's probably not worth the upgrade. If your running stock and don't want to overclock, get an E8XXX
My budget would be around $2000 - $2250 US...
I use my pc to play games mostly,watch movies ..
i want my PC to be future proof..
im not willing to upgrade my motherboard and CPU for atleast 2 years.
also Which RAM is best DDR3 or DDR2???
I use my pc to play games mostly,watch movies ..
i want my PC to be future proof..
im not willing to upgrade my motherboard and CPU for atleast 2 years.
also Which RAM is best DDR3 or DDR2???
Gee I'd overclock at least a LITTLE, it's like a free oh 5% (estimate) performance boost even with the stock cooler.
Anyway if you want it to last 2-3 years, I cannot see why you WOULDN'T obviously get a quad. The q6600 can be had for the same money or less than the e8400 / e8500 currently. 4 cores is better than 2, especially taking into account the future situation where more and more software will be designed to take good advantage of multiple cores.
The PS3 already has numerous cores, so any game they port to it has to take good advantage of multi-core. The typical modern gaming PC has at least 2 cores, and they have to take advantage of those. It is only a matter of months before they come out with the next wave of new game releases for summer / fall / winter 2008 and you can be sure that all the very demanding ones will be tested with and optimized to work with both 2 core and 4 core systems!
Intel is coming out with 8 core CPUs for the mainstream consumer and business markets in 2009. Multiple cores rather than faster GHz on a single core is the way the whole PC business has been going for the past 3 years... from P4 hyperthreading to Pentium D to Core2Duo to Quad core.... do you really think Intel is putting 4 and even 8 cores on a chip for what will be most of the PCs sold in 2009 for no reason and nobody will care or use them? Will the software companies will just ignore the 4 or 8 cores and keep programming for 1-2 -- not the ones that want to stay in business!
For immediate purposes the question is NOT whether the 3GHz E8500 2-core benchmarks slightly faster than the 2.4GHz quad-core Q6600 only when running in like 1024x768 on low quality. Do you want to play only in 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768? No? I didn't think so. Do you want to play in low quality settings? No? I didn't think so either. Ok, so once you increase the resolution and visual quality, guess what, the FPS and performance limit is not the CPU, it is totally the GPU.
Ok, so then ignoring whether an E8500 can do 250FPS in 1024x768 low quality in a 2 year old game, and whether the Q6600 'only' does a lesser 210FPS in the same settings, take a look at benchmarks that actually relate the the resolution and quality you WANT to play with contemporary games, and you'll see no major difference between the CPUs for gaming on games that are basically single threaded and not optimized for either 2 or 4 cores.
Frankly if you want the best quality visuals on the most complex games in the future, it isn't the CPU you should be worrying about, it is the GPU. Even the best CPU like a dual processor quad core (8 cores total) Skulltrail with the best graphics cards in SLI/Crossfire will still not be able to do 90FPS in DX10 Crysis highest visual quality settings in 2048x1600 on a 30" LCD, full AA/AF, and that's like a $7000 system. Nothing you can buy today in terms of a GPU will not limit you somewhat in terms of future and a couple of the current games. The CPU isn't even the factor.
However I don't think that the Q6600 is going to make the overall game any slower if you can play it at a decent quality/FPS with your actual GPU. If the GPU isn't powerful enough to deliver a good FPS/resolution/quality, NOTHING you can do with a CPU is going to change that whether you get the E8500 or the QX9650 or anything else.
It is like this, for the same money someone can buy a diesel V8 truck or a gasoline V4 truck; the V8 can only get up to 120MPH on a flat freeway, whereas the V4 can do 200MPH on a flat freeway. But with a load like a trailer or hauling stuff, the V4 can't at all climb over a mountain, but the V8 can do 80 hauling the heavy load.
Does it matter that the V4 can go faster unloaded? Not really since you can still go way faster than the speed you'd ever want to go in the easy case with either the V8 or the V4. Does it matter that the V8 can haul your heavy load whereas the V4 can't? Yeah, I'd call that a big difference in the cases where you have something to haul.
Anyway if you want it to last 2-3 years, I cannot see why you WOULDN'T obviously get a quad. The q6600 can be had for the same money or less than the e8400 / e8500 currently. 4 cores is better than 2, especially taking into account the future situation where more and more software will be designed to take good advantage of multiple cores.
The PS3 already has numerous cores, so any game they port to it has to take good advantage of multi-core. The typical modern gaming PC has at least 2 cores, and they have to take advantage of those. It is only a matter of months before they come out with the next wave of new game releases for summer / fall / winter 2008 and you can be sure that all the very demanding ones will be tested with and optimized to work with both 2 core and 4 core systems!
Intel is coming out with 8 core CPUs for the mainstream consumer and business markets in 2009. Multiple cores rather than faster GHz on a single core is the way the whole PC business has been going for the past 3 years... from P4 hyperthreading to Pentium D to Core2Duo to Quad core.... do you really think Intel is putting 4 and even 8 cores on a chip for what will be most of the PCs sold in 2009 for no reason and nobody will care or use them? Will the software companies will just ignore the 4 or 8 cores and keep programming for 1-2 -- not the ones that want to stay in business!
For immediate purposes the question is NOT whether the 3GHz E8500 2-core benchmarks slightly faster than the 2.4GHz quad-core Q6600 only when running in like 1024x768 on low quality. Do you want to play only in 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768? No? I didn't think so. Do you want to play in low quality settings? No? I didn't think so either. Ok, so once you increase the resolution and visual quality, guess what, the FPS and performance limit is not the CPU, it is totally the GPU.
Ok, so then ignoring whether an E8500 can do 250FPS in 1024x768 low quality in a 2 year old game, and whether the Q6600 'only' does a lesser 210FPS in the same settings, take a look at benchmarks that actually relate the the resolution and quality you WANT to play with contemporary games, and you'll see no major difference between the CPUs for gaming on games that are basically single threaded and not optimized for either 2 or 4 cores.
Frankly if you want the best quality visuals on the most complex games in the future, it isn't the CPU you should be worrying about, it is the GPU. Even the best CPU like a dual processor quad core (8 cores total) Skulltrail with the best graphics cards in SLI/Crossfire will still not be able to do 90FPS in DX10 Crysis highest visual quality settings in 2048x1600 on a 30" LCD, full AA/AF, and that's like a $7000 system. Nothing you can buy today in terms of a GPU will not limit you somewhat in terms of future and a couple of the current games. The CPU isn't even the factor.
However I don't think that the Q6600 is going to make the overall game any slower if you can play it at a decent quality/FPS with your actual GPU. If the GPU isn't powerful enough to deliver a good FPS/resolution/quality, NOTHING you can do with a CPU is going to change that whether you get the E8500 or the QX9650 or anything else.
It is like this, for the same money someone can buy a diesel V8 truck or a gasoline V4 truck; the V8 can only get up to 120MPH on a flat freeway, whereas the V4 can do 200MPH on a flat freeway. But with a load like a trailer or hauling stuff, the V4 can't at all climb over a mountain, but the V8 can do 80 hauling the heavy load.
Does it matter that the V4 can go faster unloaded? Not really since you can still go way faster than the speed you'd ever want to go in the easy case with either the V8 or the V4. Does it matter that the V8 can haul your heavy load whereas the V4 can't? Yeah, I'd call that a big difference in the cases where you have something to haul.
thanks that helped a lot...so its all GPU...:thumbsup:
I guess i would wait and buy
CPU-Core 2 Quad Q9450
GPU-nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB
Mother Board-???
RAM-DDR2 or DDR3?
Good, glad to help.
Q9450: Nothing at all wrong with it, great CPU, probably the best value in the new series of quad core cpus, though the Q9300 isn't too bad either.
Only problem is it is going for like $345 up in a lot of places, and will still be over $320 even after the initial shortages end in say mid-April.
Now currently at Microcenter or some online places you can get a Q6600 for $199 to $230, so that's over $100 cheaper than the Q9450. It should continue to be this much less or more at many stores in the end of April when Intel will cut prices on its older dual/quad core parts like the Q6600.
I'm not that sure the Q9450 is $130+ better than the Q9450... I mean I guess eventually (over years) you might save that much on the lower power bill of the Q9450 than the Q6600 since the Q9450 uses a lot less power than the Q6600 in most cases.
On the other hand, saving $130 today and spending it on the GPU or something makes the difference between a 8800GTS and maybe a faster GPU or something when one comes out (I'm not sure the 8800GTX is enough faster to be a good upgrade considering the money.. maybe if they come out with a 9800GTX that is better...).
Your choice... Q6600/Q9300/Q9450 all very good CPUs.
Motherboard: Eh if you're really truly serious about not overclocking, it's hard to beat the price/performance of the ABIT IP35-E for $60 after a 5 month wait rebate; check to see how well it works with the Q9450/Q9300 though if you intend to get those. The Q6600 works with it for sure though.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...16813127031&Tpk=ip35-e
Otherwise you could look at something like a ASUS P5K-Deluxe or so for much more money which is a bit better for very decently high overclocking, though any of their newer X38 chipset DDR2 overclocking/gaming motherboards should be worth a look too if you're overclocking. Double check for any desired Q9450/Q9300 compatibility before buying those or anything else just to be sure. It might take a newer BIOS for some of the motherboards to support those new CPU models, and in the worst cases there could be harder to solve compatibility problems. The CPU models are so new it is not known by experience how well many boards work with them even though in theory they should be all fine. Q6600 compatibility isn't really an issue anymore for virtually any decent P35 chipset or better motherboard.
8800GTS-512 -- very decent choice. Obviously if you get a superb deal on an 8800GTX on clearance sale or whatever go for that. Or if you're waiting, look out for something in the 9800GTX or whatever future models that might be somewhat more powerful at a comparable price (check the benchmarks, maybe they're not going to be any better values, hard to guess...).
RAM: Don't even THINK about DDR3, it isn't in practice much faster than decent DDR2 RAM, but DDR3 motherboards and RAM cost a *LOT* more than DDR2.
Pick up something like any one these, there are so many good deals on decent fast DDR2-800 RAM it's hard to pick 'em.
This first one (PDC24G6400LLK DDR2-800-4-4-4-12 $78 AR) looks like the best deal at the moment to me that I know of, given that you're not intending to overclock, and even if you did, DDR2-800 will by definition go up to 400 MHz without overclocking the RAM itself, which means a Q9450 OC'ed to 3200 or a Q6600 OC'ed to 3600.
4-4-4-12 is faster than 5-5-5-12 is faster than 5-5-5-15, so just pick according to price and convenience, lower voltage is better than higher voltage, so ideally 1.8V and 4-4-4-12, though there's nothing wrong with one that does 2.1V 5-5-5-15 if it's enough cheaper to make a difference to you to sacrifice a bit of speed.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220269
Patriot Extreme Performance 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model PDC24G6400LLK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Features: Patriot Aluminum Bladed Heat Shield Technology to improve module stability RoHS Compliant EPP Ready
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Model #: PDC24G6400LLK
* Item #: N82E16820220269
Price after rebate(s):$77.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146731
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model 996587 - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 5-4-4-12
* Voltage: 1.8V
Price after rebate(s):$84.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146693
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model 996558 - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: No
* Timing: 5-5-5-12
* Voltage: 1.8V
* Model #: 996558
* Item #: N82E16820146693
Price after rebate(s):$66.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220293
Patriot Viper 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model PVS24G6400LLK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.2V
* Model #: PVS24G6400LLK
* Item #: N82E16820220293
Your Price:$94.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231148
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.0V - 2.1V
* Model #: F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK
* Item #: N82E16820231148
Your Price:$99.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820144216
GeIL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Desktop Memory Model GX24GB6400LDCB= - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 5-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.0V - 2.2V
* Model #: GX24GB6400LDCB=
* Item #: N82E16820144216
Price after rebate(s):$74.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820144118
GeIL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model GX24GB6400UDCA - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Features: Metallic Racing Orange Heat Spreader
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Recommend Use: High Performance or Gaming Memory
* Model #: GX24GB6400UDCA
* Item #: N82E16820144118
($82.99 after $20.00 Mail-In Rebate)
Q9450: Nothing at all wrong with it, great CPU, probably the best value in the new series of quad core cpus, though the Q9300 isn't too bad either.
Only problem is it is going for like $345 up in a lot of places, and will still be over $320 even after the initial shortages end in say mid-April.
Now currently at Microcenter or some online places you can get a Q6600 for $199 to $230, so that's over $100 cheaper than the Q9450. It should continue to be this much less or more at many stores in the end of April when Intel will cut prices on its older dual/quad core parts like the Q6600.
I'm not that sure the Q9450 is $130+ better than the Q9450... I mean I guess eventually (over years) you might save that much on the lower power bill of the Q9450 than the Q6600 since the Q9450 uses a lot less power than the Q6600 in most cases.
On the other hand, saving $130 today and spending it on the GPU or something makes the difference between a 8800GTS and maybe a faster GPU or something when one comes out (I'm not sure the 8800GTX is enough faster to be a good upgrade considering the money.. maybe if they come out with a 9800GTX that is better...).
Your choice... Q6600/Q9300/Q9450 all very good CPUs.
Motherboard: Eh if you're really truly serious about not overclocking, it's hard to beat the price/performance of the ABIT IP35-E for $60 after a 5 month wait rebate; check to see how well it works with the Q9450/Q9300 though if you intend to get those. The Q6600 works with it for sure though.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...16813127031&Tpk=ip35-e
Otherwise you could look at something like a ASUS P5K-Deluxe or so for much more money which is a bit better for very decently high overclocking, though any of their newer X38 chipset DDR2 overclocking/gaming motherboards should be worth a look too if you're overclocking. Double check for any desired Q9450/Q9300 compatibility before buying those or anything else just to be sure. It might take a newer BIOS for some of the motherboards to support those new CPU models, and in the worst cases there could be harder to solve compatibility problems. The CPU models are so new it is not known by experience how well many boards work with them even though in theory they should be all fine. Q6600 compatibility isn't really an issue anymore for virtually any decent P35 chipset or better motherboard.
8800GTS-512 -- very decent choice. Obviously if you get a superb deal on an 8800GTX on clearance sale or whatever go for that. Or if you're waiting, look out for something in the 9800GTX or whatever future models that might be somewhat more powerful at a comparable price (check the benchmarks, maybe they're not going to be any better values, hard to guess...).
RAM: Don't even THINK about DDR3, it isn't in practice much faster than decent DDR2 RAM, but DDR3 motherboards and RAM cost a *LOT* more than DDR2.
Pick up something like any one these, there are so many good deals on decent fast DDR2-800 RAM it's hard to pick 'em.
This first one (PDC24G6400LLK DDR2-800-4-4-4-12 $78 AR) looks like the best deal at the moment to me that I know of, given that you're not intending to overclock, and even if you did, DDR2-800 will by definition go up to 400 MHz without overclocking the RAM itself, which means a Q9450 OC'ed to 3200 or a Q6600 OC'ed to 3600.
4-4-4-12 is faster than 5-5-5-12 is faster than 5-5-5-15, so just pick according to price and convenience, lower voltage is better than higher voltage, so ideally 1.8V and 4-4-4-12, though there's nothing wrong with one that does 2.1V 5-5-5-15 if it's enough cheaper to make a difference to you to sacrifice a bit of speed.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220269
Patriot Extreme Performance 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model PDC24G6400LLK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Features: Patriot Aluminum Bladed Heat Shield Technology to improve module stability RoHS Compliant EPP Ready
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Model #: PDC24G6400LLK
* Item #: N82E16820220269
Price after rebate(s):$77.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146731
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model 996587 - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 5-4-4-12
* Voltage: 1.8V
Price after rebate(s):$84.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146693
mushkin 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model 996558 - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: No
* Timing: 5-5-5-12
* Voltage: 1.8V
* Model #: 996558
* Item #: N82E16820146693
Price after rebate(s):$66.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220293
Patriot Viper 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model PVS24G6400LLK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.2V
* Model #: PVS24G6400LLK
* Item #: N82E16820220293
Your Price:$94.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231148
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 4-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.0V - 2.1V
* Model #: F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK
* Item #: N82E16820231148
Your Price:$99.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820144216
GeIL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Desktop Memory Model GX24GB6400LDCB= - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 5-4-4-12
* Voltage: 2.0V - 2.2V
* Model #: GX24GB6400LDCB=
* Item #: N82E16820144216
Price after rebate(s):$74.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820144118
GeIL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model GX24GB6400UDCA - Retail
* Cas Latency: 4
* Features: Metallic Racing Orange Heat Spreader
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Recommend Use: High Performance or Gaming Memory
* Model #: GX24GB6400UDCA
* Item #: N82E16820144118
($82.99 after $20.00 Mail-In Rebate)
Then get either the e8400 or the Q9300. Both are 45nm, run cooler and use less power then the Q6600. Take a look at this Xbit article, it compares a Q9300 with a e8500 (just a touch faster then the e8400). The article also compares a Q9300 to a Q6600.
The Q9300 running at stock is just a little but faster then the Q6600, and like I mentioned, runs cooler. It's lower multiplier doesn't become a problem, since you won't OC it.
Get 4Gig of decent 5-5-5 1.8V DDR2-800 (only ~$80 now) from any of the good manufacturers, and you should be good to go.
Any decent P35 mobo should be fine, and under $100.
What is your monitor and resolution? Unless you have a huge monitor, 8800GT or 8800GTS should be fine, and only ~$200 to $250.
thank u for ur replys...
I have a 17 inch monitor ...resolution is 1280x1024...
im planning to buy a 22 inch or a 19 inch monitor
I have a 17 inch monitor ...resolution is 1280x1024...
im planning to buy a 22 inch or a 19 inch monitor
well if you are talking just heads up, not factoring in price, then the OX9650. if we are going to factor in price then I would say E8400. We really dont have any games that push the ability of Quad core right now, but in time who knows.
I chose quad cause I do vid editing stuff, right now Im running DVD RB with 4 pass cce, with my E4300 @ 3240 I wouldnt be typing now, Id just go watch TV, With my Q6600 @3150, Its loading all 4 cores at 100%, but Im still able to do other things with little notice.
My 3dmark score went up from 12156 w/e4300 to 13654 w/Q6600 - Crysis all settings the same, no diff, same frame rate etc.....
so in gaming, Frequency is king, faster clock is better.... for now...
I chose quad cause I do vid editing stuff, right now Im running DVD RB with 4 pass cce, with my E4300 @ 3240 I wouldnt be typing now, Id just go watch TV, With my Q6600 @3150, Its loading all 4 cores at 100%, but Im still able to do other things with little notice.
My 3dmark score went up from 12156 w/e4300 to 13654 w/Q6600 - Crysis all settings the same, no diff, same frame rate etc.....
so in gaming, Frequency is king, faster clock is better.... for now...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter