Running an old E4300 and I want the best bang for the buck upgrade

[jjzelinski]

I've spent days now browsing threads and articles trying to ascertain what processor would best suit my system for the purpose of gaming. Q6600's seem to be reaching 3.6Ghz pretty consistently, how does that compare to an E8400 @ 4Ghz? Or would I be better served by going to route of a penryn?

For the record, I'd like to keep the price below $300. However, if there is an option that delivers a wide enough performance margin for a bit more than that then I'd consider that as well.

I really appreciate your feedback and look forward to following up on this conversation tomorrow

JZ

 

[happy medium]

9600gt in sli need more cpu so I would go e8400 and clock it to 4.0 if you can.

 

[v8envy]

There's only one game which a 3 ghz 4300 is going to choke on, and that's Crysis. An E8400 won't handle it either. Neither will a Q6600, Q9450, etc. SupCom may be a problem on huge maps with any of these CPUs too, and Flight Sim X. A 45 nm QX9770 cpu @ 4+ ghz with a monster PSU, water cooling and possibly Intel chipset can handle that, but that's about $1500 in addition to your budget.

Sorry man. You're stuck waiting with the rest of us. 4ghz on an E8400 should be doable with your RAM considering you hit 500 mhz fsb with the 4300, so you can definitely hit your budget. So if you have that upgrade itch, that's the way to fly. If you can wait, wait.

Oh, for *most* current games an E8400 at 4ghz will be faster than a Q6600 at 3.6. On the few ultra-piggy games I mentioned above, the quad will be better.

 

[magreen]

LOL at old e4300. Just how old is it?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: happy medium
9600gt in sli need more cpu so I would go e8400 and clock it to 4.0 if you can.

Yep, that's one of the main reasons I got the itch Im pretty much CPU bound in everything at this point and I'd like to give my 9600's some more juice to play with.

Originally posted by: v8envy
There's only one game which a 3 ghz 4300 is going to choke on, and that's Crysis. An E8400 won't handle it either. Neither will a Q6600, Q9450, etc. SupCom may be a problem on huge maps with any of these CPUs too, and Flight Sim X. A 45 nm QX9770 cpu @ 4+ ghz with a monster PSU, water cooling and possibly Intel chipset can handle that, but that's about $1500 in addition to your budget.

Sorry man. You're stuck waiting with the rest of us. 4ghz on an E8400 should be doable with your RAM considering you hit 500 mhz fsb with the 4300, so you can definitely hit your budget. So if you have that upgrade itch, that's the way to fly. If you can wait, wait.

Oh, for *most* current games an E8400 at 4ghz will be faster than a Q6600 at 3.6. On the few ultra-piggy games I mentioned above, the quad will be better.

Excellent reply, I appreciate the time you took with it. I suppose the only thing I haven't mentioned (but may very well go without saying) is that this upgrade would last me quite while, at least 2 years or more. In fact, possibly more with the CPU. I'm worried about longevity as I can't help but wonder if multi-core utilization might really start to take off during the life cycle of this upgrade. Will the 8400 @ 4Ghz have legs, or is quad core an inevitability I should bank on now?

Hmm... decisions... it seems the Q6600 is hovering at about the same price as the E8400, and the impression I get is their performance is comparable what clocked at 3.6Ghz and 4Ghz respectively.

Originally posted by: magreen
LOL at old e4300. Just how old is it?

Old enough to aggravate my nerd itch

 

[spdfreak]

I don't think you will notice any upgrade you do except for maybe HD video editing. At 3 GHz already, you just won't feel it. You are already past the point of diminishing returns so anything you buy is likely to be somewhat disappointing. Nice, very well thought out system, BTW. If you do buy a new cpu and want to sell your 4300, let me know.

 

[woolfe9999]

Excellent reply, I appreciate the time you took with it. I suppose the only thing I haven't mentioned (but may very well go without saying) is that this upgrade would last me quite while, at least 2 years or more. In fact, possibly more with the CPU. I'm worried about longevity as I can't help but wonder if multi-core utilization might really start to take off during the life cycle of this upgrade. Will the 8400 @ 4Ghz have legs, or is quad core an inevitability I should bank on now?

I think your instincts are pretty good here, and that you just answered your own question. A couple people above have mentioned that although the e8400@4ghz is the faster option, you won't notice much difference either way. However, if you really are looking at another 2 years before your next upgrade, it's likely we'll see a lot of titles come out in that time which make good use of quads, and in those titltes, the quad will be superior. If you're on a 6-12 upgrade cycle, I'd say get the e8400. On a 2 year, the quad is probably your better option.

Then again, since neither CPU will show especially large practical gains for you right now, waiting is also a viable option.

- woolfe

 

[Denithor]

Well, I would say stick with the e4300 @ 3GHz until Nehalem launches later this year but then you're gonna be stuck paying the "early adopter" entrance fee.

I am in the process of upgrading my system, going from x1900gt/ip35-e/4x1GB HP DDR2-667/e6400 @ 3GHz to 9600GT/IP35 Pro/2x2GB mushkin DDR2-800/e8400. Have all the parts at home now, just need enough time at home myself to build and transplant.

Old gear going into the living room so friends can play WoW on the 32" Bravia.

I know, not much of an upgrade probably but I couldn't resist those "after MIR" prices. And this will easily last until Nehalem prices have become reasonable.

9600GT $125
IP35 Pro $100
2x2GB 5-4-4-12 $50
e8400 $200 (shipped)