Should I get a Q6600, gtx 260, or 4870....or just wait

[scheibler1]

I've currently got a e2180 @ 3ghz (333x9) and an 8800gt oc @ 725/1728/900

Gaming @ 1920x1200 is my only concern. I was reading reviews and my own personal benchmarks are always lower then other 8800gt benchmarks b/c most reviews use a q6600 overclocked or the new q9650 cpus.

Here is my personal benchmarks with DX9

Company Of Heroes
Average- 84
Max- 173
Min- 39

However during the game if I zoom in on units and rotate the camera angle to watch a battle it often drops below 20fps!

World In Conflict
Average- 31
Max- 63
Min- 16

3dmark06- 11,321

I play Crysis, Grid, Company Of Heroes, World In Conflict and am aggrivated by occassional fps dips....minimum fps is what I wish reviews would emphasize! I also want to be able to play these games on high settings(Brothers In Arms Hells Highway, FarCry 2, Crysis Warhead, C&C 3 Red Alert, Pure, GTA 4)

I was thinking of swapping out the e2180 for a q6600 overclocked to 3ghz after readibg the legionhardware review. This upgrade would cost me about $160 after selling my e2180. Is this worth it...I know I will eventually want to upgrade to a Q6600 instead of going Nahelm. I read this review and Company Of Heroes and World In Conflict both benefit from quad core...I'm sure new games will follow that trend.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770

Or should I wait to get a Q6600 until Nahelm is released and pick up a GTX 260 or ATI 4870? This upgrade would cost me about $185 after selling my 8800gt, but I just don't know if there will be a big enough difference between over the 8800gt oc'd so high.

OR I COULD JUST KEEP MY CURRENT HARDWARE UNTIL CHRISTMAS AND HOPE PRICES DROP A LOT

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I would just get the 4870 off the bat and see how high of fps you get. I went from my 3870 to a 4870 and the difference was very noticeable.

 

[myocardia]

As you can see, with lower resoliutions, the 1MB of cache that the E21x0's have can make a huge difference, depending on the game. But, at 1920x1200, the difference will be much less. I don't know anything about the other games you mentioned, but I can guarantee you that trying to play either FarCry 2 or Crysis Warhead with an 8800GT @ 1920x1200 won't be an enjoyable experience, so you're going to need at least a GTX260 or 4870 for those two games, anyway.

BTW, why are you running your GPU @ 725 (a 125 Mhz overclock), but running your VRAM @ it's stock speed? The G92's are a bit bandwidth-starved to begin with. If you're only going to overclock one part of your video card, you'd gain more performance by overclocking your RAM and leaving your GPU @ it's stock speed, than you would by doing it the way you're doing it. Admittedly, that isn't going to raise your minimum framerates much-- that's mostly CPU-dependent.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: myocardia
As you can see, with lower resoliutions, the 1MB of cache that the E21x0's have can make a huge difference, depending on the game. But, at 1920x1200, the difference will be much less. I don't know anything about the other games you mentioned, but I can guarantee you that trying to play either FarCry 2 or Crysis Warhead with an 8800GT @ 1920x1200 won't be an enjoyable experience, so you're going to need at least a GTX260 or 4870 for those two games, anyway.

BTW, why are you running your GPU @ 725 (a 125 Mhz overclock), but running your VRAM @ it's stock speed? The G92's are a bit bandwidth-starved to begin with. If you're only going to overclock one part of your video card, you'd gain more performance by overclocking your RAM and leaving your GPU @ it's stock speed, than you would by doing it the way you're doing it. Admittedly, that isn't going to raise your minimum framerates much-- that's mostly CPU-dependent.

Just a quick note...Crysis is pretty poor even with a GTX280 at that resolution. I expect the expansion to be more of the same.

 

[scheibler1]

Originally posted by: myocardia
As you can see, with lower resoliutions, the 1MB of cache that the E21x0's have can make a huge difference, depending on the game. But, at 1920x1200, the difference will be much less. I don't know anything about the other games you mentioned, but I can guarantee you that trying to play either FarCry 2 or Crysis Warhead with an 8800GT @ 1920x1200 won't be an enjoyable experience, so you're going to need at least a GTX260 or 4870 for those two games, anyway.

BTW, why are you running your GPU @ 725 (a 125 Mhz overclock), but running your VRAM @ it's stock speed? The G92's are a bit bandwidth-starved to begin with. If you're only going to overclock one part of your video card, you'd gain more performance by overclocking your RAM and leaving your GPU @ it's stock speed, than you would by doing it the way you're doing it. Admittedly, that isn't going to raise your minimum framerates much-- that's mostly CPU-dependent.

I'm running my GPU at stock VRAM b/c it doesn't make nearly as big of a difference as the Core/Shader overclock. Its been tested by a bunch of users on hardforum....its not even worth overclocking IMO

BTW, I still can't decide what what help more. I guess I should also consider the 9800gx2 as it is so cheap right now used, but I am scared I will notice microstutter

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: myocardia
As you can see, with lower resoliutions, the 1MB of cache that the E21x0's have can make a huge difference, depending on the game. But, at 1920x1200, the difference will be much less. I don't know anything about the other games you mentioned, but I can guarantee you that trying to play either FarCry 2 or Crysis Warhead with an 8800GT @ 1920x1200 won't be an enjoyable experience, so you're going to need at least a GTX260 or 4870 for those two games, anyway.

BTW, why are you running your GPU @ 725 (a 125 Mhz overclock), but running your VRAM @ it's stock speed? The G92's are a bit bandwidth-starved to begin with. If you're only going to overclock one part of your video card, you'd gain more performance by overclocking your RAM and leaving your GPU @ it's stock speed, than you would by doing it the way you're doing it. Admittedly, that isn't going to raise your minimum framerates much-- that's mostly CPU-dependent.

Just a quick note...Crysis is pretty poor even with a GTX280 at that resolution. I expect the expansion to be more of the same.

We'll have to see how Crytek's claims of heavy optimization turn out eh? I still have my doubts with Warhead's emphasis on close up exploding everything instead of sneaking about.

 

[error8]

Yeah, the memory overclock has the smallest impact on performance. It starts to count more only when your GPU clock is over 800 mhz, but the shader overclock gives the highest performance out of the three.