What do you recommend for the best intel processor for gaming? I know a lot of you prefer AMD, but my friend wants to get intel for some reason.
So what do is the best intel for gaming?
So what do is the best intel for gaming?
what is the best intel processor for gaming?
- Thread starter bball1523
- Start date
And your friend is right for now.
X6800 is the best at stock speeds.
E6600 is slower, but 1/3 the price and still faster than the FX-62 on all grounds. Does not overclock as high as teh E6300, as it has 2x the cache.
E6300 is the slowest, but costs less than $190 from some e-tailers and is a match for the X2-4600 at stock. It overclocks verywell (3Ghz+) and at those speeds, nothing can touch it on the AMD camp.
X6800 is the best at stock speeds.
E6600 is slower, but 1/3 the price and still faster than the FX-62 on all grounds. Does not overclock as high as teh E6300, as it has 2x the cache.
E6300 is the slowest, but costs less than $190 from some e-tailers and is a match for the X2-4600 at stock. It overclocks verywell (3Ghz+) and at those speeds, nothing can touch it on the AMD camp.
what about this one:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80859
Intel E6400.
And is DFI is a good motherboard brand?
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80859
Intel E6400.
And is DFI is a good motherboard brand?
Be careful on that man, my chip may be a little unique but I doubt many e6300's are hitting 3.7-4ghz, which is what they'd need to to equal the perf of mine. I'd recommend an E6400 for him if he can afford it
that's the one he wants. it's like $241. He is not concerned with overclocking, just wants something reliable and fast enough to handle games at max settings.
I checked tom's hardware and the x6800 seems to be the fastest with 73 FPS in the game FEAR. e6400 was 7th with 58 FPS.
Does a 15 FPS more really matter? he's not a gamer that plays CS Source all day. He just plays by himself, but loves intense graphics at max settings.
I checked tom's hardware and the x6800 seems to be the fastest with 73 FPS in the game FEAR. e6400 was 7th with 58 FPS.
Does a 15 FPS more really matter? he's not a gamer that plays CS Source all day. He just plays by himself, but loves intense graphics at max settings.
Tom's Hardware is running game benches at low resolutions with no AA/AF/shadows to reduce GPU bottlenecks so that the CPU can be isolated. In the real world you would obviously use AA/AF/shadows, which would make the gap between the X6800 and E6400 almost negligible.
alright, but the 6800 is way too expensive. My friend is looking at a budget of around $1500 for all the computer parts combined.
would the e6400 fit well for what he wants? I mean how much difference does FPS really make if it hovers around 50-60 FPS?
are there any websites that do benchmarks with every graphics element taken into account?
would the e6400 fit well for what he wants? I mean how much difference does FPS really make if it hovers around 50-60 FPS?
are there any websites that do benchmarks with every graphics element taken into account?
Originally posted by: Kromis
Here come the real-world benchmarks!
Kidding!
Unless you just love to play at low resolutions, its your graphics card that matters most.
would a 7900 256 mb card work? Or do you recommend anything better?
Originally posted by: bball1523
Originally posted by: Kromis
Here come the real-world benchmarks!
Kidding!
Unless you just love to play at low resolutions, its your graphics card that matters most.
would a 7900 256 mb card work? Or do you recommend anything better?
I recommend an X1900XT.
Anyway, you might have established this already but I think the best price/performance Intel CPU right now is the E6400. Less than $250, it does have 2MB cache but it can overclock to 3.4-3.6 GHz MOST of the time.
Yes, the $241 E6400 is a good compromise between the super expensive X6800 and the cheaper E6300. I have an E6400 on it's way to me because it's just the sweetspot in value right now and the overclocker's favorite too.
And the 7900 256mb videocard would be nice but like Kromis suggested, I think an ATI X1900XT (they are 512mb)will make your friend happier if he is really into pumped up graphics. Either one will work though.
And the 7900 256mb videocard would be nice but like Kromis suggested, I think an ATI X1900XT (they are 512mb)will make your friend happier if he is really into pumped up graphics. Either one will work though.
Here's an example. I was gonna build my daughter a 38800 X2 rig. Okay, so I finally decided to buy last week but not before pricing things one last time. Then i decided just for funsies to compare it to a Conroe set up. The only difference was instead of the 3800 I chose the E6400. Instead of the M2N32 mobo I chose the P5W DH. The RAM modules were different but prices pretty much spot on. All the other components stayed the same. So for $160 I could get a E6400 system. And since I was going to overclock anyway not only was the E6400 superior to the 3800 in stock form the E6400 also overclocks higher. Well, that sold me. I went Conroe. I could have saved a little more if i had chose a E6300 and the Gigabyte DS3 but $160 wasnt gonna break me. So shop around and look carefully. Prices on the E6300 & E6400 are now dropping and the E6600 is starting to get a better supply happening. Mobos like the P5W DH are starting to hedge down now too as their supply increases.
Last of the components arrived last night so now soon as I get a free day I plan to put the system together. Next week sometime looks like since I'm on vacation starting Tuesday (today is Saturday).
Btw, its not that the AMD dual cores are bad for gaming, they are great gaming procs, its just that Conroes are better procs currently performance-wise. Until AMD comes up with something that can beat the Conroe. Which probably wont be til sometime next year at the earliest. Their one hope is the 4x4 chips but no one is certain just how good they'll be for gaming or wether AMD can get them out in quantity in time for this year.
Last of the components arrived last night so now soon as I get a free day I plan to put the system together. Next week sometime looks like since I'm on vacation starting Tuesday (today is Saturday).
Btw, its not that the AMD dual cores are bad for gaming, they are great gaming procs, its just that Conroes are better procs currently performance-wise. Until AMD comes up with something that can beat the Conroe. Which probably wont be til sometime next year at the earliest. Their one hope is the 4x4 chips but no one is certain just how good they'll be for gaming or wether AMD can get them out in quantity in time for this year.
yeah I agree with the peeps above, the X1900XT for around $200 right now seems to be about the best deal for a video card
Your friend is not a heavy gamer and only plays CS Source? That game is not cpu limited by any means with any model of the Conroe.
7900GT is a much better deal, assuming his friend doesn't play super high resolutions.
If he's gaming at 16x12+ the X1900XTX or the forthcoming X1950XTX are better choices. 16x12 and below, I'd stick with the 7900GT and save some cash.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
na I just wrote that as an example, but I guess it was a bad example. lol
he plays games that are graphic intensive such as Doom, Half-life 2, and any other latest graphic whoring game. You name it!
He wants a computer that will give him max settings with smooth Framerate. But does it matter if its 58 FPS or 70 FPS? Because if it's smooth at 58, then that's good enough right?
also he does not overclock, he just wants it all at default settings.
would the 7900 give that performance I mentioned above or would he need the X1900xt?
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