• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

which cpu is better for games ?

Eng-emad

Eng-emad

Junior Member
hi all
which one from this two is better for gaming:
core 2 duo E8300 2.8 ghz/6 m cache 1333 fbs
core 2 duo E7600 3.06 ghz/3 m cache 1066 fbs
which is more important for gaming clock speed or cache ?
i meen which is better extra 230 mhz clock speed or extra 3 m cache?
 
i dont play games but i would take the e7600. actually i would take the pentium e6800 over either of those
 
Its a solid "It depends". If the game is memory intensive, then the cache will matter more. Otherwise, the clock speed will matter more.
 
Eng-emad said:
hi all
which one from this two is better for gaming:
core 2 duo E8300 2.8 ghz/6 m cache 1333 fbs
core 2 duo E7600 3.06 ghz/3 m cache 1066 fbs
which is more important for gaming clock speed or cache ?
i meen which is better extra 230 mhz clock speed or extra 3 m cache?
Click to expand...

extra cache
 
Cogman said:
Its a solid "It depends". If the game is memory intensive, then the cache will matter more. Otherwise, the clock speed will matter more.
Click to expand...

In this case we're talking about a higher cache *AND* front side bus on the 2.8 chip, gaming would more likely favor the extra cache and bus speed on a multi core CPU. Mhz is king gaming, but cutting your cache in half and decreasing your front side bus will surely have him upgrading sooner.

I'd go for the added cache, it'll pay off down the line and the overclocking headroom is about the same as well.
 
BD231 said:
In this case we're talking about a higher cache *AND* front side bus on the 2.8 chip, gaming would more likely favor the extra cache and bus speed on a multi core CPU. Mhz is king gaming, but cutting your cache in half and decreasing your front side bus will surely have him upgrading sooner.

I'd go for the added cache, it'll pay off down the line and the overclocking headroom is about the same as well.
Click to expand...

Well, honestly the upped FSB rarely really affects things. It is almost a non-issue. All and all, the memory performance will be better on the lower clocked CPU, but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be faster.

I tend to believe the higher clocked CPU will see better performance. Something that is easily rectified by upping the clock speed of the lower clocked CPU (250Mhz really isn't that hard to do).
 
thanks all
so E8300 is better choice for gaming because of cache+fsb ?
there is any benchmarks to compare between the 2 cpuS ?
 
Eng-emad said:
thanks all
so E8300 is better choice for gaming because of cache+fsb ?
there is any benchmarks to compare between the 2 cpuS ?
Click to expand...

You going to overclock it, or is that out of the question? If you could overclock the e7600 more than the e8300 than that'd be the one to get, but that seems unlikely. You could easily overclock the e8300 past the 7600's stock speed.
 
Patrick Wolf said:
You going to overclock it, or is that out of the question? If you could overclock the e7600 more than the e8300 than that'd be the one to get, but that seems unlikely. You could easily overclock the e8300 past the 7600's stock speed.
Click to expand...
without overclocking which is better (faster runing games) ?
u can say 3 m cache VS. 230 mhz clock speed
this is the main difference between the 2 cpuS because:
E8300 = 2830 mhz clock speed but 6 m cache
E7600 = 3060 mhz clock speed and 3 m cache
 
Without a doubt, take the higher cache.

The old rule for these as I seem to remember was each 1M L2 cache = approx +150mhz clock speed. So you should expect the E8300 at stock to outperform that E7600 at stock.

I used to run an E2180 @ 3.2ghz (had 1M cache). When I got my current E6750 with 4M cache, it was as fast at 2.8ghz as my old E2180 was at 3.2ghz in a few benches. This seems consistent with the rule above.
 
As long as you oc the 6600 it would smoke the dual cores in games and apps that are written for using all four cores. Definitely take the 6600 if you have the choice.
 
The q6600 is not fast enough to need to buy a new mobo, ram. A q6600 is a great choice if you still have a 775 board and don't want to overhaul everything yet. just don't buy it new obviously
 
How about getting an E0 (not the shitty C0) E8500. It's clocked at 3.133 GHz and overclocks to 4GHz+ without breaking a sweat. Just an idea.
 
for the games such as FIFA & Need for speed it needs more cpu cache or needs higher cpu clock speed for better performance play ?
for example:
tell me which types of games cache intensive and others clock speed intensive
 
Last edited:
a lot of times newer chips with lower specs are faster clock for clock, e.g. a pentium at 2.8 ghz/2m will outperform a c2d at 2.8ghz/3m or 6m so i would still take the 7600

i dont think the 8300 is clocked at 2.8 at stock is it???
 
Last edited:
OBLAMA2009 said:
a lot of times newer chips with lower specs are faster clock for clock, e.g. a pentium at 2.8 ghz/2m will outperform a c2d at 2.8ghz/3m or 6m so i would still take the 7600

i dont think the 8300 is clocked at 2.8 at stock is it???
Click to expand...
that makes no sense. at the same frequency, there is no Pentium dual core that out performs a Core 2 Duo with more cache.
 
epsilon84 said:
In games that can take advantage of more than 2 cores, the Q6600 would most likely beat the E8300, stock vs stock or max OC vs max OC.

I would opt for the Q6600 because newer games tend to take advantage of 3 - 4 cores, and its in these games that you need the extra performance the most. In older games that only use 1 - 2 cores, the E8300 would be faster, but the Q6600 would still be 'fast enough'.
Click to expand...

You may be right. I found something I'll have to bring to BFG's attention that contradicts his testing.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html
 
Patrick Wolf said:
You may be right. I found something I'll have to bring to BFG's attention that contradicts his testing.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html
Click to expand...
yeah I was getting so sick of people disabling cores on the i7/i5 quads and coming to ignorant conclusions. Bit-Tech and Tomshardware have done the same nonsense too claiming how many cores are sufficient only based off of disabling them on the i7. every cpu is different and just because an i7 with only 2 cores delivers 50fps does not mean any dual core cpu can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top