which cpu is better for games ?

[Eng-emad]

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?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i dont play games but i would take the e7600. actually i would take the pentium e6800 over either of those

 

[Cogman]

Its a solid "It depends". If the game is memory intensive, then the cache will matter more. Otherwise, the clock speed will matter more.

 

[darckhart]

you can overclock for more MHz, but you can't magic up more cache.

 

[exar333]

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?

extra cache

 

[BD231]

Its a solid "It depends". If the game is memory intensive, then the cache will matter more. Otherwise, the clock speed will matter more.

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.

 

[Cogman]

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.

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).

 

[Eng-emad]

thanks all
so E8300 is better choice for gaming because of cache+fsb ?
there is any benchmarks to compare between the 2 cpuS ?

 

[Patrick Wolf]

thanks all
so E8300 is better choice for gaming because of cache+fsb ?
there is any benchmarks to compare between the 2 cpuS ?

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.

 

[Eng-emad]

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.

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

 

[brencat]

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.

 

[Eng-emad]

last question please to close this topic
what about core 2 quad Q6600 2.4 / 8 m cache 1066 fsb
it will be faster than the two ( E8300 & E7600 ) ?
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29765

 

[Josh154]

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.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

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.

BFG would disagree. And so would I. Only go quad if it's an i5/i7.

 

[mindwreck]

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

 

[Eng-emad]

thanks for posts
so E8300 is the best from the 3 then
i will get it soon
thanks again for help

 

[FalseChristian]

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.

 

[Eng-emad]

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

 

[OBLAMA2009]

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???

 

[toyota]

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???

that makes no sense. at the same frequency, there is no Pentium dual core that out performs a Core 2 Duo with more cache.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

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'.

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

 

[toyota]

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

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.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

that makes no sense. at the same frequency, there is no Pentium dual core that out performs a Core 2 Duo with more cache.

its true go check out the cpubenchmark sites

 

[toyota]

its true go check out the cpubenchmark sites

please show me a Pentium dual core beating a Core 2 Duo with more cache while both are at the same frequency.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

pdc e6500 2012 (both are 2.8 ghz)
c2d e7500 2010

OR

pdc e5500 2005 (e550 is 2.8 ghz while the e8300 is 2.83ghz)
c2d e8300 1956