which cpu is better for games ?

[lyssword]

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

but games usually require more cache compared to synthetic benchmarks

 

[OBLAMA2009]

but games usually require more cache compared to synthetic benchmarks

ok but he was axing me for an example, there it is

 

[toyota]

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

they are both 2.93 and 2012 and 2010 are basically identical scores in the test. this thread is about gaming and that Pentium dual core would be slightly slower.

there is no gaming situation where a Pentium dual core would beat a Core 2 duo with more cache and same frequency. here the slower clocked 2.53 E7300 matches or beats the 2.8 Pentium dual core in gaming. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/62?vs=94

 

[Patrick Wolf]

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.

I hear ya. Was thinking the same thing myself. But that's exactly what BFG did in his article with somewhat similar settings so that's why I'm confused. Though would it really be so hard to also test actual dual core CPU's like the i3-650 3.2Ghz which is $15 cheaper than the i7-750 @ 2.66Ghz just to get a more real world scenario. Course then you could throw in OC potential and it's benefits which would be great, but not everyone overclocks.

However looking at both articles it's only fair to compare games that both tested which are Far Cry 2, Stalker: CoP, and Crysis Warhead. The only one that stands out is Far Cry 2 where's both articles showed a gain, except LH showed a large gain using a 5870, 1920x1200, 4xAA, and no AF vs. a 470, 2560x1200, 2xAA, and 16xAF.

NV cards generally perform better in FC2 so BFG achieved acceptable playing rates on his more demanding settings. However even w/ LH's (more common) settings 2 cores only netted an avg of 36 fps vs 60 w/ 4 cores. Can't say for sure if tacking on 16xAF like they should have would've brought the 4 cores result down a lot or not.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=19601&page=2

 

[OBLAMA2009]

they are both 2.93 and 2012 and 2010 are basically identical scores in the test. this thread is about gaming and that Pentium dual core would be slightly slower.

there is no gaming situation where a Pentium dual core would beat a Core 2 duo with more cache and same frequency. here the slower clocked 2.53 E7300 matches or beats the 2.8 Pentium dual core in gaming. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/62?vs=94

wait until the retail versions of the newer 5000 and 6000 series pentiums are benchmarked, they will outperform equally clocked 7000 series core 2.

anecdotally ive noticed that my pentium machines feel a little faster than my e7500's. thats just doing internet/office stuff

 

[toyota]

wait until the retail versions of the newer 5000 and 6000 series pentiums are benchmarked, they will outperform equally clocked 7000 series core 2.

anecdotally ive noticed that my pentium machines feel a little faster than my e7500's. thats just doing internet/office stuff

the point was you said that Pentium dual cores will be faster than an equally clocked Core 2 with more cache and that is not true for gaming.

sorry but I don't believe for a second that you can "feel" a Pentium dual core being faster than an E7500 even if it was.

 

[RussianSensation]

the point was you said that Pentium dual cores will be faster than an equally clocked Core 2 with more cache and that is not true for gaming.

The Clarkdale "Pentium" G6950 is pretty much faster than any C2D chip. When overclocked to 4.62ghz, you'll likely need a Q9550 @ 3.8ghz+ to come close

If we are talking about 2mb vs. 3mb cache of same C2D chip though, the extra cache probably adds 3-4% difference, at most, which can easily be overcome by overclocking. It's the 6mb cache chips that add another 5-10% increase on average in games.

 

[toyota]

The Clarkdale "Pentium" G6950 is pretty much faster than any C2D chip. When overclocked to 4.62ghz, you'll likely need a Q9550 @ 3.8ghz+ to come close

If we are talking about 2mb vs. 3mb cache of same C2D chip though, the extra cache probably adds 3-4% difference, at most, which can easily be overcome by overclocking. It's the 6mb cache chips that add another 5-10% increase on average in games.

we were talking about the previous architecture Pentium dual cores. he said "a pentium at 2.8 ghz/2m will outperform a c2d at 2.8ghz/3m or 6m" which is absolutely false when it comes to games.

 

[RussianSensation]

we were talking about the previous architecture Pentium dual cores. he said "a pentium at 2.8 ghz/2m will outperform a c2d at 2.8ghz/3m or 6m" which is absolutely false when it comes to games.

Yup, agreed, you'd need a faster clocked 2m part to overcome the lack of cache.

 

[Makaveli]

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.

I agree with you its only comparable to another i7 with 2 cores disabled.

 

[peonyu]

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.

Maybe I am just lucky, but the C0 8500 I have is at 4.2ghz. Though I was swindled on this chip [was promised a E0].

I second the E8300 btw, great chips and the extra cache is really noticable in games. If you overclock even casually you can get 3.6 ghz with no voltage increase on them.

 

[tweakboy]

Easy one. E7600 your perfect with the RAM for gaming.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The extra cache should help make up for the slightly lower clock rate. The two should be roughly equal in what overclocks they could hit but the extra cache of the 8300 is the trump card here.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

The extra cache should help make up for the slightly lower clock rate. The two should be roughly equal in what overclocks they could hit but the extra cache of the 8300 is the trump card here.

i highly doubt that the e8300 could outperform a pentium e6800, which is dirt cheap