Which CPU????

[phantom404]

Here is my current specs

E2160 1.8 @ 3.02 Ghz
4GB OCZ
8500GT <-----just a temp
Abit P35 Mobo
Zalman HP-600 Power supply
Hanspree 28inch monitor at 1900x1200

I had a 8800GT and now I have a HD 4850 on the way. I'm thinking that I will be cpu limited because of the cache size of the 2160. I just sold my psp for 170 and have $20 dollars newegg credit. Should i get the q6600 or something like the e6750 or perhaps another cpu you guys think is better?

I do plan on playing crysis and the latest games and eventually getting a crossfire board and adding a 2nd card.

Thanks in advanced!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: phantom404
Here is my current specs

E2160 1.8 @ 3.02 Ghz
4GB OCZ
8500GT <-----just a temp
Abit P35 Mobo
Zalman HP-600 Power supply
Hanspree 28inch monitor at 1900x1200

I had a 8800GT and now I have a HD 4850 on the way. I'm thinking that I will be cpu limited because of the cache size of the 2160. I just sold my psp for 170 and have $20 dollars newegg credit. Should i get the q6600 or something like the e6750 or perhaps another cpu you guys think is better?

I do plan on playing crysis and the latest games and eventually getting a crossfire board and adding a 2nd card.

Thanks in advanced!

8800GT----> 4850 I doubt youd see very much processor bottlenecking....but as it seems like you are a fan of overclocking, you would love an E8400 if your board supports it. :thumbsup:

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

As far as i know, UT3 benefits from a larger cache. In some areas as much as 14% increase over half the compared size. The Q6600 has a mulit of 9 so hitting a fsb wall is not likely if you have 800 DDR2 which would put you in the area of around 3.6Ghz without any likely hood of the memory or mobo holding your overclocking back. But on the same token, the Q6600 has only a 4mb L2 cache. I have thought of picking up a Q6600 just because i am hitting a wall somewhere with my 9300 at 3Ghz

What other games do you plan on playing?

 

[phantom404]

plan on playing cod4, crysis, assassins creed and witcher are some of the ones off the top of my head.

Right now my memory is clocked at ~1066. I think the ratio is 1:1.5

Thanks for the incoming inputs!

 

[nyker96]

I think this setup could be cpu limited. If you get Q6600 I'd consider Q9300, about same price but 45nm. As for alternatives, E7200 (2mb cache), E8400 (4mb or 6 forgot) will probably be much better than E21xx. Whatever you do at this point get a 45nm.

 

[myocardia]

The Q9300 has less cache than the Q6600, along with a 7.5x miltiplier. It's definitely not a good overclocker, with that 7.5x multi. And the E7200 has 3MB of L2, and a 9.5x multi. The E8400 has 6MB of L2.

 

[TC91]

Well a 3ghz core 2 based cpu isnt slow by far, even if it only has 1mb of L2 cache. But if you really are wanting to upgrade, and depends on how long you want to keep the system, i would get the q6600 if you want to keep it a while, or an e8400 if you wont keep it as long.

 

[toadeater]

Eh, I'm not so sure it's worth dumping that E2160 yet unless you really don't care about cost. It'll be fine in Crysis and every other game being released this year.

 

[error8]

Is there such a big difference between a 8800 gt card and a 4850, to worth the upgrade?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

its a hard thing to recommend as i have had my 1900xtx in my old FX60 machine which ran at 2.86Ghz and the jump up to the 8400 was a decent improvement on the WOW scale. im not sure how the 8500 compares to the 1900Xtx...

 

[phantom404]

I think I decided on an oem q6600 at the egg, was $199. I checked the q9300 and prices were about 60~70 dollars more. Ill be using this cooler with it so it should be good to go.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8126/049ls2.jpg

@BTRY B 529th FA BN - I'll actually be sticking a HD4850 in tomorrow. Wish I would have taken benchmarks of myu 8800gt before i shipped it out to compare

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
But on the same token, the Q6600 has only a 4mb L2 cache. I have thought of picking up a Q6600 just because i am hitting a wall somewhere with my 9300 at 3Ghz

What other games do you plan on playing?

Q6600 has 8MB total L2 cache, two chips with 4MB L2 each.

Check out the hot deals forum, Frys.com has Q6600 (retail, I think) for $179.99 + ship.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Q6600 has 8MB L2 in total but they aren't shared. So it technically has 4MB L2.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

wait, so the 9300 has 6mb total L2 cache, and the 6600 has 8mb total L2 cache???

 

[Denithor]

Yep, the q9300 is essentially 2xE7200 (2x3MB shared) while the q6600 is 2xE6600 (2x4MB shared).

However, looking at e7200 vs e6750 the 3MB chip manages to hold even or even beat the older chip in many cases (makes more efficient use of the smaller cache). So the q9300 should be a good performer.

That said, I would probably just stick with the 3GHz e2160 or at most go with an e7200 and OC to >3GHz (9x400 is 3.6GHz, should be easy on your setup). No real need to spend $200 on quadcore yet, few games support it.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Yep, the q9300 is essentially 2xE7200 (2x3MB shared) while the q6600 is 2xE6600 (2x4MB shared).

slow down there bro.

the multi's on both are different. So there not the same CPU.

SAme cpu is like the E6600 -> Q6600.

Same multi.


You comparing an orange to a tangerine, yes there both citrus, but there different.

 

[phantom404]

Well pulled the trigger on the q6600 from frys. Hopefully Ill be able to get to at least 3.5. Thanks for the input all!!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Denithor
or at most go with an e7200 and OC to >3GHz (9x400 is 3.6GHz, should be easy on your setup).

400 FSB on an E7200= 3.8 Ghz. It has a 9.5x multiplier.

No real need to spend $200 on quadcore yet, few games support it.

True, only two games out now benefit from a quad: Supreme Commander, and M$'s Flight Simulator X. Obviusly more games will sometime in the future. When though, none of us knows yet-- it could be next week, or it could still be a year or two down the road. I'm guessing sooner, though, since Nehalem will only be 4 or more cores.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Denithor

No real need to spend $200 on quadcore yet, few games support it.

True, only two games out now benefit from a quad: Supreme Commander, and M$'s Flight Simulator X. Obviusly more games will sometime in the future. When though, none of us knows yet-- it could be next week, or it could still be a year or two down the road. I'm guessing sooner, though, since Nehalem will only be 4 or more cores.

Unreal Tournament 3 also

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Denithor
Yep, the q9300 is essentially 2xE7200 (2x3MB shared) while the q6600 is 2xE6600 (2x4MB shared).

slow down there bro.

the multi's on both are different. So there not the same CPU.

SAme cpu is like the E6600 -> Q6600.

Same multi.

You comparing an orange to a tangerine, yes there both citrus, but there different.

Ok, sorry, the q9300 is 7.5x333 = 2.50GHz with 2x3MB shared cache while the e7200 is 9.5x266 = 2.53GHz with 3MB shared cache. So although the multipliers/fsb are different the end result is the same (q9300 is equivalent to 2xE7200 [4x2.5GHz/2x3MB]).

Originally posted by: myocardia
400 FSB on an E7200= 3.8 Ghz. It has a 9.5x multiplier.

And yes, I missed on that one, thanks for correcting me there.

 

[phantom404]

Got my q6600 from frys at $179 in and have oc it to 3.2 along with my HD4850. I definitely notice a difference then my e2160 oc to 3.2. WoW seems so much smoother and I'm able to play crysis on high settings at 1900x1200 with no problems at all, its definitely playable. Thanks for all the input!

 

[ibex333]

I wouldn't waste my money if I were you. Even if there is any bottlenecking is not signifficant, a good video card will more than compensate for it. You see that CPU in my sig? It's only slightly better than yours, and maybe not better at all given your OC. This baby lets me run anything I throw at it just fine, and it's more than a year old now. So is my video card. Why would I care that someone runs game X at 45 fps when I can run it at 40fps? I don't plan to change this CPU until games get so demanding that it will literally show a notable slowdown in modern titles.

There was plenty of instances when I saw a good deal here on the forums and wanted to upgrade my computer... It just seemed so appealing. Then I asked myself:

1)Can I run every game out there at a good, very playable speed at my monitor's max res with most settings turned to high? Yes

2)Do I run any apps that would require a faster CPU? No

3)Can I wait a while longer till there's actually a DIRE need to upgrade and spend my hard earned money then on the most up to date stuff? Sure!

So the money is waiting in the bank till I need to upgrade, and I'm content with what I have. There's plenty of cheap, awesome deals out there, but you can spend X small amount of money on that awesome deal, or not spend it at all because you just don't NEED that upgrade.

just my 2 cents...


EDIT: Oh sorry, didn't flip to page two... You already bought a CPU. Well good luck then.