which processor should i go if i want a gaming system

[faye]

Hi, I am going to get a new system.

I don't know if i should go with Intel this time or go with AMD.

Cuz i see so many people using AMD but i am a Intel user for at least 10 years.

Talking about gaming like Crysis, battlefield,, which kind of CPU should I be looking for? dual core?

Which motherboard should i go with, which exact model? I have so much good things from Asus, so i guess i like Asus if no other is better than this brand..

I think i am getting a 7900GT, cuz i am going to run a new 20" LCD at 1680*1050, so i need a fast video card at this resolution.

I need CPU, motherboard, Ram, videocard,
I will use some of the parts from my old system like the Audigy 2, harddrive, case speaker.

When is Conroe being launch? within a month or what? what is so good about it.

Can anyone gimme suggestions?

 

[Cheesetogo]

Most people are getting a 3800 X2 or a Opteron 165, and the OCing them. Until conroe is out, AMD is going to be better than Intel.

 

[bongsteen]

my opinion, go amd x2 a must for gamer. i was an intel user.

 

[stevty2889]

Realisticly the video card is far more important for gaming that the CPU. The video card will be the bottleneck unless you intentionaly run at lower resolutions and settings, which you clearly will not be. Granted AMD runs cooler and is more efficent than P4's, and the X2 definaly outperforms pentium-d's, but for gaming, the CPU doesn't make as big a differance as the video card.

 

[Cooler]

Conroe comes out in July. I would at least wait for benchmarks in June before getting any new CPU at this time period unless you must have it now. If the benchmarks stay the same as one that ES sample have been getting in games then it would be the cpu to have this year for gaming. Early benchmarks show that a mid range Conroe is %20 faster then AMD top model.

If you must have your CPU now the AMD x2 or Core Duo yonah would be good buy.

 

[faye]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Realisticly the video card is far more important for gaming that the CPU. The video card will be the bottleneck unless you intentionaly run at lower resolutions and settings, which you clearly will not be. Granted AMD runs cooler and is more efficent than P4's, and the X2 definaly outperforms pentium-d's, but for gaming, the CPU doesn't make as big a differance as the video card.

what about applications?
will AMD X2 take the advantages? will be faster or even outperform INTEL P-D?

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: faye

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Realisticly the video card is far more important for gaming that the CPU. The video card will be the bottleneck unless you intentionaly run at lower resolutions and settings, which you clearly will not be. Granted AMD runs cooler and is more efficent than P4's, and the X2 definaly outperforms pentium-d's, but for gaming, the CPU doesn't make as big a differance as the video card.

what about applications?
will AMD X2 take the advantages? will be faster or even outperform INTEL P-D?

If the application is multi threaded then yes more performance per app will be attained, as it will utilise and spawn more threads to be processed simultaneously. Otherwise if you don?t run multithreaded apps you'll benefit from parallelism, aka no slow downs when running two CPU intensive application.

 

[starwars7]

Originally posted by: Cooler
Conroe comes out in July. I would at least wait for benchmarks in June before getting any new CPU at this time period unless you must have it now. If the benchmarks stay the same as one that ES sample have been getting in games then it would be the cpu to have this year for gaming. Early benchmarks show that a mid range Conroe is %20 faster then AMD top model.

If you must have your CPU now the AMD x2 or Core Duo yonah would be good buy.

Quoted For Truth.

If you are not in a rush you should really wait and see what happens. Right now I'm very happy with the rig in my signature, but if I was you I would see what happens when Conroe comes out.

If you can't wait that long, I'd get an X2 3800 if you do not want to Overclock, or an opteron 165 if you want to overclock.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: faye

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Realisticly the video card is far more important for gaming that the CPU. The video card will be the bottleneck unless you intentionaly run at lower resolutions and settings, which you clearly will not be. Granted AMD runs cooler and is more efficent than P4's, and the X2 definaly outperforms pentium-d's, but for gaming, the CPU doesn't make as big a differance as the video card.

what about applications?
will AMD X2 take the advantages? will be faster or even outperform INTEL P-D?

Lets just say that my Pentium-D's can't keep up with my X2 in anything..even my Dothan is better in a lot of non-smp aware apps than my pentium-d's. All of them overclocked of course. At stock speeds, the 3800+ X2 and a pentium-d 950 are fairly even. Core duo desktop boars are showing up now as well, and theoreticly they could support merom(mobile version of Conroe) with a bios update. I'm planning to get a core duo myself, since clock for clock my Dothan can keep up with my X2 in non-smp aware apps pretty well.

 

[GamingDaemon]

No one has mentioned that an AMD 3700+ will do better in pure GAMING than an X2 3800+...and it is cheaper!

Check this out courtesy of jaythespacehound...

Speed Comparisons

 

[BassBomb]

crysis will be very dependant on dual core, single core will run it well, but "we are in for a surprise with dual core and physics proccessor"

 

[inveterate]

F00k u all,, OPTY 144/146 ftw Dual core is just Mehh, For the money i'd say a 2.9ghz single core is better than a dual core. besides dual core is much more hassle to overclock beyond 2.6

How many people honestly need to Run norton while they encode a video, while they play source. dual core isn't 2x speed, it's like 1.4-1.7 in most already Highly optimized applications.

Buy a opty single for now. and wait for whatever comes after conroe, cuz we all know the high premiums that we have to pay upon initial release and the lack of competition , yikes.

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: fayewhat is so good about it [Conroe]

At Spring IDF last April, Intel showed a Conroe at 2.66GHz outpacing an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60.

You have to take this with a grain of salt, because it's sort of one-sided advertising. Nevertheless, it has created quite a buzz.

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: faye
what about applications?
will AMD X2 take the advantages? will be faster or even outperform INTEL P-D?

X2 performs better in most benchmarks than even the dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: inveterate
F00k u all,, OPTY 144/146 ftw Dual core is just Mehh, For the money i'd say a 2.9ghz single core is better than a dual core. besides dual core is much more hassle to overclock beyond 2.6

Huh? 2.9 ghz single-core is better than what exactly? If I could choose between a 2.9 ghz single-core or a 2.6-2.9 ghz dual core, I'd take the dual core. And what's this about dual-core CPUs being "much more hassle to overclock beyond 2.6 ghz"? Give me a break.

How many people honestly need to Run norton while they encode a video, while they play source. dual core isn't 2x speed, it's like 1.4-1.7 in most already Highly optimized applications.

Fictional numbers. Besides, several popular games are already SMP-aware and can make use of multiple cores and/or multiple CPUs.

Buy a opty single for now. and wait for whatever comes after conroe, cuz we all know the high premiums that we have to pay upon initial release and the lack of competition , yikes.

If Intel holds to their released prices for Core, Conroe in July won't be that much more expensive than X2s are now. That is, if you can get one.

 

[faye]

after i went to a local shop today,

I have this in my mind:

AMD 3800+ X2
Asus A8N-SLI
Corsair DDR 2GB Valueseries
7900GT or 7600GT SLI

i have come up with this... but have some questions:
Asus A8N-SLI supports dual channel, but when i run it at dual channel the DDR is at 333, does it matter?(if it is true) Is there a better or new board from Asus or other brand than this one?

Should i get one 7900GT or two 7600GT to go SLI? which one is faster?
and i am tending to INNO3D, is it a good brand? or any other?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: faye
after i went to a local shop today,

I have this in my mind:

AMD 3800+ X2
Asus A8N-SLI
Corsair DDR 2GB Valueseries
7900GT or 7600GT SLI

i have come up with this... but have some questions:
Asus A8N-SLI supports dual channel, but when i run it at dual channel the DDR is at 333, does it matter?(if it is true) Is there a better or new board from Asus or other brand than this one?

Should i get one 7900GT or two 7600GT to go SLI? which one is faster?
and i am tending to INNO3D, is it a good brand? or any other?

Looks fine.

As was mentioned though, the video card is certainly the most important factor, especially for gaming @ 1680x1050

If you can, i'd suggest an X1900XT minimum if you wish to play newer games at max settings.

As much as i like dual core, i'd even suggest dropping the X2 for a cheaper single core if you cannot afford the X1900XT or better.

 

[faye]

ATI X1900XT is way too expensive...
are there benches comparing 7900GT and X1900XT? just want to see the difference..
and see the technology too

 

[RallyMaster]

7900GT is a good deal. Couple it with a X2 3800+ and it's a great system you'll have. However, you'll hate that NB cooler on the A8N-SLi (at least one of my friends does...it's spinning at 8000RPM). I would go passive on that...(A8N-SLi Premium if you got the money.)

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: faye
ATI X1900XT is way too expensive...
are there benches comparing 7900GT and X1900XT? just want to see the difference..
and see the technology too

No it's not.

As i tried to explain to you, a single core CPU, say an Opteron 146 or A64 3200+ & X1900XT will perform much better in current games & even future ones at a similar price to the X2 & 7900GT, since you're just putting the money saved on the CPU toward the better video card.


Of course, if you're more concerned about heavy multitasking & video editting/encoding, moreso than the games, then sure, your X2 + 7900GT would be better.

 

[faye]

There are so many stories..
but my concern is a good performance in applications..
Actually just IE , a few photoshop and autocad.

but very good in games at 1680*1050. I want to get a 20.1" LCD (viewsonic vx2025mw)

X1900XT, i see it at least $200 more than 7900GT, but does it really worth that $200? if i pay that money with for XT but only 10fps more than the GT, i will go with GT.

but some say one 1900xt will still faster than two7900GT (or 7800gt), so i don't know..

 

[deadseasquirrel]

If it's just IE, photoshop, and autocad you care about, go single-core with the fastest video card solution the rest of your budget allows (like n7 said). You won't notice any better performance in any of those applications with a dual-core.

It all comes down to budget. If your budget for cpu + video is $600, you're better off with an x1900xt and a 3000+ venice for $425+$105 rather than an x2 + 7900gt for $315+$300. Of course, you could always get the GT and volt-mod it like everyone seems to be doing and match that with the 3000+ to get things even cheaper.

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: inveterate
How many people honestly need to Run norton while they encode a video, while they play source. dual core isn't 2x speed, it's like 1.4-1.7 in most already Highly optimized applications.

Fictional numbers. Besides, several popular games are already SMP-aware and can make use of multiple cores and/or multiple CPUs.

A little fiction there too. While many games claim they're "dual-core optimized", only 1 game has shown ANY kind of improvement over the single-core chips and that is Quake4. And that was at resolutions of 1280x1024 and below. Well below what the OP wants to play at. At 1680x1050 with AA and AF, and all the eye candy on, your graphics card will be shouldering almost all of the load and your frame rate likely won't show any difference whether you had an FX60 or a 3000+ at stock.

 

[Dribble]

Get a dual core and 7900GT. X1800XT isn't worth 200 more, you could almost add a second 7900GT for that price...
All this *single core is better* talk is getting a bit old now. Dual core is getting pretty standard and more and more applications and games are taking advantage of it. For non gaming it's lead to a more responsive system for years now, and for gaming you will see big improvements with titles coming out this year. I agree it's true only Q4 has managed big gains so far but the fact that Q4 can do it however shows there's no reason why other games can't and chances are they will soon.

That said personally I'd wait a few months for Conroe, and AM2.

 

[Acanthus]

I would wait for Conroe, its going to be a substantial jump in performance and aggressively priced.

If you must buy now, check out the new Review on the ATs front page with the T2300 Core Duo overclocked on the new mobile for desktop mobo. It does very very well in gaming.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Dribble
Get a dual core and 7900GT. X1800XT isn't worth 200 more, you could almost add a second 7900GT for that price...

I think you meant x1900xt, since the x1800 is actually cheaper than the GT. And the x19 is only about $130 more. Not $200. So another $170 on top of that will get you a second GT. I wouldn't call that "almost". Either way, for running today's (and tomorrow's) games at 1680x1050, the OP will be better off with an x1900xt or SLI-GTs, instead of a single GT with dual-core.

All this *single core is better* talk is getting a bit old now. Dual core is getting pretty standard and more and more applications and games are taking advantage of it.

Why is it getting old? Because it's true? Please list these "more and more applications" that actually get a significant boost from dual-core and the OP can tell us if he actually uses those applications. So far, the only ones he's listed will get nothing from dual-core.

and for gaming you will see big improvements with titles coming out this year. I agree it's true only Q4 has managed big gains so far but the fact that Q4 can do it however shows there's no reason why other games can't and chances are they will soon.

Just 2 months ago, everyone was naming Oblivion as the next killer game for dual-core. Look how that turned out. And, if you want to use Q4 as an example of games to come, let's do that... how much of an increase does Q4 get at 1600x1200 with dual-core? None. Now, let's say that instead of buying that X2, the OP bought another GT and did SLI. How much of an increase would he get at 1600x1200? Almost 100%.

So, using the ONLY game that shows ANY performance increase with dual-core, you get almost 100% increase at the OP's playing resolution with 2 gfx cards vs. 0% with dual-core CPU... for around the same total price. Please explain to me again why dual-core is worth it from a price/performance perspective...

While I agree with you that there will be more games coming out that will be "dual-core optimized", I am not as confident as you are that those optimizations will make any kind of difference at resolutions such as 1600x1200 with AA/AF (settings where CPU speed and power make no difference).

OP, since you're Intel-friendly, it might not be a bad idea to wait and see what they come up with. And don't build a system for Crysis right now. It's scheduled for Winter-06, which likely means Feb 07.