Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 22

Thread: Best performance per pound

  1. #1
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • wither2000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit IP35E
      • CPU:
      • E4500 @ 2.8ghz
      • Memory:
      • 2gb crucial ballistix 6400
      • Storage:
      • Samgsung spinpoint 250gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GTS
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 520W
      • Case:
      • Antec Sonata II
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 913n

    Best performance per pound

    Building a gaming rig on a tight budget and can't decide on getting either
    A) 8800GTS graphics card and Q6600 CPU = £340

    or

    B) 8800GTX graphics card and E4300 CPU = £375

    Aready bought Abit IP-35E mobo, 2gb Crucial pc6400 ram and corsair HX520 PSU.
    Got case, monitor keyboard etc.

    So which would give better performance - would like to play bioshock, crysis etc.

  2. #2
    finding nemo staffsMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,498
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked
    794 times in 741 posts
    • staffsMike's system
      • Motherboard:
      • evga 680i
      • CPU:
      • e6600
      • Memory:
      • geil ultra pc6400
      • Storage:
      • WD 320gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • leadtek 8800 GTS 640mb
      • PSU:
      • ocz gameXstream 700w
      • Case:
      • akasa eclipse
      • Monitor(s):
      • dell 2007wfp and Lg L194WT
      • Internet:
      • pipex homecall

    Re: Best performance per pound

    All depends on your screen size really.

    I'd personally have the Q6600 and the GTS.

    The E4300 should overclock well in that board, circa 3.0GHz which coupled with a GTX would be good on a 24" screen.

    Anything less than 24" (1920 x 1200) and the GTS is in it's element plus you have all the extra grunt of the quad core for CPU intensive games and more demanding future realeases

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,746
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked
    370 times in 188 posts
    • Mithrandir's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar TP45-HP
      • CPU:
      • C2D e4600 (w/ Xigmatek Red Scorpion)
      • Memory:
      • OCZ ReaperX (2x2gb)
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 500gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • xfx 9600gt Alphadog edition
      • PSU:
      • Xigmatek NRP-MC651
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Cavalier 3 silver (windowed)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Fujitsu Siemens SCALEOVIEW D22W-1

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Id go q6600 and x2900pro
    Cavalier-X: Biostar TP45-HP ¦ E4600@3.1ghz - Xigmatek Red Scorpion (OCZ Freeze) ¦ OCZ ReaperX 2x2gb (792mhz @ 4-4-4--12) ¦ Xigmatek NRP-MC651 ¦
    Palit 8800gt ¦ X-fi Fatal1ty Gamer ¦ Coolermaster Cavalier 3 (Silver/Windowed) ¦

    Poseidon Magma: MSI P45 Zilent ¦ E6300@3.0ghz - Coolermaster Hyper 212 (MX-2) ¦ Corsair 2x2gb (880mhz @ 5-5-5-15) ¦ Corsair HX450w ¦
    xfx 9600gt Alphadog edition (780/1950/1000) ¦ X-fi Gamer ¦ Gigabyte Poseiden ¦

  4. #4
    Senior Member crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    845
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    50 times in 26 posts
    • crazy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P5Q-E
      • CPU:
      • Q6600 G0 @ 3.2ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair DDR2
      • Storage:
      • Raptor X 150GB & 1TB Samsung HD103UJ
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX 260
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Infiniti 720W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182 SE
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410 & 2007WFP

    Re: Best performance per pound

    option A
    just go with a super overclocked GTS- the new fatal1ty edition GTS looks pretty fast (if your not gonna overclock the card yourself)
    just so you can be sure it will handle future releases

  5. #5
    finding nemo staffsMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,498
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked
    794 times in 741 posts
    • staffsMike's system
      • Motherboard:
      • evga 680i
      • CPU:
      • e6600
      • Memory:
      • geil ultra pc6400
      • Storage:
      • WD 320gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • leadtek 8800 GTS 640mb
      • PSU:
      • ocz gameXstream 700w
      • Case:
      • akasa eclipse
      • Monitor(s):
      • dell 2007wfp and Lg L194WT
      • Internet:
      • pipex homecall

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Quote Originally Posted by crazy View Post
    option A
    just go with a super overclocked GTS- the new fatal1ty edition GTS looks pretty fast (if your not gonna overclock the card yourself)
    just so you can be sure it will handle future releases
    whats option B? you're right though. GTX is good but Q6600 is worth it imo.
    Last edited by staffsMike; 03-10-2007 at 10:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slough
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    18 times in 17 posts
    • kungpo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6T SE
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @ 3.90 Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 6x 2GB Corsair DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x WD AAKS 640GB RAID0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 260 GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 1000HX
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x LG L1952S
      • Internet:
      • 3MB ADSL

    Re: Best performance per pound

    E4300 and GTX. The E4300 will overclock nicely to 3Ghz, and the extra grunt of the GTX over the GTS will be more apparent than the E4300 over the Q6600. And you can always get a quad core later.

  7. #7
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • wither2000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit IP35E
      • CPU:
      • E4500 @ 2.8ghz
      • Memory:
      • 2gb crucial ballistix 6400
      • Storage:
      • Samgsung spinpoint 250gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GTS
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 520W
      • Case:
      • Antec Sonata II
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 913n

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Thanks for the suggestions - 2 for option A on one vote for B so far - and one for none of the above

    Mithrandir - I've not really looked at the ATi offerings - everyone seems to be on the 8800 bandwagon at present. I found a comparison here:
    http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=680&p=1
    which shows 8800GTS and X2900pro each are better on certain games. One game I've bought recently that my current PC really struggles with is world in conflict. Lokks like the 2900 also struggles here.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    195
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    19 times in 12 posts

    Re: Best performance per pound

    'tight budget' and 8800GTX seem like a strange combination to me but to answer your question in most games a E4300 and 8800GTX would provide better performance. However, is this the most cost effective option? Probably not. If you plan to overclock, then a E4300 / E4400 is fine but otherwise I would go with something like a E6750 and 8800GTS (at a cost of £280) and when this set-up starts showing its age (which it won't for a while), drop in a quad core penryn and next gen video card.

    The resolution and quality settings you intend to have may also play a factor in your final decision though.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,746
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked
    370 times in 188 posts
    • Mithrandir's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar TP45-HP
      • CPU:
      • C2D e4600 (w/ Xigmatek Red Scorpion)
      • Memory:
      • OCZ ReaperX (2x2gb)
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 500gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • xfx 9600gt Alphadog edition
      • PSU:
      • Xigmatek NRP-MC651
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Cavalier 3 silver (windowed)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Fujitsu Siemens SCALEOVIEW D22W-1

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Quote Originally Posted by wither2000 View Post
    Thanks for the suggestions - 2 for option A on one vote for B so far - and one for none of the above

    Mithrandir - I've not really looked at the ATi offerings - everyone seems to be on the 8800 bandwagon at present. I found a comparison here:
    http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=680&p=1
    which shows 8800GTS and X2900pro each are better on certain games. One game I've bought recently that my current PC really struggles with is world in conflict. Lokks like the 2900 also struggles here.
    The 2900pro can overclock to 2900xt or higher (basically an underclocked xt) some folks have even flashed it to a fully fledged 2900xt
    'Everyone will be getting off the 8800 bandwagon and jumping on the 2900pro bandwagon soon'
    also note they come in 512mb or 1gb flavours rather than 320mb/640mb. Also the cheapest starts from £165.
    Cavalier-X: Biostar TP45-HP ¦ E4600@3.1ghz - Xigmatek Red Scorpion (OCZ Freeze) ¦ OCZ ReaperX 2x2gb (792mhz @ 4-4-4--12) ¦ Xigmatek NRP-MC651 ¦
    Palit 8800gt ¦ X-fi Fatal1ty Gamer ¦ Coolermaster Cavalier 3 (Silver/Windowed) ¦

    Poseidon Magma: MSI P45 Zilent ¦ E6300@3.0ghz - Coolermaster Hyper 212 (MX-2) ¦ Corsair 2x2gb (880mhz @ 5-5-5-15) ¦ Corsair HX450w ¦
    xfx 9600gt Alphadog edition (780/1950/1000) ¦ X-fi Gamer ¦ Gigabyte Poseiden ¦

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    165
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    • ScottY_'s system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage Gene III
      • CPU:
      • i7 950 @ 3.6Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 12GB Corsair DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 120GB HyperX, 60GB OCZ Vertex2, 2x 1TB Samsung F1, 256GB Crucial M4
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX680
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 750W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ07
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64bit pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x SM2443BW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 30MB

    Re: Best performance per pound

    What resolution, if over 1680x1050 get the GTX for decent frame rates. IF 1680x1050 or under then go with the Q6600 and GTS

  11. #11
    Moosen CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    28,946
    Thanks
    3,221
    Thanked
    4,514 times in 3,482 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Option B as my early production E4300 could reach 3ghz easily although I not certain about later ones though as I have heard they are not as good!!?? My E4500 reaches 3.1ghz easily though.

    Even though some games will support quad core the fact that most people will either have a single or dual core means that a reasonably fast dual core will still do the job a while still.

  12. #12
    Moosen CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    28,946
    Thanks
    3,221
    Thanked
    4,514 times in 3,482 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithrandir View Post
    The 2900pro can overclock to 2900xt or higher (basically an underclocked xt) some folks have even flashed it to a fully fledged 2900xt
    'Everyone will be getting off the 8800 bandwagon and jumping on the 2900pro bandwagon soon'
    also note they come in 512mb or 1gb flavours rather than 320mb/640mb. Also the cheapest starts from £165.
    I heard that there will be an update to the 8800GTS soon which will increase the number of stream processors from 96 to 112!!

    http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvid..._SKU/5311.html

    If this is true perhaps a 8800GTX is not needed??!!

    The single slot 8800GT seems interesting too!!

    http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/GeFo...Good/5312.html

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,598
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked
    106 times in 94 posts

    Re: Best performance per pound

    An E4300 at 3GHz will be more than enough power for gaming on. I would go with the GTX and a E4300. The graphics card will make much more difference that the Q6600.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    323
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked
    11 times in 11 posts
    • derchris's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 920@3.4 GHz
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Dominator 6x2GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 2x Crucial 80GB SDD Raid0 + 2TB data HDD, 12TB NAS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2x HD5970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX750W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x 28" HansG, 1x 27" Dell
      • Internet:
      • Be.Unlimited 24MBit

    Re: Best performance per pound

    8800 GTS and Q6600.
    I'm going for this aswell

    My other option was a E6850 and a 8800 GTS, but the Q6600 has more power.

    Go for Quad

  15. #15
    Lover & Fighter Blitzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Between Your Mum & Sister
    Posts
    6,310
    Thanks
    539
    Thanked
    382 times in 300 posts
    • Blitzen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ABIT iX38 QuadGT
      • CPU:
      • Intel Quad Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz : 30 Degrees Idle - 41-46 Degrees Load
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 1GB OCZ Platinum PC6400 @ 4-4-4-12
      • Storage:
      • 2 x 500GB Samsung Spinpoints - RAID 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX 285
      • PSU:
      • Enermax MODU 82+ 625W
      • Case:
      • Antec Nine Hundred
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic Q22wb 22" Widescreen - 5ms
      • Internet:
      • O2 premium @ 17mb

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Option A 100%

    There is nothing the GTS cant handle at full throttle when the monitor is 22" or less so why compromise on the CPU.

  16. #16
    Welcome to stampytown! Salazaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    4,447
    Thanks
    505
    Thanked
    353 times in 254 posts

    Re: Best performance per pound

    Quote Originally Posted by silentvoice View Post
    'tight budget' and 8800GTX seem like a strange combination to me but to answer your question in most games a E4300 and 8800GTX would provide better performance. However, is this the most cost effective option? Probably not. If you plan to overclock, then a E4300 / E4400 is fine but otherwise I would go with something like a E6750 and 8800GTS (at a cost of £280) and when this set-up starts showing its age (which it won't for a while), drop in a quad core penryn and next gen video card.

    The resolution and quality settings you intend to have may also play a factor in your final decision though.
    I agree, I've got an E4300 and a GTS and I've have no problems playing anything released so far. As said before the GTS is more than capable for anything less than 22" and an E4300 can be upgraded to a quad core once it's necessary (which it certainly isn't now unless you're using some serious multithreaded apps or multitasking) and by then the quad cores will be even more affordable!
    ____
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Raid guide for beginners post edition
    By alsenior in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-09-2007, 10:40 PM
  2. Flash Voyager Performance and New Product Update, READ ME!
    By Yellowbeard in forum Solid State Drives (SSD)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21-03-2007, 07:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-12-2004, 04:38 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-12-2004, 04:38 PM
  5. Do you get an 'XP rating' applied when you o/c?
    By Austin in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •