Just wondering which cpu is best for gaming rig at the moment presuming your going to overclock.
Thanks
Printable View
Just wondering which cpu is best for gaming rig at the moment presuming your going to overclock.
Thanks
I was stuck in the same situation as you a while ago, but seriously, GET THE Q6600!!!!!!
It is awesome, 4 cores!!!!
if you are considering the Q6600, seems money is not a problem...go for it
Q6600 (G0, ideally :)) for the win.....
The Q6600 seems to be the cpu of choice at the moment, i mean who doesn't wan't 4 cores? If you want to save £50 then get the E6750, perfectlly capable of running all and any games, gpu performace is by far the biggest limiting factor at the moment.
The cost difference, combined with a plethora of up-coming games being very multi-threaded, means the Q6600 is starting to shine for gamers :)
Q6600 + a trivial to perform overclock of 25% to 3GHz. Then you'll have the equivalent of the fastest intel chip on the market. :) Not bad for ~£160!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraz
Amen!!!
QFT, atm the Q6600 is where the smart money is in price:performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
I would deifntley go for the Q6600
Yeah good choice atm....
Just played Unreal Tournament 3 demo, runs perfect on my Q6600 @ 3.0ghz. Aswell as other games like Bioshock and Lost Planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob4001
Q6600 for sure!
another vote for q6600 here :)
right now for the price, the q6600 cant be beat! they also overclock GREAT! Get the G0 stepping and go!
UT3 runs perfect on my humble E6320, it isn't as resource hungry as I expected. Bioshock and World in Conflict seem to strain it more though. So a Q6600 would sort that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by masscrazy
bioshock runs really nicely on my e6300 overclocked to 2.8ghz
If you have the money then get a Q6600 EF one :mrgreen:
But my E6600 sits nicely at 3.0GHz :):mrgreen:
q6600 ftw :)
Whilst only a few things take advantage of four cores, the q6600 (especially when overclocked) can handle any game around at the moment, and is future proofed by having the four cores for when you need them.
An E6850 might benchmark higher, but you won't see the benefit. When four cores are utilised, you really will see the benefit from the q6600 :)
You basically have 2 choices, e21x0 series, or Q6600
There's just no point in spending the extra on any other dual core (if you are going to clock... if you aren't a clocker, then there is a point)
But alot of the quads are clocking as well as dual cores anyway, so if you have the money, the q6600 is definately the wisest choice.
Another vote for the quad core :)
I'm going to vote quad purely because it's more future proof.
i would say Q6600, or if you wanna save some cash, e6750, both are pretty good at the moment.
I like when money isn´t a issue !! In this case the Q6600 is my choice...
-OFF TOPIC:
Other alternative is you could buy one E6420 and run it at 3.0-3.2 for let´s say daily use... The performance will be great for sure and you get 4MB of L2.... The cash you saved could be used in a good aftermarket cooler or something else...
Regard´s
Could someone confirm a) that the G0 means and b) what the vanilla speed is? (I'm taking it that it's not 3.0ghz)
Cheers
a) G0 has lower power consumption - 95w [meaning it runs cooler and so overclocks better] - [B3 is 105w]
b) 2.4GHz
Use www.google.com :)
a q6600 G0 is 2.4Ghz
G0 is a stepping (a version essentially) of the q6600. First there was the B3 stepping which ran quite hot, the new G0 uses less power thus generates less heat :)
Heh. I'm a shocker for telling people to use google. that'll teach me ;)
Thanks guys.
Q6600 Ftw :)
I was thinking which CPU to go for Core 2 Duo or Quad Core but I guess I will go for the Q6600 paired with the ASUS P5W DH Deluxe motherboard.
Can I pick someone up on that? I have my AMD x2 939 4200+ at 2.8ghz. Does that mean that my quite old chip (the 4200) gives the same performance as an e6300, which is (as I understand things) quite a bit newer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
I'm in the same boat as the OP.
I take it that the consensus is to go for the Q6600 then? ;)
q6600 for me, no question :)
It'll still run it, just not at the same level of performance (maybe 1 or 2fps slower at most), clock for clock the Core 2 Duo wins out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooty*
you made up for it in that thread about the unknown shooter screenshot :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooty*
heh. FINALLY, someone notices ;)
there are very few games out currently that can utilise more than 2 cores. crysis (i think is the only one!) so currently and the near future 2 cores is best for gaming, especially as you can overclock dual core a little higher than quad.
if your also doing video encoding etc than i would suggest the quad, as it'll be plenty fast for gaming but much faster for encoding. its just about the balance what you need.
The E6850 is easily ruled out if OC-ing is taken into account.
But for gaming, and gaming alone, the more I read, the more I disagree with the consensus. Here's some numbers for the Unreal 3 Engine (do note that the numbers show duo and quad running at the same speed)) and other games (incidentally, the article do favour Quad in it's conclusion - but note that for gaming, while the Q6600 is more than adequate, do not offer as much than a higher clocked E6750).
I think it is a fact that most of today's game run better on a fast dual-core than a less highly clocked quad unless you start doing some video encoding or running some distributed computing software in the background. I remember seeing that even Crysis is still not optimised enough to give the quad-core a definite advantage to compensate for lower frequency, but I lost the link. And it will take more than two/ three games that shows quad core showing a significant advantage over dual core before I'll concede that quad core is upon us for PC gaming. But I suspect that by then, the Q6600 would not be such an attractive chip anymore.
I do recognise that quad-core chips excels in some (but not all) other applications, and I do not doubt that they are a better choice several if you frequently run several CPU intensive applications at the same time. If cost is not an issue, because it is more well rounded and better performing in the other CPU intensive applications, namely video encoding. And at the end of the day, the GPU is really what matters most in a gaming rig.
If cost is an issue so much that you can't afford a little self-indulgence (I'll be honest - I am not made of money, but I would consider paying a £50 premium for the satisfaction of owning a 'quad core' despite what I am about to say), and it makes a difference between having a 8800GT or not, then the choice is simple: go E6750. What if cost matters and it's not a gaming rig? I think that the E6750 is still the better value processor keeping in mind it is 45% cheaper than the Q6600. And I'd say the Q6600 has more room for a price drop than the cheaper E6750. Unless you do some very intensive multitasking at every moment your PC is on.
My two pence worth.
Ummm in that Unreal 3 article it quite clearly shows the Q6600 besting the E6750 in a CPU limited frame rate comparison... and since you can easily overclock a Q6600 to in excess of the stock speed of a E6750 I don't think we need to worry about the differences in stock speed.
Most people here favour the quad cores as they provide a more future proofed solution. Who can say what a game developer may bring out in 3 or 6 months... It may have drastically improved performance with on a 4 core system, we just don't know and so people suggest the option which to them seems to make the most sense when you consider that the CPU is unlikely to be upgraded for a year or more.
There are atleast a few games due soon that will use 4 cores. The Q6600 is the way to go.
The Unreal engine article do shows the quad besting a dual core at equal clockspeed (2.66Ghz). That's kind of a given - more cores to run the OS and background process etc., it's a scenario where the quad-core would be unlikely to lose unless there is some highly severe inefficiencies in the implementation of the quad core. And yes, the Q6600 can overclock in excess to the stock speed to the E6750 - but that's only relevant if the E6750 is a poor overclocker - which is not the case (from the numbers I've seen, the E6750 pushes further % wise).
My point with the Unreal engine article though, is to show how comparatively little (~12%) quad core adds to dual core at equal clockspeed even in a modern engine, in contrast to going from single core to dual core. To me, it's a deja-vu of the Athlon 64 vs. X2. If we look at it now, then dual core is definitely the way to go over single core. But how long did it take to get this 60% performance increase from going from single core to dual core? It's been about 2.5 years since we first had the Venice vs Toledo. In those two years, the X2 has gone from leader to 'bargain chip that many enthusiast probably would not consider if they were building a new PC today'. I'd say that early X2 adopters did not get any performance benefit in games (again, discounting playing games and video encoding at the same time) over single core. I reckon when even when Core 2 first came out, it was still 50/50 at best.
Quad core has been out a little less than a year. Unless game developers have become faster a learning how to make better use of more cores, I actually don't think that quad core gaming will be upon us in 3-6 months. I'd say closer to 9-12 months for the first to truly utilise it (>35% improvement), and 12-18 months before there are more than 2-3 titles. In a year's time, I suspect that you would be able to pick up a quad core for ~£100 that's faster than the Q6600. If you can get ~£30 out of your E6750, you wouldn't be paying much of a premium over buying a Q6600 today.
Edit: What do you consider 'use 4 cores'? At least for me, I want a minimum improvement of 35% between a dual core and quad core at the same clock speed to consider to consider it somewhat worthy (given the 45% cost premium). Really though, I would prefer if it was in the 50% region.
And for my own curiosity, what are those games? I don't question the possibility that I am wrong, but if there are indeed some games announced that will use 4 cores at a level I am satisfied with in the next year, then I'd like to know what they are. I stated 'more than'2/3 games' in my previous post for the sake of objectivity. From a personal point of view though, it only really matters if the 2/3 games sounds like the type of games I'd want to play.
Put the £50 you save buying the E6750 to one side, in 12/18 months time you maybe can sell your E6750 say for £35?
Thats £85 towards your new next generation quad, which in 18 months time I reckon you'll be paying about £150 for QX9650 (plus you'll get the new intel cooler ;o)
And by the way , it's not just a £ 50 saving you get, less power hungry & cooler running is also a benefit.
Hopefully then, games will be optimized for quads too!
My apologies if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I take it you were comparing the values quoted on the page you linked? Since in that review the Q6600 and E6750 are both running at stock speeds (I'm looking a couple of pages further on in the review not the page you linked to directly) and the Q6600 bests (only just) the E6750, we could always compare the E6750 to the Q6700 which would be of equal clock speed, but obviously not in the same price bracket, and again the quad core wins out. So it seem that in the case of Unreal at least the extra cores have a real effect on performance as reflected by the close scores of the E6750 and the Q6600 at stock speeds. Now both processors can be overclocked well, but would you see much performance gain above 3GHz especially at a more realistic resolution where the system is more likely to be GPU limited rather than CPU limited? That perhaps is a completely different discussion!
As to what games will be utilising 4 cores I don't know (as I said in my previous post) but the trend if for more multi-threaded programs to be released and as such moving to a quad core now (if the £50 is not life and death!) if your buying a new processor to some degree future proofs you. Obviously if you upgrade your CPU every 6 months then the duel core may be the better choice but if you keep the same processor for a year or maybe 2 then the extra outlay now for a quad core could potentially extend the usable life of your processor. Obviously I don't know what the future holds or else I would be a very rich man! But I think its reasonable that current trends will continue and more multi-threaded programs and games will be produced.
Well even only using a bit is still worth it, because its a bit that would otherwise end up on your main core(s). So when you are playing something that doesn't use your CPU to its fullest, then the quad cores aren't going to do much to help. But when a game fully pushes your CPU, even if one of the cores is only running at 10% and taking care of windows or whatever in the background, its atleast 10% that you otherwise wouldn't be able to have - and could result in you needing to lower some settings or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
I'll have a go at finding some games anyway. I did find some but forgot most of them, but I remember reading somewhere that within the next 6 months or so, there will be atleast 20 games using quad cores. I was really sceptical earlier in the year too, but then I started seeing more and more stuff, talking about using multiple cores. Its come a long way since people where saying stuff like this .
Anyway, there are some games that are using up to 4 cores already, and more games in the future planning on it too. And there are even some games that will get patches to make them use it in the future (or make even better use of it in the future). I also read about some games (like Vanguard:SOH), that will not only use 4 cores, but 4gig of RAM with a 64bit client.
Anyway, heres a quick search (some of these are already available):
Crysis - quad core
Quad-core is Crysis phwoar - The INQUIRER
Hellgate: London
Intel Delivers Its Fastest Enthusiast Quad-Core Processor
Flight Simulator X
Intel Delivers Its Fastest Enthusiast Quad-Core Processor
Alan Wake (droooool!) (This game actually requires a dual core at the very least :eek:)
Alan Wake
Supreme Commander:
Dual and Quad-core gaming in Supreme Commander
Bioshock:
The game will also be multi-core friendly, and can fully utilise up to quad core CPUs on the PC. Physics and AI will each have their own threads – something that Irrational admits it learned from coding for the three-core 360.
--link.
There are others too that I can't remember, but theres 6 right there. It definitely seems that many developers have finally (reluctantly?), started to make use of having all those cores available. So it seems to be the sensible choice for the future. Sucks for the likes of me... who spent over £200 on a dual core :(