Which Cpu will be better buy for gaming?
Thanks
Printable View
Which Cpu will be better buy for gaming?
Thanks
If the game could take an advantage of all the cores then the quad.. most don't though so the one with the highest clock probably, which is the dual in this case.
If you're overclocking, i've seen with my own eyes this week a quad easily doing 3.6GHz with a decent cooler. But the E8400 is more likely to hit 4.0GHz +
I would personaly go for the Q6600, it will give you much better proccessing power in application like 3ds max rendering and so on, while not having any drastic change in FPS for games. I doubt you will notice any difference at all in gaming between the both, because neither in my opinion will be utilized fully by any game to date only game i think that sees a marginal difference is supreme commander. But if all your gona do is game then i guess the logical choice is the E8400...
I would go for the E8400, it is one beast of a O/C.
what games do you play mostly?
These days FPS's but anything good basically I do own a copy of supreme commander but not played it for a while.
FSX users would be better off with a quad too, as it greatly reduces loading times, and allows you to run lots of add-ons without causing any stutters.
You would never notice the difference between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob4001
Might as well go for the E8400 then as its cheaper and cooler and consumes less power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
Just for you to remember:
Q6600 (Kentsfield) = 65nm / 4 Cores / 2.4GHz / FSB 1066 / 8MB L2 Cache / TDP 95W
Q9450 (Yorkfield) = 45nm / 4 Cores / 2.67GHz / FSB 1333 / 12MB L2 Cache / TDP 95W
E8400 (Wolfdale) = 45nm / 2 Cores / 3.0GHz / FSB 1333 / 6MB L2 Cache / TDP 65W
The Q9450 is not out yet. Should we get the Q6600 or the E8400 ?
Maybe a question of personal preference.
I personally like the fact that the Wolfdale runs cooler and is still a powerful beast.
Since the GPU does most of the 3D job anyway, I will go for the E8400 over the Q6600.
I know that many people in different forums are getting carried away for the one or the other CPU. But I say, there is no definite answer. A small advantage doesn't justify an expensive desicion.
Just think 5 years back. There was not even the slightest idea about multicore.
The more I go back in time, I'm more than surprised what sh*t I was willing to put up with to make PC a faithful hobby to enjoy.
Compared to today where we have good power multi core CPUs & GPUs, USB socket has become standard, Solid State will replace our noisy hard drives in the next 1 to 2 years,
Windows XP and Vista are sophisticated, intelligent and reliable, the floppy (thanks God) has died to the advantage of memory sticks, ect
I could go on and on about the improvements, happened over the past years.
Will say, you almost can't do much wrong.
Think about all these people who are only able to buy complet PCs from Dell, PC World & Co.
These people have no idea what we're talking about. They just buy a PC by the looks of the Case and the Keyboard / Mouse.
They are easily deceived by the adverts of the big companies ... they don't know it better.
So if you still thinking about what CPU to get ... trust your instinct more.
Is being up-to-date important to you and do you like your PC to run quiet ?
E8400 is the answer.
Are you a speed freak who overclocks after breakfast ?
The Q6600 is nice too ... until the Q9450 is out.
It is very rare for me to be this assertive with future predictions, but I have to go ahead and say 'not a chance'. They may become big, cheap and consistently fast enough to replace the Raptor for storage enthusiasts, but we are not going to see SSD measured in TB in the next two years notwithstanding RAID-ing multiple very expensive drives. A 64GB Mtron costs from £850-£1000, even assuming that capacity doubles each year while price halves, we are still looking at almost £1 per GB in 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cov
Possibly quite true unless you are want to squeeze the last FPS of a system, or multitask very heavily. For most gaming though, GFX card comes first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cov
I disagree there. The E8400 can be every bit of a 'speed freak overclocker' chip as the Q6600. The die shrink may theoretically even put it at an advantage, although I'd wait for more reports before coming to that conclusion (one could say that the 65nm process is more mature/stable).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cov
Similarly, the Q6600 can run silent/very quiet with established tower heatsink with or without a fan.
What I find interesting about the E8400 is that it is priced closer to the E6750 than the E6850 even though it's clockspeed matches that of the later, and I'd expect the extra cache + SSE 4 to boost the value that little bit more. It looks like extremely good value to me. The Q6600 is potentially faster when the situation calls for the use of additional cores, but it is fairly rare that a single application uses more than 2 cores at the moment. So IMO, it comes down to how much you must multitask and how much you value the possibility to leave extra applications running. If you have a habit of shutting down CPU resource intensive applications before you game, then the E8400 is the better choice. Quad-core will eventually be the way to go, but I reckon not before 'Nehalem'.
Not really true. Plenty of games benefit from more clockspeed. My PC is still limited by the CPU when I'm playing Team Fortress 2 with an E8400. I was considering getting a quad core but I would have been worse off for gaming (with current games) with the quad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
If all you use your machine for is gaming, it's not really worth paying for quad core because it's going to be a while before games regularly take advantage of the extra cores to their full potential. If you're on a tight budget you can easily say yourself a bit by going dual core instead of quad core without sacrificing any in game performance.
However, if you're the kind of person who does a lot of stuff at once or uses a quad core optimised program, I think quad core if the only way to go. I do a lot of audio recording and recently upgraded to a Q6600 because some of my projects were starting to use 100% CPU time because I have a lot of tracks/Eqs running on them on my old AMD X2 4800+. My program (Sonar 7) is optimised for quad cores and the problem projects are absolutely fine now so that fact alone has made the upgrade worthwhile.
A lot of the professional apps (video editing, 3D modelling, sound recording) are being optimised for as many cores as they can get hold of so I would always recommend a quad to someone who uses their machine to do anything like that.
Very true - and the read write cycles (therefore lifetime) of flash memory is much lower than that of magnetic media. USB and other flash drives contain controllers to even out the 'wear' on each cell, but in a hard drive type application - particularly for areas like swap files, I think the life would be reduced. There are some solid state drives available - particularly Samsung - on the retail market, but other than specialised use - low power for example, there isn't really much justification - yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
However technology does move on and the number of RW cycles will improve, so I'm sure we will see large flash drives at some point - but not in the next couple of years. (Makes mental note to bookmark this post so I can look at it in two years time and see how wrong I was :) )
Again I'd agree with that. The technical press has noted concerns that 45nm technology may have a lower lifetime/lower reliability that 65nm because the finer spacing increases leakage and makes the chip more vulnerable to inter-track breakdown (very simpler) That also raises issues about overclocking - increasing the stress on the chip by raising voltages is likely to increase this 'punch through' effect, apart from raising internal temperatures (even with more efficient coolers, the rate of heat production will increase, and the internal temperature of the cores will increase. AFAIK no studies have been published on this (not that I have looked very hard) but it will be interesting to see if the failure rate on 45nm processors is higher than that of 65nm. I doubt if any controlled experiments will be done to see what the effects of overstressing the processors will be done, so we may have to rely on anecdotal evidence from those that do overclock. I'm not saying that that 45nm IS less reliable - or that overclocking definately DOES reduce the life of components, although looking at the technology involved, it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonably hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
But if it's reducing the lifespan from 15 years to 10 years say it's hardly going to matter to overclockers who change their components every 2-3 years.
There's a difference between limiting the computer, and limiting your experience. Something is always going to be limiting, but limiting your frame rate to 85 is hardly going to affect your user experience, and changing to something that gives you 95 fps is going to be completely unnoticeable by the user.Quote:
Originally Posted by 306maxi
True enough I guess. But still you'll get better results from the E8400 with gaming :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel