Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Best Gaming CPU?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Gaming CPU? - Page 3

post #21 of 71
I dont know how good this info is, but I heard from a programmer who works with an 8 core mac daily that to feed 4 cores properly, you need 16 GB of RAM. This makes me doubt that we'll see any quad core applications anytime soon.
My First Build
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 940 Biostar 790GX A2+ Powercolor Radeon HD 7870 2x2GB Dominators Stock Clocks 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
SAMSUNG 840 SSD 128GB Windows 7 (64 bit) HP w2207 Corsair 750W 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec 300 Logitech G5 On Board 
  hide details  
Reply
My First Build
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 940 Biostar 790GX A2+ Powercolor Radeon HD 7870 2x2GB Dominators Stock Clocks 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
SAMSUNG 840 SSD 128GB Windows 7 (64 bit) HP w2207 Corsair 750W 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec 300 Logitech G5 On Board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 71
Here is Driving game called GRID that uses all 4 cores. I would say go for a Q9300 or a Q6600. And if you want a Over Clocking Monster go for the (non soldered IHS) E7200 they over clock just same as a E8400 if not slightly better. You will not notice much diff because alot of game are GPU bound. I hope this has helped
post #23 of 71
The E8400 and E8500 are a waste of cash. Get a Q9450 or Q9550.

EDIT:

Thought I'd better elaborate.

Yeah, the E8400 can OC to about 4.3ghz, but it still can't stand up to a Q9450 @ 3.6ghz. It loses about 1000 3d marks. Which out of 3dmarks ranging in 15,000's may seemk like nothing, but for CPU score it is (3920, compared to 5029)

Proof can be given.
Edited by Shin2k35 - 6/25/08 at 10:48am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66ghz Asus Striker II Formula nForce 780i Nvidia eVGA Superclocked 8800GT SLI 4 x 1GB OCZ PC8500 1066mhz SLI READY 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x WD 250GB SATA RAID 0 + 2 x SG 320GB Storage 2 x DVD-RW SATA+IDE Windows Vista™ Ultimate 64-bit Service Pack 1 Samsung Syncmaster 2032BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX110 Keyboard OCZ 600W StealthXStream Antec P182 Logitech EX110 Cordless Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Random Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66ghz Asus Striker II Formula nForce 780i Nvidia eVGA Superclocked 8800GT SLI 4 x 1GB OCZ PC8500 1066mhz SLI READY 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x WD 250GB SATA RAID 0 + 2 x SG 320GB Storage 2 x DVD-RW SATA+IDE Windows Vista™ Ultimate 64-bit Service Pack 1 Samsung Syncmaster 2032BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech EX110 Keyboard OCZ 600W StealthXStream Antec P182 Logitech EX110 Cordless Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Random Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 71
OEM = CPU ONLY WITH NO WARRANTY THROUGH INTEL, most places give you a month or so warranty through them

Retail = CPU + HSF + 3 years Intel warranty
post #25 of 71
Thread Starter 
I never plan on playing GRID or many racing games on my rig for that matter. The last racing game I played on a PC was NASCAR Racing 2. Yeah, it's been a while.

The E7200 has a 3MB L2 cache. I'm not sure how much of a concrete difference this would make for performance, but I know it's half what the E8400 has and it's stock specs are lower across the board.

I'm not interested in 3DMark scores. I've read those numbers are for bragging rights more than anything. I'm more interested in in-game performance. If a Q9450 will get me a few to handful more frames per second, I don't see the point in spending nearly twice as much ($190 compared to $330) for a minimal performance gain. If I wanted to that, I might as well reach for DDR3 memory now instead of waiting for prices to fall in a palatable range.

Of course a quad-core processor will score better than a dual-core. But are games actually using four cores? So far I've seen one example and it's a game I'll never play. I plan on playing mainly RTS games on this rig and until those start utilizing four cores, I doubt I'll take the plunge.
post #26 of 71
Yeah search for E7200 Reviews on google you'll be impressed trust me i was plus it like half price so more cash for GPU.

the Q9300 is new technology. give it couple of months than you'll see quad core killing duel core on games.
post #27 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin2k35 View Post
The E8400 and E8500 are a waste of cash. Get a Q9450 or Q9550.

EDIT:

Thought I'd better elaborate.

Yeah, the E8400 can OC to about 4.3ghz, but it still can't stand up to a Q9450 @ 3.6ghz. It loses about 1000 3d marks. Which out of 3dmarks ranging in 15,000's may seemk like nothing, but for CPU score it is (3920, compared to 5029)

Proof can be given.
THAT IS 3DMARK!!!! The actual real world benchmarks always show that quad cores are barley used in todays games. 3Dmark yes they are all used or at least more than games. However i personally would rather have the better gamer than the one that does better benchmarks.

Now before you go telling someone that a quad core is the best "gaming CPU" right now watch yourself because this is utterly wrong. 3Dmark is a good benchmark but that is ALL that is. I have seen many video cards as well get very high or very low 3dmark scores and beat out cards that had 1000 more than them in the gpu.

To the OP

The E8400 is probably one of the best gaming CPU's today where as the E7200 is right up there with it. The E7200 only has half cache which i believe takes probably about 5-10% performance off from the E8400 but for the price it's an awesome chip i recommend it a lot.
post #28 of 71
Thread Starter 
The Q9300 might be new technology, but quad-core processors are not. They've been out for a little while now and games won't take advantage of them until they are coded to do so. So the only way for quads to kill duals is for the game to be designed to do so. This isn't exactly a more-is-better situation, at least from everything I've read.

And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "killing," but I imagine you mean at least a 20% gain in frame rates. If this is only true at extreme resolutions, I still won't care. I'll be gaming on a 22" monitor. When I'm looking at benchmarks, I'm looking at 1680x1050 numbers because numbers past that won't pertain to my setup.
post #29 of 71
Get a duel core then E7200 or E8400
post #30 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin2k35 View Post
The E8400 and E8500 are a waste of cash. Get a Q9450 or Q9550.

EDIT:

Thought I'd better elaborate.

Yeah, the E8400 can OC to about 4.3ghz, but it still can't stand up to a Q9450 @ 3.6ghz. It loses about 1000 3d marks. Which out of 3dmarks ranging in 15,000's may seemk like nothing, but for CPU score it is (3920, compared to 5029)

Proof can be given.
oh and btw your Quad at 3.5ghz will get whooped on in games by an E8400 at 4.2ghz or so on ANY game these days. I can show proof of that too.

Once again to the OP an E8400 or E7200 will perform better than a Q6600 when overclocked. People always say the Q6600 at 3.6ghz and the E8400 at 4.0ghz which they are kind of similar in performance HOWEVER a Q6600 at 3.6ghz is about as common as an E8400 @ 4.2ghz. Compare those and you see the difference.

Nehalem will be coming out at the end of this year or early next which is a WHOLE NEW SOCKET. Maybe soon after that games will start to use more cores effectively but until then dual-core still reigns supreme in the gaming world because they can overclock so high.

Get a quad-core when nehalem comes out or stay with a dual-core if you want the best FPS in games. I'm not talking about anything else here since the OP talked about gaming so don't go there.
Edited by Sora1421 - 6/25/08 at 11:43am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Best Gaming CPU?