Gamer needs cpu

bakes0310 · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:31

Right i currently have a e6600 and i wanna get a new cpu, i dont care about overclocking as i dont do it and never will. Basically its just so that it improves my games and to make my pc a bit more future proof.

Ive narrowed it down to the:
E6850
Q6600

I wont be upgrading my pc for about 2-3 years so would like for it to still play future games as well as possible.

P.S thats a lie my last upgrade will be a new nvidia graphics card the 9800gtx when its released in november, so keep in mind i want a cpu that wont get too bottle knecked with that beast

stickroad · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:33

E6850 is a waste of money if you ask me, just get a E6750 and clock it up.

Yes the E6850 can clock to 4GHZ but i belive the diffrence between 3.5GHZ - 4.0GHZ is very little.

In benchmarks the E6850 beats the Q6600 in most games but look carefully and the diffrence is minmal to be honest. Along with that if you do any kind of encoding, multitasking etc.... then the Quad wins hands down.

Go for the Q6600 will be better in the long run.

bakes0310 · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:46

Ok quad core cpu it is then, but next question is it worth shelling out more for the Q6700 rather than the Q6600?

queamin · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:55

I would go quad if you keeping it for a few years and do encoding not really no get q6600 as you can overclock it to and over the stock q6700 speed

bakes0310 · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:58

queamin said:
I would go quad if you keeping it for a few years and do encoding

nope i dont do encoding from my OP it says i only do gaming on my pc so i want really the best performance i can get out of it, without overclocking.
So basically the cpus are out of now:

E6850
Q6600
Q6700

queamin · 2 Aug 2007 at 23:59

why not wait until you get your new videocard and get the cpu at same time?

Justintime · 3 Aug 2007 at 00:00

Problem is, right now the E6850 would probably get you the best performance in games, but maybe not so distantly in the future the quad might spank it when quad optimised games are out.

queamin · 3 Aug 2007 at 00:02

I would think the quad would be better for games in the future but when that is.it is hard to say but because you going to keep it for 2 to 3years i would say a quad and the q6600 is half the price as the q6700 and it isn't a lot slower.

easyrider · 3 Aug 2007 at 00:05

bakes0310 said:
I wont be upgrading my pc for about 2-3 years so would like for it to still play future games as well as possible.

QUAD

Biffa · 3 Aug 2007 at 01:14

I reckon by the time games come out that will utilise a quad you would need a 3-3.2Ghz quad to get them to perform decently. As you said you are not interested in overclocking then the best chip for you at this present point in time is a QX6850

Or you could save £400 spend 5 minutes in the bios and make a Q6600 into a QX6850.

Yes it might shave 50% off the life of the CPU but that means "onoes" it will only last 25 years instead of 50! :eek:

Big.Wayne · 3 Aug 2007 at 01:51

bakes0310 said:
Right i currently have a e6600 and i wanna get a new cpu, i dont care about overclocking as i dont do it and never will.

Shame on you!

I'm not convince you would notice any difference upgrading from an already good cpu (Dual Core 2400MHz/4MB Cache/1066MHz System Bus).

Doom 3 benchmark [timedemo demo1 usecache]

1600x1200/Ultra/2xAA/V-Sync Off

X1950XT 512MB

E2140 @ 1600MHz = 78.6 FPS
E2140 @ 3200MHz = 93.0 FPS

E6300 @ 1866MHz = 81.7 FPS
3000+ @ 1800MHz = 67.8 FPS
3000+ @ 2400MHz = 80.0 FPS

an extra 1600MHz and I get 14.4 FPS gain?

Not sure if its something to do with the GPU hitting its max or just the way the game is coded?

What kinda games do you play? are they FPS or RTS?

If its FPS then as suggested a more powerful GPU would get you some serious 'action' but if you favour RTS then perhaps a faster CPU would be the better option. . .

bakes0310 · 5 Aug 2007 at 10:50

Well after trying to play oblivion with HDR and AA on and everything on max, it brought my system to a crawl.
So ive gone and done it i bought the E6850 and at a nice price to thanks to this week only deals

dalin80 · 5 Aug 2007 at 12:30

HDR and AA are graphics card loads

Chandler_90 · 5 Aug 2007 at 12:31

Big.Wayne said:
Shame on you!

I'm not convince you would notice any difference upgrading from an already good cpu (Dual Core 2400MHz/4MB Cache/1066MHz System Bus).

Doom 3 benchmark [timedemo demo1 usecache]

1600x1200/Ultra/2xAA/V-Sync Off

X1950XT 512MB

E2140 @ 1600MHz = 78.6 FPS
E2140 @ 3200MHz = 93.0 FPS

E6300 @ 1866MHz = 81.7 FPS
3000+ @ 1800MHz = 67.8 FPS
3000+ @ 2400MHz = 80.0 FPS

an extra 1600MHz and I get 14.4 FPS gain?

Not sure if its something to do with the GPU hitting its max or just the way the game is coded?

What kinda games do you play? are they FPS or RTS?

If its FPS then as suggested a more powerful GPU would get you some serious 'action' but if you favour RTS then perhaps a faster CPU would be the better option. . .

Is that you own Texture pack.... or just a reallllllllly clever way to stamp your images?

jaykay · 5 Aug 2007 at 12:39

Chandler_90 said:
Is that you own Texture pack.... or just a reallllllllly clever way to stamp your images?

LOL ive only just noticed that now thats smooth.

MumboJumbo · 5 Aug 2007 at 13:02

dalin80 said:
HDR and AA are graphics card loads

Agreed.

Also i would say Q6600 is the best value and best thing to buy. But only if you overclock it past 3GHZ. At say, 3.3GHz i doubt it makes much difference compared to the 4GHZ clocking ability of the E6850. But if you dont over clock it then i dont think a Q6600 at 2.4GHZ is best bang for buck.

bakes0310 · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:16

dalin80 said:
HDR and AA are graphics card loads

O RLY?

See spec ive got a pretty good graphics card and im only playing it at 1280x1024 but at max settings with HDR + AA i still shouldnt be getting this low FPS should i?

thefishdude · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:20

you can have your e6600 runing at 3gig in about 1min on that board. i have the e6700 at 3.3ghz and all it needs is a fsb change and nothing else. ooh i think i changed the ram multiplier from 2/3 to 4/5 but thats it

jaykay · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:25

bakes0310 said:
O RLY?

See spec ive got a pretty good graphics card and im only playing it at 1280x1024 but at max settings with HDR + AA i still shouldnt be getting this low FPS should i?

How much aa are you using it should just be ok at 4aa but that may be pushing it.

SS-89 · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:35

doesnt really make sense to go for an e6850 when you have a perfectly clockable e6600 but meh each to their own i guess.