• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

E2180. How long will it last for gaming?

mame

mame

mame

Soldato
Joined
16 Jul 2007
Posts
7,691
Location
Stoke on Trent
I currently have an e2180 @ 3.2ghz with an 8800gt. Would like to get a new graphics card this summer when the new ones are out but how much will this CPU hold me back? Been playing assassins creed @ 1680x1050 and while it plays very well with max settings but 2 (4x?) MSAA, it has room for improvement. This CPU cost me ~£50 and to buy another for ~£100 and not see much/any improvement doesn't really appeal to me. I could put this money towards the next graphics card.

Does the e2180 need to go? and what would be best (£/performance) to replace it with for gaming?
 
Definitely not IMO. I can't see how an E2180 at 3.2Ghz will bottleneck even the next gen graphics.

Assasins creed doesn't run very well in DX10 mode but tbh there aren't that many DX10 titles that really run well.
 
Its not all about clock speed though.

The E2100 for example running at 3.4ghz is no good for gaming as the cache or lack of hinders FPS in games.

Now the 2180 has 1mb cache per core.

And although no slouch is not the best gaming CPU but hey it only cost 50 so its a balance between FPS and finances.
 
easyrider said:
Its not all about clock speed though.

The E2100 for example running at 3.4ghz is no good for gaming as the cache or lack of hinders FPS in games.

Now the 2180 has 1mb cache per core.

And although no slouch is not the best gaming CPU but hey it only cost 50 so its a balance between FPS and finances.
Click to expand...

I remember I've read some tests about the cache on CPUs and it seems like it doesnt affect FPS much. Hardly any difference.
Not tested it myself so can't say anything about that :).
 
PhoenixUK said:
I remember I've read some tests about the cache on CPUs and it seems like it doesnt affect FPS much. Hardly any difference.
Not tested it myself so can't say anything about that :).
Click to expand...

The reviews I read about the E2100 with 512kb per core really hinders performance .

Anything with more than 1 mb cache is ok.

Its all about balance.

With a E7200 being had for little over 80 and getting clocked to 3.8ghz on air this would be my chip of choice for a budget gaming rig.
 
Last edited:
CAche only really hurts the upper FPS rather than the lower, from what I recall.

As the lower is the more important, it makes the chip quite a bargain. Besides, it's only £80 to replace with something slightly better. It's much more expensive to upgrade the graphics card than the processor at the moment in time, so keep your processor and wait on a refresh from ATI or Nvidia.


Easiyrider: I would be interested to see a benchmark showing a 2140/60/80 at 3.4GHz struggling in comparison to an 8400 or a comparable processor at about the same speed with greater cache, especially given this...

easyrider said:
2160 or 6320/6420 when clocked you will be pleased with either.


My view is that a 2160 @ 3.2ghz £50 will make you even happier.

Is the extra cache worth £50 more?

I would argue, put anyone in front of two PC's and each running a 6320 C2D and the cheaper 2160 range at the same clock speed and I would bet your bottom dollar that when gaming they would not notice the difference.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'd save money on the rig where you can. If you want to drop the £50-odd extra on a Wolfdale, go for it, although I don't think you'd notice a significant difference as with a better graphics card.
 
I think I am being misunderstood here,

I'm not saying the 2180 at 3.2ghz is a bad gaming cpu.

What I am saying is that there are better gaming chips out for not much more money.

That post you quote is old now and I would not reccomend the 2180 for 50 at this point in time when for 35 quid more you get treble the cache, 10% speed increase clock for clock ,SS4 instruction set less heat and power.

The 21** series cpu's are great chips (i had one ) but with 7200's being so cheap and dropping further these will happily pump along a GT200 GPU for a very good while.

I would sell the 2180 while you can put 30odd towards a 7200 and be set for GT200.

Thats my view.
 
just hold on to it mate... Cache can be overcome by clockspeed, according to LH's article on the E2160, and a couple of other places... Not to mention the thing really flies when OCed...

I have a '60 at 3ghz, and an 8800GT as well, and i'm finding it more and more difficult to justify replacing that chip
 
It's all about the cost of additional performance. If you already have a fast graphics card, then getting a CPU with more cache is a good way to boost your system, but only if you already have a high end graphics card.

At the time of that comparison, there were 8800 GTS 320MB/640MB cards, 8800 GTXs at the top of the graphics tree. A lot of people were wondering whether to spend on CPU or spend on GPU. GPU made sense then, but if you have got those high end GPUs now then CPU would be a good boost.

Look at those prices at the time of writing. 60 notes for the e2160 compared with 150 notes for the e6600. Now you can get an e7200 for 85 notes, with 3mb cache and good clocking headroom. That's where my money would be.





Or maybe a quad for fun :D
 
It will bottleneck the next gen cards I think.

I've just gone from E2160@3ghz to [email protected] and it's unleashed quite a bit more performance out of my GTS.

It's made me wonder if I should get something faster still.
 
In graphics intensive games faster GPU will always yield better performance gain than a faster CPU.

If the games do not have high graphics requirement then CPU becomes the bottleneck to higher fps but an E2180 at 3.2Ghz is fine.
 
Last edited:
steve258 said:
In graphics intensive games faster GPU will always yield better performance gain than a faster CPU.

If the games do not have high graphics requirement then CPU becomes the bottleneck to higher fps but an E2180 at 3.2Ghz is fine.
Click to expand...

creed said:
What differences have u seen?
Click to expand...

10-13fps in crysis bench @1280x1024. Might be less at higher res i suppose but I don't game at higher res than that.

When i went from the 640GTS to the 512GTS I got no improvement in avg fps which is why i thought the cpu might of been a bit of a bottleneck. Now I have been able to prove that was the case.
 
You guys worrying about whether an e2180 @ 3.2ghz is going to bottleck your cards really need to do less benching and more gaming ;) . It's a difficult habit to get out of, I know. I eventually stopped running timedemos / fraps etc and just adjust the settings of new games to what feels comfortable. It's a refreshing change...

Assassin's Creed runs fine in DX10 mode. It performs identically to DX9 in Vista or maybe slightly faster. http://www.tweakguides.com/AC_7.html
 
Whats a good clock for one of these anyway? I am currently priming at 3.2Ghz @1.28v in a Gigabyte P31 DS3L. It's a budget upgrade for my son. Got the E2180 and the mobo, both brand new, off ebay for £35 and £18 respectively.
 
pastymuncher said:
Whats a good clock for one of these anyway? I am currently priming at 3.2Ghz @1.28v in a Gigabyte P31 DS3L. It's a budget upgrade for my son. Got the E2180 and the mobo, both brand new, off ebay for £35 and £18 respectively.
Click to expand...

That's excellent at such low volts, looks like u found a good one, i am only at 3.2 @ 1.575v on my e2160. I suggest u try getting up to 3.6 upping the vcore (depending on your cooling of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom