GTS + e6600, or GTX+ e6300

LoadsaMoney · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:39

E6300 + GTX seen as your going to overclock at some point.

easyrider · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:41

LoadsaMoney said:
E6300 + GTX seen as your going to overclock at some point.

Glad you agree with easy

You know I'm right

Merry Christmas everyone!

fornowagain · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:41

Tute said:
If he's not going to overclock then that E6300 will bottleneck the GTX heavily.

I really think at that setup the GTS will be almost as fast, whilst being far cheaper.

If he was overclocking then I might think differently. But the E6600 would help the GTS to "spread it's wings".

A GTS is no where near as capable as the GTX in real fps, in the region of 25%. Driving a GTS at 2.4Ghz vs a GTX at 1.86GHz may well even out. But that ignores the potential a GTX has at 3GHz which is an easy E6300 overclock.

easyrider · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:43

fornowagain said:
A GTS is no where near as capable as the GTX in real fps, in the region of 25%. Driving a GTS at 2.4Ghz vs a GTX at 1.86GHz may well even out. But that ignores the potential a GTX has at 3GHz which is an easy E6300 overclock.

Yup

Glad to see we are finally getting the truth out!

Easy to the rescue!

fornowagain · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:45

Lolcb said:
O and btw those fps, they r not average, they take the maximum lol. Coz no way am i getting that high constantly on dark messiah with that reso + aa + af, at some part it does drop a bit..

Take that up them. And you don't know where in each map they measured it, so maybe they are average, dunno.

Lolcb · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:53

fornowagain said:
Take that up them. And you don't where in each map they measured it, so maybe they are average, dunno.

They should put the minimum, average and max IMO. Cause in some parts of the game, you do drop to the 50s

Tute · 10 Dec 2006 at 21:54

easyrider said:
It wont be far cheaper though as he will be spending the extra on the cpu clock speed something he can get for free

If he does plan to overclock then i'd say GTX.

If staying at stock, then I think the faster CPU would be more advisable.

Hang on Easyrider, lets just keep it simple.

E6600 + 8800GTX. <-- After all, who needs money?

fornowagain · 10 Dec 2006 at 22:01

Who keeps an E6300 at 1.86MHz? Thats like a Ferrari in first gear. Even at 2.13Ghz it's faster than an FX57 at 2.8GHz. Not that much of a bottleneck really.

Robert · 10 Dec 2006 at 22:38

Tute said:
If he's not going to overclock then that E6300 will bottleneck the GTX heavily.

I really think at that setup the GTS will be almost as fast, whilst being far cheaper.

If he was overclocking then I might think differently. But the E6600 would help the GTS to "spread it's wings".

How ridiculous. If an E6300 bottlenecks a GTX then an E6600 will.

queamin · 11 Dec 2006 at 00:09

Don't see the point in getting the 6600 and gts as it is about the same price as 6300 and gtx, once he starts to oc the 6300 the gtx will improve.

Tute · 11 Dec 2006 at 01:02

Robert said:
How ridiculous. If an E6300 bottlenecks a GTX then an E6600 will.

I'm just repeating what i've been told .

Bizarre · 11 Dec 2006 at 01:12

easyrider said:
why spend 100 more on a cpu when he will not notice it.

Why did you.

easyrider said:
The GTX is 25% faster

True, but it's 50% dearer.

Personally I'd go for the e6600+gts and clock the nads of both. £299 for a BFG is a steal and will hold its own in resale value alone (especially compaired to the gtx).

Meh, just my 2 cents.

Happy Chrimbo btw.

fornowagain · 11 Dec 2006 at 02:39

Tute said:
I'm just repeating what i've been told .

It does use the Conroe CPU power all the way up past 4GHz and beyond, for benches. For games at low resolutions, 3.4Ghz seems to be the useful limit and as the resolution increases the CPU becomes less and less important. Although as the GPU overclocks the cpu's effect is a little more pronounced. Even then at lower res, where bottlenecked, its not massively crippled with a slower CPU.

For a good example have a look at this guys work.

F.E.A.R benchmarked at 1024x768 as CPU bottlenecked as it gets. All settings maxed out. See the bottleneck? Its there, but not a big deal.

tomanders91 · 11 Dec 2006 at 08:01

ok thanks guys, i will overclock theh cpu im just worried about break £1000 of hardware thats all, as long as someone expierenced at overclocking talks me through it over msn or something.

Things change I've changed · 11 Dec 2006 at 09:03

Tute said:
I'm just repeating what i've been told .

well I normally agree with easyrider's points of view and advice but I'd say his wrong here, I went from a [email protected] running with a 7800GTX that ran at around 16-21fps in dense forestry in oblivion to a [email protected] running with a 8800GTX that now runs the same scene in Oblivion now at 63fps :eek:

trojan698 · 11 Dec 2006 at 09:35

E6300 clocked + GTX

The Asgard · 11 Dec 2006 at 09:41

If you have the money available its a no brainer.

6300 OC and a GTX. My little monster managed 3.5 Ghz

easyrider · 11 Dec 2006 at 09:55

lowrider007 said:
well I normally agree with easyrider's points of view and advice but I'd say his wrong here, I went from a [email protected] running with a 7800GTX that ran at around 16-21fps in dense forestry in oblivion to a [email protected] running with a 8800GTX that now runs the same scene in Oblivion now at 63fps

I think you are agreeing with me

6300 and GTX is what I have been saying from the start.

Things change I've changed · 11 Dec 2006 at 10:11

easyrider said:
I think you are agreeing with me

6300 and GTX is what I have been saying from the start.

I've actually read the first page now

, was a lazy post tbh + I've not even went to bed yet.

Robert · 11 Dec 2006 at 11:10

Tute said:
I'm just repeating what i've been told .

And most E6300s do 3.4

And...if both were at stock then both would be a bottleneck.