-
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.
should i look for...
- Thread starter wupwup
- Start date
The general consensus is a faster Dual is better for gaming than a slower quad. However you need to list the following:-
Budget
Rest of system specs, or are you buying a whole new system?
Other computer uses (ie encoding/editing etc)
Can/are you going to overclock etc
Budget
Rest of system specs, or are you buying a whole new system?
Other computer uses (ie encoding/editing etc)
Can/are you going to overclock etc
How long are you keeping it for? Quad's obviously more future-proof.
My 3.33Ghz dual (E8600) is only 5-10% faster than my 2.4Ghz quad (Q6600) in most games (at stock) and 10-15% faster in benchmarks.
Also, a faster dual seems to give much better minimum FPS but only slightly better average FPS, in my experience. Except for half-life 2, where the faster dual is nearly 50% faster.
My 3.33Ghz dual (E8600) is only 5-10% faster than my 2.4Ghz quad (Q6600) in most games (at stock) and 10-15% faster in benchmarks.
Also, a faster dual seems to give much better minimum FPS but only slightly better average FPS, in my experience. Except for half-life 2, where the faster dual is nearly 50% faster.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Cheshire
As Happy has said, it all depends on your budget. If you can afford to go i7, those chips clock so high and are so fast per clock that even in single threaded games they can win against the fastest dual core. Then when you throw in more than 2 threads, the competition is over.
Computers are not future proof.
Will you be overclocking, as that makes the difference here. A stock q9550 will be better than a stock e8400, but the e8400 will run a lot faster with a lot less effort if you clock it, and the faster clocked dual core will beat the quad
Will you be overclocking, as that makes the difference here. A stock q9550 will be better than a stock e8400, but the e8400 will run a lot faster with a lot less effort if you clock it, and the faster clocked dual core will beat the quad
The E7400 will go to 3.8-4gHz most of the time, a 720BE to 3.6-3.8 most of the time (individual chips +/- 200mHz for most cases)
I had the exact same choice a few days ago between the E7(4/5)00 and the 720BE, for the sake of a 5% faster clock speed on the 7500 vs an extra core on the 720, I personally went for the 720.
The way I see it, the CPU does help frame rates, but a difference of about 200mHz is going to make a lot less difference than your graphics card. Since it's a gaming rig you'll be getting something that can handle decent min frame rates anyway, so you're probably talking about a few fps less in current games; which is hardly noticeable: for the sake of much better performance in future games and apps, and current games which are multi-threaded.
I had the exact same choice a few days ago between the E7(4/5)00 and the 720BE, for the sake of a 5% faster clock speed on the 7500 vs an extra core on the 720, I personally went for the 720.
The way I see it, the CPU does help frame rates, but a difference of about 200mHz is going to make a lot less difference than your graphics card. Since it's a gaming rig you'll be getting something that can handle decent min frame rates anyway, so you're probably talking about a few fps less in current games; which is hardly noticeable: for the sake of much better performance in future games and apps, and current games which are multi-threaded.