• 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.

Which CPU is better for a gamer?

chronic86

chronic86

chronic86

Permabanned
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Posts
1,169
Location
Newcastle upon tyne
Hi I dont kno which CPU i **** get im im runnign a socket 775 mobo with 2 gig of DDR2 and a gf8600GTS. Which of these processors would perform the best/quickest for gaming?

Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz Socket 775 800FSB 2MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor


Intel Pentium 4 661 Socket 775 3.6GHz 800MHz FSB L2 2MB Cache OEM Processor


Intel Celeron D 352 3.20ghz Socket 775 FSB533 256KB Cache OEM Processor

Thanks in advance for your help.

Cheers Jamie

Ps i probably wont be overclocking so i mean which will run quickest at clock speed.
 
are all those cpus compatible with your MB, if so get the e4500 it is the most overclockable and the c2d range beats anything intel had released before

also if you want to OC or if you can OC get the e2180 and OC it as high as possible, it has a 10x multiplier so it makes getting 3ghz quite easy especially with a p35 based MB

im assuming the machine in the sig isnt yours. if it is dont get any of the above
 
chronic86 said:
boo!

get the e4500 for sure jamie lad! lolz

ps and overclock the nipples off it.
Click to expand...

Why have you just replied in your own thread with a reccomendation to yourself?! :p

And yes the E4500 is the best bet out of those processors.

However if you are only looking to game then maybe the cheaper E21xx series would be a better bet?!
 
oweneades said:
Why have you just replied in your own thread with a reccomendation to yourself?! :p

And yes the E4500 is the best bet out of those processors.

However if you are only looking to game then maybe the cheaper E21xx series would be a better bet?!
Click to expand...

na jamie is a friend of mine using my account to get some info!

the system in sig is mine, hes after a new cpu.. tbh he needs a new cpu/mobo
 
If all you are going to be doing is gaming, then there is not really all that much in it.

Poeple come up with all kinds of crap about benchmark this or benchmark that but when it boils down to the nitty gritty, there is really bugger all in it that you will actually notice.
 
Poeple come up with all kinds of crap about benchmark this or benchmark that but when it boils down to the nitty gritty, there is really bugger all in it that you will actually notice
Click to expand...
Agree with the sentiment but the lack of cache will nuke that celery, it could be enough difference between it and the other two it would be noticable in cpu-heavy gameplay.
 
Tetras said:
Agree with the sentiment but the lack of cache will nuke that celery, it could be enough difference between it and the other two it would be noticable in cpu-heavy gameplay.
Click to expand...

Oh crap no...

I would not wipe my arse on the receipt of a Celeron.

The Core2Duo is by far the most sensible option in this case.

I did have 2 pages open and the answer I gave to this one is supposed to be for the other post...

No, in this case, the Celeron is a non starter - No celeron should be taken seriously under ANY circumstances, the P4 is not exactly going to float the boat either these days but it is still a worth while CPU for a good price ( Well under £40 Id say )

So the C2D is obviously the best option.

I have only one P4 CPU and thats a 660 Prescott in an S3 thats running at a hefty 4.3Ghz ( Been to 4.7 ), and at stock ( 3.6 ) its got potential... However... Its a HT CPU and the slowest conroe I have, is twice as fast as it, plus the conroes are true Dual core... In english, the P4 gets completely left behind... But, its still a useable PC and it can still game with the rest of them.

Sorry for any mix up.
 
More than twice the speed in Supreme Commander.
Neither is a playable framerate; the resolution is abnormally low (who plays at 1024 x 768?) so it exaggerates CPU performance delta; Supreme Commander is a CPU heavy game (one of the worst on the market); the benchmark is a... benchmark.

Almost a 20FPS difference in Quake 4.
Timedemo is a bench and both average above 60 FPS (60 FPS is accepted as playable in shooter).

27 FPS difference in Prey.
See above.

HOW you can say 'there's no difference' I do not understand.
Click to expand...
No one is denying there is a performance difference between the E4500 and 661, indeed FatRakoon makes that clear in his clarifying post but if you consider the context of the first post (that benchmarks are not everything and performance that you will notice in real-terms) it is arguable that you would not see one.

Those're all very noticeable drops in framerate, and on newer games I'd expect the impact to be even larger
Click to expand...
Indeed but a 661 is still a capable CPU on all but the very newest games. All that said, where the option exists E4500 = win.
 
Then we factor in the 400mhz clock difference between the E4300 and the E4500, factor in newer games and what do we get? A much more noticeable difference. I'm not saying the 661 is completely useless, but it's now redundant, power hungry and old. Look at it this way, the E4300 is half the clockspeed of the 661 (1.8 vs. 3.6) and it STILL outperforms it. The E4500 gets more clockspeed in its favour, it's hardly going to perform any worse.

The OP posed the question, 'Which of these processors would perform the best/quickest for gaming?' And the answer is still definitely the E4500.
 
If you read my last post you will answer your own question.

I got 2 threads mixed up.

--

I cant believe you are going all out for the Toms Hardware guides...?

I mean FFS.. I put a couple of my setups in there, compared CPU v CPU and in real-world timings, the Core2Duo comes out clearly on top of the AMD ( Intel codes a 700MB DivX to DVD in about 10 minutes, the AMD does the same job in 40 Minutes ) and yet, according to Toms chart there, the AMD is quicker... Absolute *****.

Just comparing the chart there with a few "Select" tests and I find that if I keep looking, I can find some tests showing the intel in the lead, and some showing the AMD.

Such charts are, for want of a better word... ********.

Again though.

If it were a choice, then the C2D is the definite option, no matter what.

The slowest C2D is quicker than the fastest P4 - Im sure of that.

Plus cooler, and uses less lecky too!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom