• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

"Budget" Gaming Rig - the e2000 series

C

CapnBiggles

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
121
I'm 26, married, and I have to usually justify certain expenses. Well, not really, but when you drop a few hundred dollars on computer gear at this point it's a bit different than when you were building it in your parent's house all alone.

Suffice it to say, I'm trying to keep my expenses to a minimum while keeping my performance goals high. I figure I can swing a 8800GT, 2gigs of cheap ddr2, a reliable budget P35 board like the DS3L or IP35-E, etc. Fine, fair enough.

However, I'm torn on the choice of processor. I probably would be bale to upgrade next year if I put in something lower-end. I used to love the Celeron days where you could o/c the hell out of those things.

I'm really eyeballing the the e2140 or e2160 because of all the excellent o/c results I'm seeing from these CPUs. However, I know they are really shitty in terms of L2 cache compared to the newer core 2 duals. The question is, if I pushed these to the 3.0Ghz range and conceivably a little beyond, how dramatic would I be curbing myself? To know that my limit would be my CPU is a foregone conclusion, but if it's the matter of a few FPS or 500 pts of 3dMark I don't care. Which I believe, at my resolution, is the only true hurtle I'd be facing. But I'd prefer some confirmation of that here.

Anyway, to clarify I'm a huge FPS/RTS/RPG gamer and I use two monitors, my primary being a 1280x1024 fixed resolution 19'' Sony LCD. My wife's computer is dying, and she would be inheriting the computer in my sig.
 
However, I'm torn on the choice of processor. I probably would be bale to upgrade next year if I put in something lower-end.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, and the E2140 is a great CPU, but since they start at $75 I've never thought the discount was steep enough to make for having only 1/4 the cache of a real C2D. Sure, they overclock just as well as any C2D, but clock-for-clock, the lack of cache is going to hurt you. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll be hit especially hard by the smaller cache in the genre of games you play (FPS/RTS/RPG).

An E4300 CPU would cost less than $100 on Ebay and would double your cache to 2MB. An E6550 would be $166 and would give you full 4MB of cache. An additional $25 or $91 just doesn't seem like very much more to invest to get a better CPU.

Your P35 will be able to push anything you buy as long as your RAM can keep up, so good luck with whatever you choose!

 
CapnBiggles, I'm married with 3 kids , so I know where you are coming from.

Take aldamon's advice and get a e6550 (or better) cpu.

I used your logic and ended up with an e4300, which is a fine cpu, but...

You are getting a 8800GT, you need to balance out that with a nice CPU!

From your post, you seem to be a smart young man. Explain the situation to your wife, let her decide.

If you explain that you prob won't be happy with a CPU bottleneck, and that buying a new one later is a waste of money, she will no doubt make the right decision.

If she does not, well, then she does not really love you. :p

BTW, my wife told me that I could upgrade to a Q6600 because I was unhappy with the e4300, but she is rightfully angry at me for not having "consulted" her from the start ;-) You can tell your wife this. She wont want to be a worse wife than mine!
 
I like your plan for one main reason. The on board memory controllers in the Nehalem due out end of next year will make all our boards obsolete. The Penryn's launch in just a few days away and have shown to be great chips and they will be at a price parity with what we have now. You are only going to be able to get one CPU upgrade out of that board so an e.-cheapo now and a very good Penryrn next spring/summer when the full line is out and the prices are stable seems the best long term plan because it will be sure and quick death (and you do not have to physically die to be dead) to come back this time next year with, "Honey, there is this new thing out.... )

Now as to which cpu, just make sure it has an 8X multiplier so you can get a decent OC out of it without needing insanely high FSB settings.

Do not forget the heatsink in the budget as OCing the inexpensive cpu will make up a lot of its low price shortcomings.

I looked but could not find an somewhat old comparison of cache size vs game performance, I recall it was not dramatic and I am thinking that most of the time the performance penality was around 5% (typically less) and maybe one game at 8%. CPU cycles are going to be a lot more powerful. And if you get something that you can run at 400 x 8 so your memory can run 1:1, I think you will be happy until you can pop for a really nice Penryrn and really be set for several years. That good buy on the video card will put you in a great performance/price situation anyway, a month ago it would have been a much bigger compromise.
 
I would suggest going with an E2000 series chip given your budget concerns and usage patterns. The performance difference between 1MB and 4MB of L2 cache is often measured as between 5 and 10% in cpu limited applications, but not in games when using real-world settings.

The $100 or so premium for a full cache core 2 duo would likely be a good investment if your primary use of the computer would be for cpu intensive applications such as compression, encoding, and a/v editing. In games when you are using appropriate rendering resolutions and graphics options the gpu is almost always going to be the bottleneck, resulting in perhaps 1% difference among different L2 sizes.

As much as I hate to invoke tom's in an argument, their data from a recent L2 cache size comparison article supports my case.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_matter/page5.html

You can see that among the 3 FPS games they tested, the two games that showed performance improvements with L2 cache size were also running extremely high average fps; anyone reading [H] probably realizes that the difference between 160 and 175 fps is actually quite irrelevant to the user experience. I would be quite surprised to see a performance difference scaling with L2 cache in a game that was running at 40 to 60 fps (where performance would actually matter) with eye candy enabled.

BillParrish said:
Now as to which cpu, just make sure it has an 8X multiplier so you can get a decent OC out of it without needing insanely high FSB settings.

Do not forget the heatsink in the budget as OCing the inexpensive cpu will make up a lot of its low price shortcomings.
...
And if you get something that you can run at 400 x 8 so your memory can run 1:1, I think you will be happy ...
Click to expand...

My recommendations fall in line with BillParrish; aim to run the cpu at 400 x 8 with a 1:1 divider (in sync at the rated speed of pc6400 memory). However, this may require aftermarket cooling of your motherboard's northbridge. In that case dropping down to a motherboard supported speed like 333 x 9 would also be acceptable if you don't want to bother with modifying the motherboard. An E2160 with its 9x stock multiplier may be your best option; lowering the multiplier to 7 or 8 would not be an issue with most enthusiast motherboards.

On the topic of aftermarket cooling, apparently one of the major pitfalls of the E2000 series chips are the weak stock heatsinks. According to some reports, the stock coolers are a simple extruded aluminum design and lack a copper base or heatpipes. They're much weaker coolers than the E4000 or E6000 series stock coolers. If noise is a concern and overclocking a given, a cheap aftermarket cooler is probably in order.

Newegg carries Scythe Ninja coolers for a reasonable $35 or an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro for $25. The purchase of an aftermarket cpu cooler can wait until after temperature measurements are taken for your specific circumstances.
 
I would say go with the E2160. I have one, it is definitely the processor to overclock and hold you over. Mine is at 3.33GHz right now, and does just fine in games. Once you get the thing over 3GHz it really isn't limitted too much by the cache, at least not in realworld gaming with real settings.

You might find older games that aren't GPU limited that show the lack of power in the CPU, but then you are going to be getting over 100FPS anyway.

Edit: I know exactly where you are coming from with overclocking the Celerons. I had a Celeron D 352 that was completely stable at 4.68GHz, and that little sucker was great.
 
1mb cache seems a bit bare to me. I agree with the guy who pointed out that as you're spending ~$250 on a graphics card, you might as well spend the extra $30 or whatever on an e4xxx chip... or you might look to buy a used e6300 from someone who upgraded (?)

eh but on second thought if you want a high multiplier and don't play cpu-limited games like I do, then I guess there's nothing wrong with the e2xxx processors... I guess I'm just spoiled and wouldn't be content with something so cost-effective ;)
 
I went with the e2160 for the multiplier, so I wouldn't be ram limited. I have no trouble running at 3.4ghz.

I had an e6600 @ 3.5-3.6ghz before I owned this chip. It ran pretty good, but there was no real world performance loss when I traded it for a cowl hood for my s10 and bought an e2160 for half the price.

I lost 250points in my 3dmark06 on cpu score.. it did not bottleneck my 8800gts 640mb at all.

I also got rid of the p5b deluxe board, and bought a cheap ip35-e in retrospect I realize that a lot of the big money spent on pc parts is for e-penis size. I took my processor from 3.4 to 2.4 with the e2160, and saw frame loss in the tenths of a frame range in most things I've tested. Some newer games will likely translate into a few frames per second, but $100 more on a nice mb and proc is not worth 2fps.

The e2160 & ip35-e is a good budget configuration, and if you are just looking for a budget gaming rig, you are blowing your money getting better..

You will see very little difference with faster stuff, it isn't worth the dough unless you are looking to go all out like some of the folks above,. especially considering the insane depreciation of computer parts. If you are going to spend.. spend on the 8800gt.. the rest is all sufficient at this point in time.. Your video card will be the limiting factor, not the 5%-10% reduction in processing power.

Take care,
Josh
 
so wait, exactly how much e-penis size did you lose? :D

I suppose because we tech people have high-end tastes we do in a way get sucked into Intel's price scheme, rather than computing price to performance ratios and buying primarily with that result in mind. When overclocking these babies, the multiplier has always been a more important factor than the cache for performance results.

I guess I just feel kinda sorry for my processor if it doesn't have enough cache, but really it's a cruel world out there...
 
Go with e2160 there's absolutly no reason to spend more cash on barely battery e4300 which will have similar overclocking abilities. Or to spend twice as much to get e6550 simply performance gains are not worth it compared to price premium.

Not to mention overclocking e2xx0 series is much less demanding it terms of ram and mobo you need.

I run it at 9x333 and don't even go above rated specs of 667 ultra cheap value ram.

Adding all savings together you will be easily 100-200$ ahead.
 
If you can only justify the cost of an E21x0 chip, then don't hesitate. It's not the fastest chip around, but overclocked to 3GHz it still provides more than reasonable gaming performance.
 
HarkovAdm said:
so wait, exactly how much e-penis size did you lose? :D

I suppose because we tech people have high-end tastes we do in a way get sucked into Intel's price scheme, rather than computing price to performance ratios and buying primarily with that result in mind. When overclocking these babies, the multiplier has always been a more important factor than the cache for performance results.

I guess I just feel kinda sorry for my processor if it doesn't have enough cache, but really it's a cruel world out there...
Click to expand...

I know the feeling.. It was like I was doing something wrong going with such less cache.. Like I felt like it just wasn't gonna work worth a flip, but I was pleasently surprised. Even then there's still a mental block sometimes.. where I just hear the amount of cache and flinch :) lol.

I'd guess at the time I was probably a 9, but instead now i'm a 8.

Still plenty enough to get the job done.

Josh
 
Just get an E21x0 series. There's no big differences between the amount of cache in terms of real world performance or even benchies for that matter. Of course I shouldn't talk as I have an E6420 @3.6 on air but I picked it up at an insane price :D

Edit: For cooling I highly recommend the coolermaster geminII. IIRC you can pick one up for around $6 after MIR, it's what I use and for that price it can't be beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top