CPU suggestions for moderate SFF gaming rig

F

Freezebyte

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
2,403
Greetings all, trying to get as much information as I can to build my new rig, my first SFF. I plan on using either the DFI JR P45 J2RS or the Asus P5Q-EM as my mATX board.

This rig will be used for moderate gaming and the typical other uses. I do alot of multitasking and lately my old A64 just can't keep up with running multiple windows of firefox while watching movies, ripping music ect..ect.. so I need a CPU overhaul. I don't do much rendering or processing in photoshop or premiere nor encoding. I also no longer upgrade/replace my PC's like I used to back in my earlier days as I don't game heavily much anymore, so this setup will need to last around 2-3 years before its replaced. I"ll be recycling my 7800GTX OC from my Athlon 64 setup until I can decide what to replace it with a few months down the road.

I plan on intially building the system with 2 gigs of memory to keep runing Windows XP Pro for another few months before I make the switch to Vista, then i'll bump it up to 4gigs.

I've decided i'm going to pass on the Nehalem launch as the available CPU's will be premium priced and its unlikey there will be any decent mATX boards at launch and I want this build completed within the next month time frame wise and I figured a dual or quad Penyrn setup will blow away my old single 3700+ Athlon away.

That being said, I'm think I would like to do the highest FSB possible to give this rig lasting power for the next fear years unless the FSB jumps for these new Intels don't do much to justify the cost increase. I also WILL NOT be overlocking the CPU's as I no longer have the time, patience, will or desire to mess around with it. I value a stable and reliable PC setup now more then being the most lootzz OC badzzs on the web.

I've read the arguments in regards to dual vs quad. It seems the quads comes across as the more future proof CPU as its just a matter of time before more programs and games take advantage of it, much like the naysayers said about single vs dual cores just a few years ago.

Newegg has the 1333mhz FSB Q9400 for $275
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131 Its a bit more then I wanted to spend, but its pretty close to top of the line without paying a huge amount.

But the popular core 2 duo's are going for screaming prices, but its two less cores and im worried about less future proofing
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115036

Thanks for your input and advice with what to do.
 
FSB has nothing to do with 'lasting power'. Intel chips aren't really FSB bottlenecked in desktop apps, server apps are a different story.

As for quads vs duals, since you're intending to keep it for 2 - 3 years without upgrading, the quad will be more 'future proof'.
 
I cant imagine anything in today's hardware to be future proof or even mildly close to it in 3 years time. Quads and duals whatever will all get stomped on their faces so hard they'll look the same.
 
harpoon said:
FSB has nothing to do with 'lasting power'. Intel chips aren't really FSB bottlenecked in desktop apps, server apps are a different story.

As for quads vs duals, since you're intending to keep it for 2 - 3 years without upgrading, the quad will be more 'future proof'.
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting....
 
lowteckh said:
I cant imagine anything in today's hardware to be future proof or even mildly close to it in 3 years time. Quads and duals whatever will all get stomped on their faces so hard they'll look the same.
Click to expand...

Well let me put it this way - a dual core CPU from 3 years ago is a lot more useful today than a single core. Sure they'll both be 'stomped' by today's faster duals and quads, but the single core will get stomped much harder. ;)

For example, check out how poorly GRID runs on a SC CPU: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,661065/Practice/Ten_Intel_processors_overclocked/?page=3

In GRID at least, a dual core CPU (even a low end one) will get playable framerates, a single core will not.

No one is saying today's quads will be cutting edge in a few years, but they'll remain useful for longer, which IMO is important for someone looking to keep a rig for 2 - 3 years without upgrading.
 
I love the arguments to justify a purchase of a dual-core versus a quad core. It's one thing to say I see no advantage in what I use today, it is another thing entirely to say that a current dual core is as "future proof" as a quad.

I personally purchased a quad because of FSX and SupCom (and of course the flexibility of knowing I can safely by 2+ core threaded apps and get max potential). I owned a dual core first and sold to a friend. My gaming experience definitely changed in FSX/SupCom.

When I owned a dual core I just felt dissatisfied that my PC wasn't living up to its full potential. My OCD side won out obviously.

Edit: My argument assumes equal clock speeds. I am a "wimpy" overclocker anyway. My q6600 is at (1600/4)*8=3.2 GHz.
 
Druelt Vas said:
I love the arguments to justify a purchase of a dual-core versus a quad core. It's one thing to say I see no advantage in what I use today, it is another thing entirely to say that a current dual core is as "future proof" as a quad.

I personally purchased a quad because of FSX and SupCom (and of course the flexibility of knowing I can safely by 2+ core threaded apps and get max potential). I owned a dual core first and sold to a friend. My gaming experience definitely changed in FSX/SupCom.

When I owned a dual core I just felt dissatisfied that my PC wasn't living up to its full potential. My OCD side won out obviously.

Edit: My argument assumes equal clock speeds. I am a "wimpy" overclocker anyway. My q6600 is at (1600/4)*8=3.2 GHz.
Click to expand...

I consider the dualcore much more future proof since I can spend 100 bucks today, then buy the future in the future when it is needed ;) Some people prefer to not open the PC except every 3 or 4 years. I dont understand it but I guess if they think its worth the price difference more power to em.
 
I of course meant the argument between similar priced e8400 and q6600 (by far the two most popular).

If you want to go cheaper and by the budget core2s then of course it is better to go that route. I meant in similar price situations. Because I see gains in certain areas by having a quad core, that is sufficient enough to justify selling my dual core for a quad core (my friend bought my HSF and e6600 for 200 then I bought an on sale q6600 for 200...clearly this was many months ago when the q6600 was always over 250 and the e6600 was still popular).
 
Any other input? Im also confused in regards to the FSB of Intels procs, it would make sense just to get a CPU that support 1333mhz FSB right? If, what memory am I looking for to match with this? The numbers are getting really confusing....

Basically, I need this setup to last for awhile, it ain't gonna be replaced/upgraded for at least 2-3 years. I really don't wish to mess with OCing either but it sounds like these Intel CPU's are pretty easy to do it with, so maybe the answer is to get the Quad and push it up to the 3ghz range and get the best of both worlds? What would I need, cooler and RAM wise to do this that would fit in a SG01-F case?
 
Intel FSB is quad pumped. Therefore Intel FSB/4 = minimum memory frequency. In the case of a 1333 FSB CPU, you'd need DDR2 667, as 667/2 = 333 (and DDR RAM is dual pumped).

If I were you, I'd buy a E8400. Best bang for your buck, consumes less power, and produces less heat. Anyway, by the time MOST games support 4 cores, there will be much, much faster quadcores available.
 
hardware being "future proof" is a fallacy, everything has a life span and if you look at the reality of things if you buy a top of the line or close to it now, you WILL have to replace it in two years if you do ANY type of serious gaming.

dispite any a lot of dudes in here will tell you, get something you can afford and use it until you need to get something faster.

In late 2005 I built the following

Athlon 3800+
Radeon X1800XL
ECS NForce based board - croaked and replaced in early 2006 with a Abit AT32
2GB ram
320GB HDD
Audigy 2

Not too long ago I built the following

Core 2 Duo E8500
8GB ram
Foxconn G33M
ATi 4870
WDC 500GB RE2 HDD

This rig will last about 2 years before it needs to be changed out for a more mainstream setup and with the socket change coming up here shortly, it might not be a bad idea to wait a few months
 
OP: This is an easy one. Buy an E8400.

* You don't do much rendering or encoding
* You bought a mATX board and entitled your thread "SFF", so I assume a small case
* PWM's get very hot with quads - I should know. (I still recommend the DFI)
* You game, so raw Ghz is more important than multiple cores.
* Never buy for tomorrow, only for today. Futureproofing never pays off.

With the heat build-up of a small case, I really think you should get a dual core like an E8400. I wouldn't buy a quad - at least not now.

Anybody saying buy a quad (especially a Q6600!) for a SFF PC hasn't tried it. Ask some HTPC builders what they think of that idea.
 
K, i've pretty much settled on the E8500 for my CPU choice, now I just need to decide wether or not to go 4 vs 2 gigs of RAM if I go Vista or just stick with XP until Win 7 comes out
 
I've pretty much got the specs laid out

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz
Memory: G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit
Motherboard: ASRock G43Twins-FullHD
Video Card: Reused BFG 7800GTX OC *Upgrading to GTX 260 or Ati 4870 in few months*
HDD's: 1x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500gig SATA drive
PSU: Antec NeoHE 500w
DVD Drives: 1x ASUS 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA
Addon cards: 1x Audigy 2 PCI soundcard
Misc: 3x 80mm Antec tricool fans + Intel stock HSF
Case: Silverstone Sugo SG01-F
 
I would pick a mobo that either supports DDR2 or DDR3. Boards that support both have been notoriously wonky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top