e8400 + 8800GT (g92) or e7200 + 8800GTS (g92)

its for gaming. lol. Both would be with the hopes of upgrading the videocard in the future using the step up program.
 
You won't be CPU-limited with either of those setups at decent graphical settings and resolutions, so I say go for the E7200 and GTS. You should be able to clock the E7200 very nicely without too much effort as well, so even CPU performance won't be much of a concern.
 
I just ordered the e7200 and 8800gts a couple of days ago. Everything but my cpu cooler(OCZ Vendetta 2) will be here tomorrow. Almost tempted to put her together tomorrow anyway. Finally upgrading from a Clawhammer and X850XT.
 
nice, can you keep me in the loop of how it overclocks?

also what about..

8800GT and e7200 lol ? could that be considered a winning combo?
 
No problem. The cooler probably won't be here until next week though.
 
Nice thanks, the only thing holding me back from the e7200 is its Cache lol. I have an Allendale 4400 @ 3.4ghz right now and I want for it to have more cache... dunno its a mental thing.
 
2wiced said:
Nice thanks, the only thing holding me back from the e7200 is its Cache lol. I have an Allendale 4400 @ 3.4ghz right now and I want for it to have more cache... dunno its a mental thing.
Click to expand...

There are benchies somewhere about the 3mb vs 4mb vs 6mb caches. It does make a difference for games. You'll also be better off with everyday tasks as well.

Since you are gaming I would consider picking up the E8400 with the bigger cache. I've seen more success overclocking with the E8400 than the E7200. Can you find an E8200? that may be a good solution too!

Not to mention you get a higher IPC so a 3.8-4.0GHz OC on the E8400 is much better than a 3.6-3.8GHz OC on the E7200.

Also, if you OC the 8800GT it should be fine for most of your games. Since both the 8800GT and GTS are almost identical (same 256bit mem interface) apart from # of shaders enabled (112 vs 128).

Apart from what the Nvidia Crackhead CEO Jen Hsu Huang says, CPUs are very important.
 
Flexion said:
Apart from what the Nvidia Crackhead CEO Jen Hsu Huang says, CPUs are very important.
Click to expand...

For gaming, NVIDIA's "Crackhead" CEO is absolutely correct.

OP, if cache is a concern, grab the E8200. Same cache as the E8400 and it is cheaper. If you really want to spare some money, you better spare it on the CPU, than on the graphics card, if the system is indeed targeted at gaming.
 
you guys suggest the e8200, is there a place online that it is cheaper than the e8400. On newegg it is a 5 dollar difference so i dont think i would buy it as an option. Although if you find a website that has it for cheap, count me in. Im really waiting for the stock of the e8300 to come out.
 
2wiced said:
you guys suggest the e8200, is there a place online that it is cheaper than the e8400. On newegg it is a 5 dollar difference so i dont think i would buy it as an option. Although if you find a website that has it for cheap, count me in. Im really waiting for the stock of the e8300 to come out.
Click to expand...

Well, if you can't find some at more than a 5 dollar difference, then there's no doubt, get the E8400. But if that means you need to save money on the graphics card, you are better off with the E7200 + 8800 GTS. Cache makes a difference of course, but budget constraints need to focus on which product you can save money. And in a gaming system, you are better off in investing on a very good graphics card, than on a very good CPU. Not that the 8800 GT is a bad card. Far from it. It's actually one of the best bangs for your buck (surpassed only by the 9600 GT) and only at a maximum of 7-8 frames of the GTS 512, in terms of performance. But the price difference isn't that big (between stock models that is) and the extra shader power of the GTS 512, will prove to be useful in the future. It also comes with a better cooling solution.

Obviously, if you can stretch your budget for the E8400 + 8800 GTS, it wouldn't hurt :)
 
Silus said:
For gaming, NVIDIA's "Crackhead" CEO is absolutely correct.

OP, if cache is a concern, grab the E8200. Same cache as the E8400 and it is cheaper. If you really want to spare some money, you better spare it on the CPU, than on the graphics card, if the system is indeed targeted at gaming.
Click to expand...

CPUs are definitely important. On the same video card, I've played the same game and same level on my E8400 at both 3.6 and 4.0GHz, and I can definitely feel the difference when there are lots of things happening on screen. I can feel that the game is less responsive and the framrate dips. Again this is subjective and timedemos and benchies aren't too good at showing this behavior yet.

In considering the comments about budget. If the OP is OC'ing then he can save a nice chunk of change getting the E7200 rather than going with an E8200.

Nvidia's CEO is a crackhead, half the analysts on Wall Street agrees too. Hell, I've owned their stock for years and it behaves like a crackhead too! Not everyone can benefit from a 9800GX2, and he's a fool for thinking that every household will need one.
 
Flexion said:
CPUs are definitely important. On the same video card, I've played the same game and same level on my E8400 at both 3.6 and 4.0GHz, and I can definitely feel the difference when there are lots of things happening on screen. I can feel that the game is less responsive and the framrate dips. Again this is subjective and timedemos and benchies aren't too good at showing this behavior yet.

In considering the comments about budget. If the OP is OC'ing then he can save a nice chunk of change getting the E7200 rather than going with an E8200.

Nvidia's CEO is a crackhead, half the analysts on Wall Street agrees too. Hell, I've owned their stock for years and it behaves like a crackhead too! Not everyone can benefit from a 9800GX2, and he's a fool for thinking that every household will need one.
Click to expand...

And no one ever said that CPUs are NOT important, not even NVIDIA's CEO. But for gaming, they are LESS important, than GPUs and you are better off having a powerful GPU coupled with a mid-low range CPU, than having an extremely powerful CPU and a mid-low range GPU, which was basically what NVIDIA said and also even [H] proved a while back, in one of their articles.
 
Silus said:
And no one ever said that CPUs are NOT important, not even NVIDIA's CEO. But for gaming, they are LESS important, than GPUs and you are better off having a powerful GPU coupled with a mid-low range CPU, than having an extremely powerful CPU and a mid-low range GPU, which was basically what NVIDIA said and also even [H] proved a while back, in one of their articles.
Click to expand...

I get you and not stirring up an argument. But Nvidia's CEO did make comments along the line of the CPU is dead and whatnot. Maybe he's referring to the whole moore's law thing, or adding more cores debate.

Also, the "proof" of the same GPU vs. low/mid/high end CPUs is still based on timedemos and benchies (granted, it's the only way to objectively gauge performance between components.)

My reasoning is that although the average framerate in a timedemo may not change much between a 4GHz and a 10GHz cpu, once you are in a dynamic environment where there are 100 enemies on screen it will make a difference.

Now that being said this is significant to the OP, because while the extra shaders are going to be nice, the GT gets the job done and can be had pretty cheap now. Whereas he'll probably change the video card in a year or two, a 4GHz CPU with more cache will probably be a better investment than a 3.6-3.8GHz CPU with less cache.
 
I'd vote for the E8400 and the 8800gt. The 8400 is a monster of a overclocker and you should be able to hit 4.2ghz plus with a decent motherboard and heatsink for the cpu.
 
The real answer: The cheapest combo out of those 4. That'd be the... E7200 and 8800GT. Although a ~$200 8800GTS is always a good buy.
 
I have a e4400 @ 3.4ghz what if i just keep it? lol, although i do want e8400 and 6mb cache, the 8800GT will be stepped upto a 9900 series card. So now its just a decision of whether i want to keep my e4400 or not.
 
I like the GTS more then the GT, and 3.4Ghz is good........ maybe keep the E4400... or get the GTS and the E7200

or better yet get a Q6600 @ $180 and the best 88xx or 9xxx series card you can, maybe pic kthem up in the FS thread......

there are some Q6600 for $180 which is about the BNIB price and some dude is selling 9600GT's for $125!!!!
 
Or... save yourself a good $150-200 by keeping your 3.4GHz 2MB L2 processor. Will you really see the difference in another 600MHz and 4MB cache?

Food, shelter, games, TVs, education. That's where that $200 can go.
 
What about a Q6600 and a 9600GT?

Thats what about 200 for the Q6600 and 130-140 for 9600GT

E8400 - 200
8800GT- 180
Total = 380
 
dont want a 9600gt it doesnt impress me a friend has it, 8800gt is better
 
2wiced said:
dont want a 9600gt it doesnt impress me a friend has it, 8800gt is better
Click to expand...

But you'll have a q6600 and won't have to upgrade that for a while. While the G92 (8800GT & GTS) videocards are going out the window in the start of the summer.

Where I'm getting at is that New Video cards are coming from Both ATI and Nvidia in the next few months. The 4870 is suppose to come out next month and NVidia following up the next month or something like that, might have to do a little more research, and you can just upgrade the 9600GT.

Also you are aware that the 9600GT performs almost identical to the 8800GT. So if you aren't impress with the 9600GT then don't get your hopes up with the GT or GTS. Just stay with your E4xxx and get a 9800GTX
 
2wiced said:
nice, can you keep me in the loop of how it overclocks?

also what about..

8800GT and e7200 lol ? could that be considered a winning combo?
Click to expand...

Seems to be overclocking fine, right now I am at 3800(400x9.5) OCCT, Orthos stable. Had a quick try at 4ghz, windows stable, but that's about it. Ran 1M super pi at 13.something. MIght try messing with it more later, but its just so much faster than my Clawhammer :)
 
rhoel said:
Seems to be overclocking fine, right now I am at 3800(400x9.5) OCCT, Orthos stable. Had a quick try at 4ghz, windows stable, but that's about it. Ran 1M super pi at 13.something. MIght try messing with it more later, but its just so much faster than my Clawhammer :)
Click to expand...

thanks, that is sweet! 3.8 and maybe even 4ghz.

I gotta wait for my friend to come up with the money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top