• 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.

What the best gaming processors?

M

methanas

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
2
Those with high L2 cache and small FSB or those with small L2 cache and big FSB? I am somehow confused what to buy finally.Thank you
 
Most of the time with Intel processors you get high L2 cache and big FSB so it's essentially moot. It doesn't really matter AFAIK. I think your gaming is going to be more dependent on having a fairly high clock speed more than anything else.

If your going to buy a CPU for gaming get an E8x00 series, specifically the E8400.
 
the E8500 isn't as much of a price jump as E8400/E8500 to E8600

so if for some reason, maybe you aren't OC'ing or whatever, you can definatley score a E8500 :p
 
Q6600 (~$170), E8400 (~$150), and Q9550 (~$270) are all very good and solid for gaming...especially when OC'ed.
 
The only quad core that's 'worth keeping', that is comparable to the core 2 8xxx series for games, is the q9550, but that's an expensive chip. Right now an 8400 or 8500 I would consider the best gaming chip in terms of cost effectiveness.

I absolutely would not buy a q6600 for gaming system for a couple reasons. 1 Slower clock speed. 2. By the time quad cores are even useful in games, something better, for less will be out. So the faster dual core is better right now and for the near future. Now, if you don't gimp on a GPU (some people like to get a low end gpu and high end processor /boggle), 4GB of ram, and you have an extra $100, then grab the q9550 because it's 3ghz so the performance is going to be equal if not greater than the 8400 in every area, plus consider OCing either of them for 3.6ish dual or quad core pleasure. 3.6ghz quad would last you a few years easy. But the e8400/e8500 for now and the short-term future is the best bet IMO.
 
Currently I am using a old E6400 overclocked to 3ghz. Would there be noticable difference if I upgrade to like E8400 or E8500?
 
I doubt your going to see much of a difference by upgrading that CPU. Depending on what you do it might be a better plan to upgrade your video card.
 
E8400 E0 is probably the best overclocker's bargain right now.

It's too bad they don't make the Q9450 anymore, it was at a much better price point than the Q9550 is now. If you don't mind 65nm, then the Q6600 is probably still the best bang for the buck unless you're planning to upgrade in less than a year.
 
I was thinking about the Q6600 before but with I7 out now I am thinking about backing down. After all, q6600 cost like 180 right now and althought getting an I7 setup with processor, mobo and ddr3 ram can get expensive too but it would be like 500-600 with cashback. Better to save up a bit and get the I7 setup since I can recycle most fo the parts from my current rig.
 
Keep in mind, clock for clock, the i7 is 25% faster. Basically, you need a quad at 3.75GHZ to match an i7 @ 3ghz.

So the core i7 920 @ 2.667 ghz = around a 3.33ghz quad, performance wise.
 
^True...The E8600 is the sweet spot for me....I've seen those hit 4.6GHZ on air no probs.
 
bigdogchris said:
Keep in mind, clock for clock, the i7 is 25% faster. Basically, you need a quad at 3.75GHZ to match an i7 @ 3ghz.

So the core i7 920 @ 2.667 ghz = around a 3.33ghz quad, performance wise.
Click to expand...
thats not true at all for gaming. in fact clock for clock the i7 can even fall behind in some rare cases. basically the i7 and Core 2 Quads are about even when it comes to gaming.
 
i suppose the best gaming cpu's are technically the core i7's, even though alot of it's power is unharnessed by alot of games.
the cpu's they were meant to replace were already overkill for gaming.
 
grimreeferx09 said:
i suppose the best gaming cpu's are technically the core i7's, even though alot of it's power is unharnessed by alot of games.
the cpu's they were meant to replace were already overkill for gaming.
Click to expand...
they certainly were not overkill with multi gpu setups in some newer games.
 
bigdogchris said:
The only quad core that's 'worth keeping', that is comparable to the core 2 8xxx series for games, is the q9550, but that's an expensive chip. Right now an 8400 or 8500 I would consider the best gaming chip in terms of cost effectiveness.

I absolutely would not buy a q6600 for gaming system for a couple reasons. 1 Slower clock speed. 2. By the time quad cores are even useful in games, something better, for less will be out. So the faster dual core is better right now and for the near future. Now, if you don't gimp on a GPU (some people like to get a low end gpu and high end processor /boggle), 4GB of ram, and you have an extra $100, then grab the q9550 because it's 3ghz so the performance is going to be equal if not greater than the 8400 in every area, plus consider OCing either of them for 3.6ish dual or quad core pleasure. 3.6ghz quad would last you a few years easy. But the e8400/e8500 for now and the short-term future is the best bet IMO.
Click to expand...

The negatives you mention about the Q6600 seem to refer to it's stock speed, then you talk about quads overclocked to 3.6. What about a Q6600 overclocked to 3.6, which many people do and is very possible?

And the thing about games, there is no game right now that wouldn't run anything but awesome on two cores of an overclocked quad. Maybe slightly slower than a dual with a higher overall overclock, but you would be well within the realm of "Fast enough" and likely GPU limited for that game. Future games, and even many current games on the other hand will make use of those extra cores.

So what benefit does a dual have? "Faster" in games that are already fast enough on a quad to the point of being GPU limited? Slower once more games start taking advantage of more cores? Doesn't sound like an advantage to me.

Look at how quad cores stomp on Duals when games are optimized for it. This is the way of the future. And by future I don't mean distant future, I mean, games that are already on the market NOW:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,663817/Reviews/Far_Cry_2_GPU_and_CPU_benchmarks/?page=2

Notice the STOCK Q6600 (2.4Ghz) neck and neck with the E8400 (3Ghz). Having those extra cores allowed it to overcome a 600Mhz clockspeed disadvantage!
 
Thank all of you for those answers,i understand but i would like to knows something more about gaming which i forgot to write before.This time about notebooks for gaming because my thinking is going to buy a notebook for gaming.Thanks again

Ps.:I would like to read except processors and Graphic cards also brands and models as well if its possiblefrom your experiences about them.
 
I'm partial to multi-tasking, encoding, video editing and such in addition to gaming so that's why I went with the Q6600.

Really when you get the kinks worked out of your OC, the Q6600 is a bargain of a chip to be had right now.
 
Yeah for those who do like multaskiing, video encoding editing and gaming etc...would benefit alot from quad cores...and not much for those who are only gaming, stick with a high speed dual core..coz mhz still counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top