The PC (Personal Computer) is a highly configurable and upgradable gaming platform that, among home systems, sports the widest variety of control methods, largest library of games, and cutting edge graphics and sound capabilities.
i have been looking into CPUs and have read that the intel E7400 can actually be easily OCd enough to run at the stock speed of an E8400. Is this true? would it be worth the money to buy the E8400 or just go with the cheaper E7400 and OC it?
I'm not sure how much experience you have overclocking but I would recommend if you don't have a lot to just spend a little extra and go for the faster stock CPU. What kind of cooling system are you planning?
I'd recommend going Quad; recommendations being a Q6600 or Q9550 pending your price range; obviously favoring the Q9550.
OCing is great and all but thinking you can get a certain OC to match isn't always the case. While if its small its perfectable reasonable, however thinking you can get a 4.0 on any E8400 with Air cooling isn't a reasonable assumption, it comes down to Revision of chip and just getting lucky as well as having a great OCable Motherboard, proper airflow and good aftermarket cooling.
Personally going Q9550 by the end of the year as I don't feel like a complete rebuild.
i am a little worried about quads though, a lot of people are now telling me they are only good for multitasking. If I was to say this comp build would be just for gaming, would it be more worth it to go for an E8600 or E8400?
I don't think we know yet how well optimized Dragon Age will be for quad core or otherwise. I wonder what dual core they consider 'equivalent' to a 2.4GHz Intel Quad core? What is their definition anyways? Probably a Q6600? Would a E8x00 dual core 2 duo perform better?
Anyways, right now there aren't a lot of games that perform better on quad. For today's games it's more cost effective to go dual core, Quad will help a lot more with office type tasks, video work, 3D modeling, stuff like that.
It seems as though all the Capcom PC games are. I think it will be, I look at DA:O and I fail to see how it couldn't be optimized for quad.
I think we will begin ti see a trend now, I get the impression developers see the advantages and know how to programme for quad efficiently now. I think before it was a case of it being time consuming. Intel sent their dudes around to liason with a few developers on projects. Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead clearly benefitted from that i feel.
A quad will last you a lot longer than a dual will, more and more games are coming out that support quads.
I remember about a year and a half ago when i built my current computer, Back then there were maybe 5 games tops that utilized quads, today there are around 30. That number is only going to rise.
" It seems as though all the Capcom PC games are. I think it will be, I look at DA:O and I fail to see how it couldn't be optimized for quad. I think we will begin ti see a trend now, I get the impression developers see the advantages and know how to programme for quad efficiently now. I think before it was a case of it being time consuming. Intel sent their dudes around to liason with a few developers on projects. Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead clearly benefitted from that i feel. "
@Gunner said:
" A quad will last you a lot longer than a dual will, more and more games are coming out that support quads. I remember about a year and a half ago when i built my current computer, Back then there were maybe 5 games tops that utilized quads, today there are around 30. That number is only going to rise. "
Not to negate anything you said, but I'm a bit skeptical. A lot of the games that 'support' quad core perform exactly the same with an equivalent clock speed dual core on quad. The only exception today I can think of is GTA4. Crysis doesn't even support quad cores, and I'm pretty sure Warhead is in the same boat. Hell Far Cry 2 performs BETTER on a dual core...
I think things may change, but I don't see any trend or direct movement towards quad in games as of yet.
ok ok ok, before anything gets too heated, i am basically going to use this build as a gaming ONLY rig. Anything else including music, vid production, music production, image/website production will be done on my imac.
So this is what i have ordered so far
the ASUS P5Q pro mobo, Vantec ION2 600w PSU Arctic cooling freezer 7 PRO Aspire X-Discovery
So what i want in terms of CPU is something that will be somewhat future proofed and powerful. Thats what I want and need.
anything that will fit that criteria is appreciated. :)
" ok ok ok, before anything gets too heated, i am basically going to use this build as a gaming ONLY rig. Anything else including music, vid production, music production, image/website production will be done on my imac.So this is what i have ordered so farthe ASUS P5Q pro mobo,Vantec ION2 600w PSUArctic cooling freezer 7 PROAspire X-DiscoverySo what i want in terms of CPU is something that will be somewhat future proofed and powerful.Thats what I want and need.anything that will fit that criteria is appreciated. :) "
In my opinion, a modern quad core is just about as 'future proof' as a dual core (same price point compared). So you could get a E8400 (which I personally chose), or a Q6600 for a bit more money. The E8400 is a bit cheaper and will get equivalent performance to the Q6600 in all games except a very few, and better performance in some other games for that matter. If a game only uses 1 or 2 cores, the E8400 has a better singular core than the Q6600, so it'll perform better on the E8400.
In my opinion, by the time PC games really start wanting 4 or more cores, the E8400 and Q6600 will be equally outdated.
I'll just say that I have an E8400 and I'm more than pleased with it. Hell I even do a bunch of audio editing and synth work and it keeps up no worries (That said most of my synth stuff is with an actual synth keyboard, but there are still some things I do software based).
ok so keeping AWAY from anything besides gaming (as i said before, all my music and video production is on my imac), is dual core really the way to go? I can get a Q9550 for cheaper than an E8600, so what is my ultimate decision?
" ok so keeping AWAY from anything besides gaming (as i said before, all my music and video production is on my imac), is dual core really the way to go? I can get a Q9550 for cheaper than an E8600, so what is my ultimate decision? "
I think the E8600 might outperform the Q9550 in games by a small amount, but the E8600 is kind of a bad price point IMO. It's sort of like buying the highest end videocard, even though obviously the i7s are new, it's like buying a GTX295 instead of a GTX285 (edit : I probably shouldn't say that, it's more like a GTX285 over a GTX275). In the case of Q9550 vs E8600 since the quad is cheaper, I think I'd personally go that way.
Here's a benchmark to look at. Just one example, but the $60 cheaper E8400 outperforms the Q9550 in that bench. Other benches I've seen were closer though.
I use the E8400 for gaming. I'm able to run everything maxed at 1680x1050 (bar Crysis.. have to turn a couple of things to High to do that at a framerate above 30)
" I use the E8400 for gaming. I'm able to run everything maxed at 1680x1050 (bar Crysis.. have to turn a couple of things to High to do that at a framerate above 30) "
In general, your GPU is quite a bit more important than your CPU when it comes to gaming. Although a fast CPU is essential, it isn't as big or a factor as the GPU at the end of the day.
@sodiumCyclops: By the way, these topics about your computer building are leading to some good discussion. I will soon be looking to build a gaming computer too, so this is helping me get back into knowing the current tech. So... thanks!
" It seems as though all the Capcom PC games are. I think it will be, I look at DA:O and I fail to see how it couldn't be optimized for quad. I think we will begin ti see a trend now, I get the impression developers see the advantages and know how to programme for quad efficiently now. I think before it was a case of it being time consuming. Intel sent their dudes around to liason with a few developers on projects. Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead clearly benefitted from that i feel. "
@Gunner said:
" A quad will last you a lot longer than a dual will, more and more games are coming out that support quads. I remember about a year and a half ago when i built my current computer, Back then there were maybe 5 games tops that utilized quads, today there are around 30. That number is only going to rise. "
Not to negate anything you said, but I'm a bit skeptical. A lot of the games that 'support' quad core perform exactly the same with an equivalent clock speed dual core on quad. The only exception today I can think of is GTA4. Crysis doesn't even support quad cores, and I'm pretty sure Warhead is in the same boat. Hell Far Cry 2 performs BETTER on a dual core...I think things may change, but I don't see any trend or direct movement towards quad in games as of yet. "
Nah, Warhead was optimized for Quad, after people kicked up a fuss over the first game.That includes me. When running Crysis those with quads saw only two cores being used. All four are in use on Warhead. You only see a real performance gain on Vista or Windows 7.
Q9550 is t he best you can get for a good budget and while nothing is future proofed, it is the 2nd best non extreme CPU for a Socket 775 motherboard at Quad 2.83 only difference b tween it and a Q9650 is 170mhz.
Running crossfire is dumb with 2 inexpensive cards, you are usually more power for only a 30% performance increase. Get a good single card and either replace it or run crossfire down the line if you can get a cheap second card.
i kinda like nvidia now though, i was thinking the EVGA GTX 275 and perhaps in a couple of years i would do the i7 thing when they get more mainstream.
So basically i have decided to go for a q9550 and the gtx 275.
Thanks for all your help guys and hopefully this will help other people build comps :D
Core i7s are the best CPUs on the market. The 920 is the best bang for the buck. They are mainstream, just new been out for about 8 months or so now. Built my system just a few months before their release and kinda regret it. However the Q9550 will hold you for awhile and will do the same for me; will probably attempt to push it to at least 3.5.
" It seems as though all the Capcom PC games are. I think it will be, I look at DA:O and I fail to see how it couldn't be optimized for quad. I think we will begin ti see a trend now, I get the impression developers see the advantages and know how to programme for quad efficiently now. I think before it was a case of it being time consuming. Intel sent their dudes around to liason with a few developers on projects. Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead clearly benefitted from that i feel. "
@Gunner said:
" A quad will last you a lot longer than a dual will, more and more games are coming out that support quads. I remember about a year and a half ago when i built my current computer, Back then there were maybe 5 games tops that utilized quads, today there are around 30. That number is only going to rise. "
Not to negate anything you said, but I'm a bit skeptical. A lot of the games that 'support' quad core perform exactly the same with an equivalent clock speed dual core on quad. The only exception today I can think of is GTA4. Crysis doesn't even support quad cores, and I'm pretty sure Warhead is in the same boat. Hell Far Cry 2 performs BETTER on a dual core...I think things may change, but I don't see any trend or direct movement towards quad in games as of yet. "
Like i said, the list of games that utilize quad cores is only going to grow, 2 years ago i could only name 2 games that i knew supported and benefited from quads, supcom and company of heroes. Now there are well over 30 games that i know of that either run better on a quad or the same as a dual.
I dont normally like the term "Future Proofing" when it comes to hardware, but the CPU is defenately something you should try to future proof.
" i have been looking into CPUs and have read that the intel E7400 can actually be easily OCd enough to run at the stock speed of an E8400. Is this true? would it be worth the money to buy the E8400 or just go with the cheaper E7400 and OC it? "
i am not a computer geek so i dont know what all these fancy numbers mean but i have heard alot of good things about the i7 procsessors or something like that.
Going from a E8400 to i7 920 is more than a $100 increase in cost on the CPU alone, all for <10% performance increase (up to around 30% in rare cases admittedly) in special conditions (when not GPU limited).
IMO it's better to save as much money as you can, because a future upgrade will be a far more efficient use of your money anyways. $2000 now for 5 years <<<<<<<< $1000 now and $1000 in 3 years.
If you're going slightly higher end than a E8400 I agree a Q9550 is probably a better choice than the E8600 for cost reasons alone.
E8400 is about the best price-performance dual core you can buy. You can certainly overclock the lesser processors up to and beyond the E8400 stock speeds, but the E8400 itself clocks up very easily to 4ghz and beyond (I run mine at 3.6ghz because it's simpler to run everything at a 1:1 ratio with my ram speeds and not have to fiddle with overvolting). You'd also only have half the amount of L2 cache with the E7400. Honestly, though, I don't think you'd be going wrong with E7400 either. It's a might bit cheaper over at Newegg ($120 as opposed to $168).
I guess then it's about all down to money, since some of the cheaper quad cores aren't much more expensive than the E8400.
Now next question is this: The cheapest GTX 275 I can get in New Zealand is the EVGA GTX 275 and it is $594
Whereas I can get an HIS 4890 1gb for $406.
What should i choose? Note my mobo supports Crossfire and NOT sli.
Personally I like Nvidia far better from experience. Had ATIs that didn't work so good, I think lack of PhysX acceleration might be something of a negative for ATI cards today. Heard stuff like Trine was having problems on ATI cards. Nvidia cards are far more popular so you can bet developers focus a bit more on that hardware as far as compatibility and performance.
How much does the GTX260 core 216 cost there? That 4890 sounds like a better deal.
im am really considering the GTX 275 but the promise of a cheaper card is really tempting.
Basically which ever card performs better will be the one i choose. Perhaps in the long run, choosing a better quality SINGLE card over the promise of 2 Ati cards is just a better option?
" im am really considering the GTX 275 but the promise of a cheaper card is really tempting.Basically which ever card performs better will be the one i choose. Perhaps in the long run, choosing a better quality SINGLE card over the promise of 2 Ati cards is just a better option? "
I've never had a multi GPU setup of any kind, but I hear more often people having problems, or not getting exceptional performance than I hear of them really thinking multi GPU is great.
@Diamond: So even with those prices... you would still go with the nVidia?
I guess if I was to buy the 4890, by the time I would want to go multi-GPU, I would have upgraded to i7 and there would be more newer single GPUs on the market.
now i have swayed back to the GTX :P
I won't be buying it in the next week or so, I'm heading to Ausi in the morning for a week. Guess il be buying it as soon as i get back. Should be just around $1100 NZ for the Q9550 and the GTX
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment