Better for gaming?

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: snakeye
Even if games one day become CPU bound again, it won't matter which of the two CPUs the OP gets, they will both be kind of slow by that time. Regardless, the 940 is better choice because of the two extra cores, which might become useful in the future when more programs take advantage of them.

The two previous posts before you have show that some games are CPU bound.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: OCguy
Get the E0 E8400 and put it to 4.2ghz

apparently that 4.2ghz overclock wont make an iota of difference in gaming (@ gaming resolutions):

http://www.overclockersclub.co...iews/intel_e8400/8.htm

and here:

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=4090&page=6 (4.25 overclock on 8600 vs 3.3 stock= 0% diff)

so whopti doo it can overclock to 4.2, its still an e8400. video encoding is a different story, but this thread is about gaming.

So..what you're saying is that Crysis makes better use of quad cores. Don't generalize.

my link had nothing to do w/ quad cores, i was showing that an overclocked cpu showed no noticeable benefit in games (my 1st link is of an overclocked e8400 cpu, not even a quad core). dont generalize that im generalizing. infact, why dont we all just read each others posts before commenting, ok?

Not only did you cherry pick one example, the bolded statement is rediculously false, according to this review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...-marathon,1963-19.html


There are plenty of CPU bound games where a higher clock is beneficial. Anyone who plays RTS games can tell you this.

rofl I LOVE THIS GAME!! ok my turn! so, "my statement is ridiulously false" according to the review you chose (supreme commander benchmark, woopti doo!)... but MY review shows that its true!!(crysis benchmark, most advanced 3D technology ever) when YOU choose one review its not cherrypicking, but when i choose one review it is? thank you.

at any rate, i always use crysis as a reference because its the future of gaming. U opted to show supreme commander, an engine that is not really referenced for benchmarks since its an RTS and its an engine that is known to be cpu bound. Even then there's only a 7fps diff between the overclocked cpu and stock cpu, u're gonna call that being cpu bound???? gimme a break. You'll also notice on the same page YOU referenced UT3 shows no difference @ 1680x1050 between the overclocked & stock cpu, neither does warhammer chaos. Thanks for the evidence against YOUR arguement.

The crysis engine has got the best graphics available hands down, and it has every fancy feature under the sun. So, if a cpu doesnt show a difference in it, im fairly confident that's indicative of future gaming conditions, hence why i referenced it.

just my 2 cents.


I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT QUADS VS DUALS, IM TALKING ABOUT OVERCLOCKED CPUS VS STOCK CPUS SO PLEASE STOP DRAGGING ME AND MY POSTS INTO THE QUAD VS DUAL DEBATES, I NEVER EVEN TOUCHED ON THAT SUBJECT

 

[OCGuy]

Edit: not worth it

Crysis is the only game that matters, anyway. :laugh:

 

[Malakai]

I vote Phenom 2. I just had to make this decision for myself, and could not be happier with the results.

The P2 is so much more memory efficient than intel chips prior to i7. I get ~13GB/sec on dual channel ddr2-1066, where my buddys 3.2ghz c2quad gets 8-9 @same speed! Can even hang with the slower ddr3 results from i7 systems in sandra.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Please see my sig.

with that said get a Phenom. More and more games now are utilizing more cores and you'll have also the power of quad in other applications. My E8500 does edges my P2 in some games but in others it gets beaten bad too.

 

[Sylvanas]

The P2 is a better choice. Slowly but surely we are seeing more and more multithreaded engines appearing and a quad is always going to be better in that scenario and will be a little more 'future proof' in this area.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah def the Phenom 2, that's a no brainer.