Gaming Processor

[Koudelka]

I am going to be upgrading my CPU and i am wondering whether or not its best to go dual core, or the FX line of AMD, if the sole purpose of my computer, is gaming.

I'm a hardcore gamer and i play the top end games that require powerful computers. I've always known what to get until now.

I'm not sure if i should go dual core or FX.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[YoungGun21]

Core 2 Duo for sure. Get a E6400 and overclock! Some are getting close to 3.5ghz which is a 1.4ghz OC!!

The way to go right now!

 

[Maximilian]

For now - Single core

For later - Dual core


The single cores from Intel arent worth looking at anymore, in my eyes the pentium D has largely replaced the pentium 4 as Intels main cpu, and there are no single core Core 2 duos so you dont have a choice if you go core 2 duo, which i highly reccommend you do as its the best gamimg cpu and very overclockable.

AMD's single cores are fine, the FX's up to FX 57 are by no means slow cpu's but they will be eclipsed by dual cores when games all support dual core (some already do today and many have patches for dual core) These CPU's are also far from slow, but C2D is better.

Bottom line - Although single core is fine, get dual core as overall, looking at the future it will be better.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
I am going to be upgrading my CPU and i am wondering whether or not its best to go dual core, or the FX line of AMD, if the sole purpose of my computer, is gaming.

I'm a hardcore gamer and i play the top end games that require powerful computers. I've always known what to get until now.

I'm not sure if i should go dual core or FX.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

The FX is like a hand picked X2. The differences are small at best and the price is a big difference.

I'd say definately get a dual core system. The fact that it doesn't directly outpace a single core system at the same speed means jack. In the not too distant future everything will work with dual core and why would you upgrade 2x in such a small time? Unless you're rich and like tossing money out the window.

 

[Ika]

In the future, multi-threaded apps will be far more common, making dual-cores more useful. With that, a C2D E6400 or E6300 looks like your best bet right now, if you're money-short.

 

[harpoon84]

You say you want to 'upgrade' your CPU, does that mean you just want to put a faster CPU into your current system? I assume you are running S939 then?

As others have said, Core2Duo is currently the best CPU for games, but if you already running a S939 system then it's probably best just to pick up a faster S939 chip, as the overall expense of changing platforms is rather high.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

how much money are we talking here

 

[deadseasquirrel]

You've got a 3500+ with 2gb of ram and play at a native 1280x1024 with a 7800GTX. Lemme ask you this-- what games are you playing that are giving you problems? Chances are, you'll get a lot better performance out of upgrading that GTX than you will from slapping in a faster or dual-core processor.

edit: You also should be able to get that 3500+ above 2.2ghz, I would think. Even my 3000+ does 2.5ghz easily. But, like I said, that would make very little difference in games anyway.

 

[tersome]

If you're willing to drop $1000 on an fx, might as well get Intel E6400, Gigabyte DS3 and Team Xtreem pc2-5300.

 

[Conky]

I'm a gamer and my E6400(lightly overclocked because my ASRock mobo is not a good overclocker) has me smiling and replaying all my old games... it's like playing entirely new games because now I can crank the res all the way up(1280x1024 is my LCD's limit) and I can turn on all the options including AA with my slightly old X850XT.

A fast running system makes gaming sooo much better.

An E6600 smokes an AMD FX-62 across the board on all benchmarks for about 1/3 the price. Now that is good value.

 

[AaronJSmith]

if you're sticking with your current mb maybe pick up a 4800x2 and either a 7900gtx or the big daddy 7950 gx2 that shoul;d whip your games into shape for a while

 

[Koudelka]

I'm Beta-testing a few games and i've never had a problem with ANY games on maximum settings.

The last game i ever had a problem with was Everquest II.

I was thinking of getting a 4800+ x2.

I have the Evga 7800GTX KO. Overclocked to extreme measures but stable.

I just figured the only thing holding my PC back would be the Processor. I have thought about getting a 7900 or 50, but didnt really think the gain would be that amazing yet.

I have a better vid card than most people do playing the same games, and those people sometimes have a higher fps by around 20. I just assumed my bottleneck would be the Processor which is becoming out-of-date for a high end gaming machine.

Reason why i cant say the game is i would be breaking NDA. Sorry i cant be more helpful.

I suppose i do have another question now though. My specs are:

AMD 3500+
Evga 7800GTX KO
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2gigs of OCZ Plat
2 Raptor HD's

Would a 4800+ X2 processor or upgrading to the 7900 line give me a higher boost in fps?

Right now i can play games like BF2, Fear, Doom all on Max settings including AA/AF with 60+ fps

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
I'm Beta-testing a few games and i've never had a problem with ANY games on maximum settings.

The last game i ever had a problem with was Everquest II.

I was thinking of getting a 4800+ x2.

I have the Evga 7800GTX KO. Overclocked to extreme measures but stable.

I just figured the only thing holding my PC back would be the Processor. I have thought about getting a 7900 or 50, but didnt really think the gain would be that amazing yet.

I have a better vid card than most people do playing the same games, and those people sometimes have a higher fps by around 20. I just assumed my bottleneck would be the Processor which is becoming out-of-date for a high end gaming machine.

Reason why i cant say the game is i would be breaking NDA. Sorry i cant be more helpful.

I suppose i do have another question now though. My specs are:

AMD 3500+
Evga 7800GTX KO
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2gigs of OCZ Plat
2 Raptor HD's

Would a 4800+ X2 processor or upgrading to the 7900 line give me a higher boost in fps?

Right now i can play games like BF2, Fear, Doom all on Max settings including AA/AF with 60+ fps

You need more cpu. Get an FX-62 if you are a brand loyal guy or get a E6600 for one third the price. You will not be disappointed with either.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Would a 4800+ X2 processor or upgrading to the 7900 line give me a higher boost in fps?

Right now i can play games like BF2, Fear, Doom all on Max settings including AA/AF with 60+ fps

My personal opinion is that if you're currently running 60+ fps with your LCD at native 1280x1024, then you probably don't need to upgrade anything.

But, if you're dead-set on spending some money, you'll get a bigger % boost for the $ by selling your GTX and getting a GX2 or x19xx.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Would a 4800+ X2 processor or upgrading to the 7900 line give me a higher boost in fps?

Right now i can play games like BF2, Fear, Doom all on Max settings including AA/AF with 60+ fps

My personal opinion is that if you're currently running 60+ fps with your LCD at native 1280x1024, then you probably don't need to upgrade anything.

But, if you're dead-set on spending some money, you'll get a bigger % boost for the $ by selling your GTX and getting a GX2 or x19xx.

I totally disagree.

You will never get your maximum frames per second with anything less than a really fast cpu. Which is not the 4800+ at this point in time. Again, it comes down to the FX-62 or the E6600(or even an E6400). These cpu's max out all videocards way better than any 4xxx+ AMD cpu.

Videocards are important, no doubt, but you gotta have the cpu behind it to see it's full potential.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I totally disagree.

You will never get your maximum frames per second with anything less than a really fast cpu. Which is not the 4800+ at this point in time. Again, it comes down to the FX-62 or the E6600(or even an E6400). These cpu's max out all videocards way better than any 4xxx+ AMD cpu.

Videocards are important, no doubt, but you gotta have the cpu behind it to see it's full potential.

What is your video card?
When I had 2 GTXs, Opteron 146 with GTX SLI beat the crap out of E6600 with a single GTX except some CPU bound cases in RTS games.

 

[harpoon84]

CPU speed *does* make a difference, even on a single GPU system. Sure, you can make the GPU the absolute bottleneck by running AA/AF at max levels, but then framerates drop to unacceptable levels.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854741,00.asp

It seems the E6600 hits the 'sweet spot' for a 7900GT class GPU. In all games tested, it goes below the 'framerate threshold' only 3% of the time, whereas the 5000+ is below the threshold 10% of the time.

Which means, according to the author's framerate tolerance levels, the latest games are noticeably choppy 3% of the time on the E6600, compared to 10% of the time on the 5000+.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I totally disagree.

You will never get your maximum frames per second with anything less than a really fast cpu. Which is not the 4800+ at this point in time. Again, it comes down to the FX-62 or the E6600(or even an E6400). These cpu's max out all videocards way better than any 4xxx+ AMD cpu.

Videocards are important, no doubt, but you gotta have the cpu behind it to see it's full potential.

What is your video card?
When I had 2 GTXs, Opteron 146 with GTX SLI beat the crap out of E6600 with a single GTX except some CPU bound cases in RTS games.

Wow, you got a GTX SLI to beat a single GTX? That is simply amazing. :roll:

My videocard is an ATI X850XT AGP and while not exactly cutting edge, it's no slouch either with a proper cpu behind it.

P.S. RTS games aren't for real gamers... try an online FPS on for size where speed actually matters.

 

[lopri]

I'm not doubting that CPU will make a difference. But video cards are far more important these days unless you play RTS with lots of physics. I like to quote now-gone Rollo's argument on this issue.

--------------------------------
In todays games--
Will $1,000 CPU give 500% performance increase from $200 CPU?
Will $250 motherboard be 100% faster than $125 motherboard?
Will $500 RAM give double the performance of $250 RAM?
Will $400 GPU will give double the performance of $200 GPU? Or Will 2 x $400 GPUs will give close-to-double the performance of 1 x $400 GPU?

Try answering these questions.
--------------------------------------

.. (It was something like that. And I think it's a very hard-to-beat argument)

 

[lopri]

Beachboy: You were disagreeing with an opinion which suggested a video card upgrade (from GTX to GX2, which is a SLI in disguise) instead of a CPU upgrade. Totally, as you put it. Also I exampled RTS where a fast CPU can actually shine. In FPS games GPU is what matters.

I am not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. I agree that CPU matters to a certain degree. I am trying to say that in real games (OK I'll take RTS off since you don't seem to be too fond of them) GPU is more important than CPU.

 

[harpoon84]

lopri,

Different games have different requirements. As an avid gamer, I agree with Beachboy that online FPS are definitely rather CPU limited. Flight sims are also predominantly CPU limited.

The thing with CPU vs GPU for gaming is that things are a lot more flexible on the GPU side. If your GPU is not up to the task, you can turn down (or off) AA/AF, as well as terrain/texture size and details, draw distance, shadows, smoke etc etc. On the CPU side, there are often no options to tone down the AI/physics/netcode/hitbox calculations - these are core components to gameplay and must be done the way the developers designed.

 

[lopri]

OK I didn't know if it was about on-line gaming. If that was the case I guess I'm not entitled to say much since I don't play games online. (no pun intended) You guys are probably right.
The flexibility of CPU/GPU per game setting is a different subect, though.

 

[Koudelka]

If it helps the argument, the reason i wanted a CPU upgrade instead is because of the MMO's that i play and am beta-testing right now.

They run so damn slow even on my PC, so i figured my CPU must be bottlenecking me.
Any other game i play shines on my computer on ultra settings.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: lopri
The flexibility of CPU/GPU per game setting is a different subect, though.

So do you disagree or agree on that point?

For example - my current system is a P4 2.6C @ 3.3GHz, 2GB RAM, X850XT @ 610c/590m. It's ageing, but it's still not *that* slow, relatively speaking.

I can make GPU limited games like COD2 and FEAR have acceptable framerates by turning down the details to a mix of 'medium' or 'high' levels instead of 'highest' or 'max'. Sure, the game doesn't look as good, but at least it's playable, instead of slideshow esque.

However, I can't for the life of me tune BF2 and CS:S (online FPS games) to get minimum framerates above 30fps. These are intense online shooters, and truly require a fast CPU during big firefights with lots of gunfire and explosions and such.

Let's take the X2 5000+ and E6600 for comparison for BF2:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996942,00.asp

X2 5000+ framerates get down to ~45fps, compared to ~62fps for E6600. Obviously both are still much better than my Northy 3.3GHz @ ~30fps, which goes to show that online FPS games suck up as much CPU speed as you can throw at it. It should be noted though that above E6600 levels you see the law of diminishing returns kick in as anything above 60fps is deemed 'totally smooth' by most people.

The often mentioned line 'GPU is the main bottleneck in games' is true only in certain games.

 

[lopri]

If there are options to lower the graphics details, try it and see if it runs faster. MMOs can be quite stressing to CPU indeed, especially if the game is in beta stage.

Regarding the argument I had above is about modern games with modern settings (1600x1200/4AA/8AF comes to my mind)

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: lopri
What is your video card?
When I had 2 GTXs, Opteron 146 with GTX SLI beat the crap out of E6600 with a single GTX except some CPU bound cases in RTS games.

Wow, you got a GTX SLI to beat a single GTX? That is simply amazing. :roll:

I thought the above sarcasm was totally self-contradictive. If he meant what he said, his response should have been something like "Wow, you got an E6600 and can't beat the Opteron 146?"

Anyway, I was also totally off with regard to your intent of upgrading. I don't play online games so naturally no MMOs. Is there a way to test an MMO game off-line?