red930 Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 I agree, which ones would you suggest? Was wondering myself Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Trooper Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Well first of all you might want to consider what games you play. Most games are mainly GPU intensive yes, but some games actually rely quite a bit on CPU processing power. Two good examples are Supreme Commander and Source games (CS:S, DOD:S etc.). Supreme Commander along with other RTS games actually rely on the CPU quite a bit for AI and unit mapping. When I played this game on my +3800 which was clocked at 2.7GHZ, I would see drops in my frame rate when both me and my opponent had 200-300+ units on the battlefield. My average frame rate was above 75 but it could drop down to about 25 or so. For an RTS this is completely acceptable but its still nice to keep that smooth frame rate and a C2D would serve you well if you plan on playing this game or any other massive scale RTS game. I imagine RTS games will only get more complex and sophisticated so you might want to take that into account as well. With my C2D setup now I never get lower FPS than 55-65 and this is with an all out battle at 300+ units a side. Source games are another good example. The Source engine relies HEAVILY upon the CPU for its sophisticated physics and particle engine. And I don't mean just a little bit I mean a lot a bit. With my AMD system I upgraded from a x1900xt to a 8800GTS and so no performance gain. Surprising? Google benchmarks for yourself and you'll see how much Half-Life 2 and other Source games love the CPU. DOD:S is my main online multi-player FPS so this was unacceptable to me. With my AMD system 85% of the time I would stay above 90FPS but I could drop down to 35-40FPS during heavy battle on both DOD:S and CS:S. I actually cap my FPS at 60 to reduce tearing on my widescreen LCD monitor because when you use vsync is messes up your mouse movement. Anyways, now with my C2D I never drop down below my cap at 60FPS and if I turn the FPS cap off then my average is 130FPS or so. BTW Source games and usually CPU intensive games in general really enjoy the extra cache on the processor. That is why I went with the e6420. It is hitting high clocks ATM and it has that extra 2mb of cache over most other C2D processors. Do you plan on playing Crysis at all? This game will be supporting quad core processors so my best guess is that it will rely heavily on the CPU as well. From all the video previews I have seen, all the developer interviews I have seen and all the articles I have read it seems like this game has bad butt physics and bad butt AI. I'm guessing it will like powerful CPU's but you can judge for yourself. I guess in the end what you might want to do is consider the games you play and will be playing then make your decision. I never would have made my upgrade if it wasn't feasible to me but it was because I play games which rely heavily on the CPU. If you play any of the games I mentioned or you are not sure if the games you play or will be playing are CPU intensive, you could just use Google and try to find out for yourself. Maybe you should take into consideration the future as well. The C2D will offer you much or leg room if you don't like to be constantly upgrading your system all the time. With games becoming advanced as they are, Crysis a good example, you just might want that extra CPU power for the near future. I believe for all these reasons that the C2D offers you much more for your money. All the good things you hear from all of us enthusiasts and all the articles and reviews you read aren't lying. These really are killer CPU's. BTW if you're going to overclock then stick with the e6420 because it has a 8X multiplier which is better for overclocking. I say this because Intel just released their new 1333FSB processors and at first glance the e6550 which is comparable in price to the e6420 looks good, but it actually has a lower multiplier which isn't as good for overclocking. Anyways, those are my thoughts, opinions and personal experiences so I hope they help you out in making a decision upon purchasing your new computer. Cheers! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngensmyth Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Yukon Trooper, that is a one very good and convincing post. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jachyra007 Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 I agree - I wondered why I would have some issues later on in the matches, now I know why (Sup. Commander). Guess I just have to beat them sooner.... Good post! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 I too am one that (for the price) would heavily encourage a look at an AMD processor. Unless you're looking at blowing better than a grand on a computer, I really don't think you can beat a Windsor. Yes, a C2D has better overall performance. However, from my experience AM2 is much more reliable (the boards and the processors, and is much more stable. Don't mind the sig, I sold my C2D rig (there really wasn't a serious problem with it at all Synge, hope you're happy with it ) but I've really like my Am2 system much more. In either case, I really don't think you can go wrong honestly. They both have their benefits and downsides. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngensmyth Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 LOL, no problem I just wanted to see what all the hoopla was about without paying an arm and a leg. My main system at the office is still an Asus A7n8x with an XP 2800 Barton OC'd a whopping 200MHz to 2.0. I can easily get another 200MHz out of it but the smoke hurts my eyes. Dang those things run hot. It does eveything I ask it to and never skips a beat. My old Sapphire 9800 Pro runs 2 monitors and I'm Lord of the Flies. Still no one is recommending the perfect AM2 board. Inquiring minds want to know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnOne Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 I'd recommend an E4300 and OC to 2.8+. I have one running 3.25 stable with Zalman 9700 in P180 case. I have E6420 @ 3.2, Zalman 9700 in 900 case. Both are great CPU's but the E4300 can be had for $60 less. Use that money to upgrade to a better case that you can use for future builds and higher OC's. Or buy better CPU Fan. I would also recommend the Corsair 520 PS for $80 AR right now, free shipping and no tax (for most) at Buy.com. I have the OCZ700 mentioned above, but JonnyGURU shows it has ripple problems at high loads, which negates the difference between 520 and 700 IMO. Take that $30 and buy better Video card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coors Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Yeah with the e4300 being about $115 now I don't see AMD as being all that much cheaper now. Last I checked you could get the X2 3600 for about $65-70 but for like $50 more you could have a C2D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red930 Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 I've gotten great results with the nVidia 590 boards. I've been running an Asus M2N-32 SLI Deluxe for over a year and use it as my main rig right now. The current BIOS versions are rock solid and I've had no issues at all with good hardware. I'm building a mid-level gaming rig for a customer right now and will use the Asus board with an AMD X2 6000 and some OCZ RAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngensmyth Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Dang that Asus M2N-32 SLI Deluxe is still expensive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts