Mellowe

Join Date 02/2008

+41

CPU Upgrade for gaming?

To start, here are my specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 (OCed to 3.2 GHz)
EVGA nForce 650i Ultra Motherboard
ATI Radeon HD 4850
4 GB DDR2 800
650W Corsair PSU

I often get the feeling that my CPU is the weakest component of my gaming rig. I am not sure if my motherboard supports the Yorkfield Core 2 Quads, as EVGA's site is down so I cannot contact them. It will run the Q6600, however. Based on my comparison shopping, I can upgrade my system to any of the following:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ($200)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 ($220) -- may not be supported
AMD Phenom II 920 + Gigabyte AMD 790X motherboard ($260 together, although my friend may be looking to buy a CPU + motherboard + my old PSU and memory together so that would bring the cost down of this option to $180 or so)

Any suggestions? Will my ~$200 investment really return significant gains in CPU-intensive, multithreaded games (Dragon Age: Origins and upcoming games come to mind; Dragon Age recommends a quad core processor)? If so, which deal should I choose? Stock performance is insignificant to me. I want overclocking (stock air) potential as well.

Cheers!

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have the Q6600 and even though it's 1st generation and not that great a design it overclocks well with a custom cooling option (IE not ur factory mobo cooler).

Successfully updated karma reason!

i think your fine, idk if the quad core's lack of speed can be made up for with cores

maybe in the near future for games like you said, but i'd wait

Successfully updated karma reason!

Q6600 can go up to 3gigz EASILY. And plenty of games are going multi-threaded, or patching (Like Empire just did).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

To start, here are my specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 (OCed to 3.2 GHz)

EVGA nForce 650i Ultra Motherboard

ATI Radeon HD 4850

4 GB DDR2 800

650W Corsair PSU

I often get the feeling that my CPU is the weakest component of my gaming rig. I am not sure if my motherboard supports the Yorkfield Core 2 Quads, as EVGA's site is down so I cannot contact them. It will run the Q6600, however. Based on my comparison shopping, I can upgrade my system to any of the following:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 ($200)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 ($220) -- may not be supported
AMD Phenom II 920 + Gigabyte AMD 790X motherboard ($260 together, although my friend may be looking to buy a CPU + motherboard + my old PSU and memory together so that would bring the cost down of this option to $180 or so)

Any suggestions? Will my ~$200 investment really return significant gains in CPU-intensive, multithreaded games (Dragon Age: Origins and upcoming games come to mind; Dragon Age recommends a quad core processor)? If so, which deal should I choose? Stock performance is insignificant to me. I want overclocking (stock air) potential as well.

Cheers!

Your machine seems fine, your proc isn't letting it down, its about on par with your ram, though your graphics card is your most powerful component at the momment.

I'd recommend saving it, and later in the year getting a powerful tricore phenom if you really want a new proc. Though personally your machine should be fine.

P.S Sounds pretty basic, but have you made sure all your drivers are up to date, that has a HUGE effect on performance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your dual core processor will suffice for the time being. IMO, if you were to choose between the q6600 and q9550 for overclocking, the choice would have to be the q9550. Its 45nm, unlike the q6600 which is 65nm, runs much cooler and the E0 stepping revision gives huge amounts of overclocking headroom. To get a significant overclock and not worry about u burning out ur processor, aftermarket air cooling is a must. Here is a good site to help with that choice www.frostytech.com . if ur worried about ur mobo not being able to handle the 9550, snag the latest bios update from nvidia and im sure ull be good to go. I personally would like to add that i upgraded from a q6600 G0 (able to overclock it to 3.4ghz 24hour stable prime 95 stress testing) to a q9550 E0 of which on stock voltages overclocked to 3.3ghz and currently at 3.85ghz since its summer. Winter, 4.02ghz with a minor voltage increase. My heatsink is a thermalright ultra 120 extreme of which i lapped for extra cooling performance. Also, a good tube of thermal paste will drop temps 5° C (yes, there is a huge difference between stock goop and high quality paste).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Its funny that most of you show you spec's for your machine and leave out what power supply you have.

most motherboards have the extra 8 pin for quads but most of all pc builders dont use the 8-pin.

They say you dont need it. If you dont then why is it there? point is that if its on the mainboard, then you have to use it for Quad CPU only.

If you not using it and you support this 8-pin on your main board. then thats the problem why your lagging. that 8-pin

gives the Quad the power it needs to the quad cpu.. if the dho head that built your machine didnt hook it up or insisted that you didnt need it.

Then its time you look elsewhere to get your parts.

Also anything above a QE666 Intel or 3 core AMD must have a DOT. rated 650 watt ps or above.. If its SLI then 850 watt...

I have a 1200 watt SLI in my machine.

Spend the extra coin to make sure your machine runs right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting MadProgramer,

reply 6

Its funny that most of you show you spec's for your machine and leave out what power supply you have.

most motherboards have the extra 8 pin for quads but most of all pc builders dont use the 8-pin.

They say you dont need it. If you dont then why is it there? point is that if its on the mainboard, then you have to use it for Quad CPU only.

If you not using it and you support this 8-pin on your main board. then thats the problem why your lagging. that 8-pin

gives the Quad the power it needs to the quad cpu.. if the dho head that built your machine didnt hook it up or insisted that you didnt need it.

Then its time you look elsewhere to get your parts.

Also anything above a QE666 Intel or 3 core AMD must have a DOT. rated 650 watt ps or above.. If its SLI then 850 watt...

I have a 1200 watt SLI in my machine.

Spend the extra coin to make sure your machine runs right.

one person showed full specsm including power, the op, and the other showed processor, wtf are yu talking about

on that note, do all multithreaded games utilize all 4 cores? idk, but either way you should be fine, i know i have a simialr system and can run crysis on high. are you having any problems now? if not, don't buy anything yet imo

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

on that note, do all multithreaded games utilize all 4 cores?

Most games are not strongly multithreaded, so changing from a dual core to a similar speed quad is not likely to give much improvement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Many thanks everyone!

Successfully updated karma reason!

So newer titles (such as Bad Company 2) are really pushing the multithreading. Some titles (such as the aforementioned BC2) even recommend a quad core processor. I'm wondering if I should upgrade now or wait for the AMD hex-core. I may wait for the following:

Hex-core CPU
USB 3.0-ready motherboard
Total price of CPU + motherboard under $300

I hope that the above will be a reality come December 2010 or so.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I want overclocking (stock air) potential as well.

If by that you mean the stock heat-sink/fan combo, it simply won't happen.

Overclocking means more heat, and that requires better cooling. The stock solutions are far from adequate even for everyday use, much less gaming.

Here is a pretty good comparison of some of the newer cooling options:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=62

You don't mention what seems to be your problem. Your system looks good enough for most current gaming needs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Moosetek13,

reply 11

You don't mention what seems to be your problem. Your system looks good enough for most current gaming needs.

Newer, physics-intensive games seem to be bottlenecking on my CPU rather than my GPU.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sinperium

Join Date 02/2010

+219

I prefer the adaptive neural net that was bioenginered and grafted during my construction...but hey, that's just me. Your system beats the crap outta mine--I should have your problem.

We are very near embedded processors in boards (like some of the graphics already)--I would hold of on a major expensive cpu upgrade. In three years you may see boards with twenty processors built-in that share functions adaptively and will make a quad core cpu look like an old pci ram card from way back.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you know the future is quantum computers right?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sinperium

Join Date 02/2010

+219

Quoting KillzEmAllGod,

reply 14

you know the future is quantum computers right?

Yes quantum computers are coming...we just have to wait a bit.

HAHAHAHAAH..a "bit". I crack me up.

Boards really are being developed right now for actual release in the next year or so using multiple procesor arrays--like the Sony PSP. Right now they are mainly in some of the newer telephones and I think a netbook or two...but mainboards with multiple cpus built in are right around the corner here. They will blow away single/double/quad cpu rigs when they hit desktop computing.

Or you can even get this now for a bargain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why would we need multiple actual processors when we can add more cores, which basically do the same thing? Intel just released the 32nm Core i7-980X, which has 6 cores, and with hyperthreading it effectively has 12. With technology like this we wont need multiple socketed CPUs in PCs for many years, especially with CPU manufacturing processes becoming smaller and more efficient.

Multiple CPUs are only really needed for servers, by the time they would become useful for PC's the technology would have changed entirely.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Anyone realize this thread is almost a year old?

Quoting Lord-Vale3,

reply 16

Why would we need multiple actual processors when we can add more cores, which basically do the same thing?

Not quite, six physical CPUs would outperform a six core CPU, with everythinig else equal. For a desktop, even a high performance gaming rig, this matters very little; a quad is all you need.

Maybe in a few years with better threading more cores will be worthwhile, but not yet.

For a server however, like you said, multiple CPUs are a reality and will continue to be. Why have a 6-core 12-thread machine when you could have a 24-core 48-thread machine? (And that is still a pretty small server) We have ones at work with 16 CPUs and during the busiest hours they are maxed out...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sinperium

Join Date 02/2010

+219

And there is nothing to prevent multicore cpus from being embedded either--each with its own cache and memory. The other advantage is the new designs look for processors that can change jobs. They can be formed in groups, operate independently or synchronistically. Essentially, the computer reconfigures cpus as needed, task by task. If more graphics are neeeded, more cpus handle graphics. When the need is fulfilled and done, they go to another task.

If a single die cpu fails--the whole cpu is worthless. The ability to pop and swap cpus in multiple configurations while still having a usable machine is great--just like ram is now.

Check out the link I made a bit above--they compare the Tesla versus more traditional machines and discuss graphics performance and the like.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting kryo,

reply 8

on that note, do all multithreaded games utilize all 4 cores?

Most games are not strongly multithreaded, so changing from a dual core to a similar speed quad is not likely to give much improvement.

That's changing...rapidlly. I'd guess that in as little as three years time it will be near Impossible to find a game that Doesn't use Multithreading. In fact the current trend among companies that put out games that have a Heavy Footprint is to support Multithreading as it spreads the workload meaning they can jam more features (higher polygon models, high res textures, etc etc) into their game.

Games that don't take advantage of Multithreading will soon be left eating the dust of those that do. (from a "Quality" standpoint anyway)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd guess that in as little as three years time it will be near Impossible to find a game that Doesn't use Multithreading

True, but it's going to take more time than that for models that support scalable multithreading (needed to take advantage of 4, 8, 16, etc core processors) to evolve.

Successfully updated karma reason!