Which Intel CPUs should I get?

morvak wrote:
On Nov 24, 5:59 am, Ant wrote:
Hello all.

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

Thank you in advance.
--
"If you're an ant, and you're walking along across the top of a cup of
pudding, you probably have no idea that the only thing between you and
disaster is the strength of that pudding skin." --Jack Handy from
Saturday Night Live
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @http://antfarm.ma.cx(Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL):http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address:
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

for that resolution i'd go with the E8400 (3ghz). I have the HD 4850
and a 16x10 res monitor and with E8400 can play everything pretty much
max (except Crysis which I don't own).

I totally agree the E8400 is a great buy and will work great with which
ever card you get. The notion that you don't need a powerful CPU for
gaming is a myth. Always has been. Back when the first GeForce card came
out it was believed that most of the gaming load would go to the GPU.
But that's not the case. There's still a need for a fast CPU to do all
the things the GPU doesn't. As for Quad core CPU's, there's just not
enough PC games coded to use 4 cores yet to make it worth it. Speed is
the most important thing when it comes to a gaming CPU. And that's what
you said you plan on doing, so 2 cores is plenty. JLC

Anssi Saari wrote:
Ant writes:

Hello all.

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss
on which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

Doesn't much matter, most games today aren't particularly CPU
intensive since they have to run on consoles too... So unless you plan
to play some simulations that actually have CPU-intensive AI, you'd be
fine with whatever you have now, was it AMD X2 something. Video
encoding is also a task that never seems to go fast enough...

I'd just put the beefiest video card you can find in your current PC
and enjoy.

You have to be kidding right? Todays consoles have plenty of CPU power.
His CPU is very outdated and for very little money he can get a monster
of a CPU. If you read any recent graphic card review you'll learn that
many games are heavily CPU dependent. And a 4800 class card needs a good
CPU or it will just get bottlenecked. JLC

"Ant" wrote in message
m...
Hello all.

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro. SP3
(screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

Thank you in advance.

the 6mb cache makes the 8 series between 10 and 20 % quicker than the 7
series.
those wolfdales run cool and use little juice so they overclock very easily.
my 7300 overclocks from 1066fsb to 1333fsb = 3.17ghz with just 0.5v and runs
great.
paired with a 8800GT I can run Crysis at 1440x900 at High settings. I
struggle at 1680x1050 a *little*
but that'll be the graphics card.

If you don't oc then I'd go with the 8400. No need for quad core - no games
really need a quad though I
do recall an article that said the Dunia engine used in Far Cry 2 utilizes 4
cores - heck very few game engines
make proper balanced use of just 2 cores!

On 11/24/2008 7:16 PM PT, JLC typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

for that resolution i'd go with the E8400 (3ghz). I have the HD 4850
and a 16x10 res monitor and with E8400 can play everything pretty much
max (except Crysis which I don't own).

I totally agree the E8400 is a great buy and will work great with which
ever card you get. The notion that you don't need a powerful CPU for
gaming is a myth. Always has been. Back when the first GeForce card came
out it was believed that most of the gaming load would go to the GPU.
But that's not the case. There's still a need for a fast CPU to do all
the things the GPU doesn't. As for Quad core CPU's, there's just not
enough PC games coded to use 4 cores yet to make it worth it. Speed is
the most important thing when it comes to a gaming CPU. And that's what
you said you plan on doing, so 2 cores is plenty. JLC

Do any newest games (e.g., Far Cry 2) use quad core yet? Also, why not
E8500? I can afford that one. Or is it not worth it?
--
"For an ant to have wings would be his (her) undoing." --Iranian
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

On 11/25/2008 1:53 AM PT, Sleepy typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss
on which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most
likely)/4870 (all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use
Windows XP Pro. SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

Thank you in advance.

the 6mb cache makes the 8 series between 10 and 20 % quicker than the 7
series.
those wolfdales run cool and use little juice so they overclock very
easily.
my 7300 overclocks from 1066fsb to 1333fsb = 3.17ghz with just 0.5v and
runs great.
paired with a 8800GT I can run Crysis at 1440x900 at High settings. I
struggle at 1680x1050 a *little*
but that'll be the graphics card.

If you don't oc then I'd go with the 8400. No need for quad core - no
games really need a quad though I
do recall an article that said the Dunia engine used in Far Cry 2
utilizes 4 cores - heck very few game engines
make proper balanced use of just 2 cores!

How about E8500 over E8400? Not that much different for 15 bucks? OK,
current games don't really use quad core then. How about future games
like within 2-3 years?
--
"When I am at my lowest, that is when I see things the clearest. It's
hard to care about ants when you're soaring with eagles." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

On 11/24/2008 10:12 PM PT, Legion typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss
on which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most
likely)/4870 (all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use
Windows XP Pro. SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

Thank you in advance.

What motherboard?
Probably a MSI P43 NEO3-F:
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p...eo3-F&class=mb ...

Only 4 USB ports and One PCI-E x16 slot.

Nvidia GPU better IMHO.

The only problem is that NVIDIA no longer does fullscreen overlays with
their latest card and models. I watch videos, TV (have a HDTV tuner
card), etc. on my old 21" CRT TV. That alone made me switch to ATI/AMD.
--
"The ambitious one makes friends with the elephant, then tramples upon
the ant." --Indian
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

Ant wrote:
On 11/24/2008 7:16 PM PT, JLC typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a
loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

for that resolution i'd go with the E8400 (3ghz). I have the HD 4850
and a 16x10 res monitor and with E8400 can play everything pretty much
max (except Crysis which I don't own).

I totally agree the E8400 is a great buy and will work great with
which ever card you get. The notion that you don't need a powerful CPU
for gaming is a myth. Always has been. Back when the first GeForce
card came out it was believed that most of the gaming load would go to
the GPU. But that's not the case. There's still a need for a fast CPU
to do all the things the GPU doesn't. As for Quad core CPU's, there's
just not enough PC games coded to use 4 cores yet to make it worth it.
Speed is the most important thing when it comes to a gaming CPU. And
that's what you said you plan on doing, so 2 cores is plenty. JLC

Do any newest games (e.g., Far Cry 2) use quad core yet? Also, why not
E8500? I can afford that one. Or is it not worth it?


Using the E8500 here with a 4870. All games run on highest settings at
1680x1050 (though I drop the rez for Crysis). At your rez its seems
overkill but on larger screens its a great combo

On 11/25/2008 11:14 AM PT, Shawk typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a
loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most
likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

for that resolution i'd go with the E8400 (3ghz). I have the HD 4850
and a 16x10 res monitor and with E8400 can play everything pretty much
max (except Crysis which I don't own).

I totally agree the E8400 is a great buy and will work great with
which ever card you get. The notion that you don't need a powerful
CPU for gaming is a myth. Always has been. Back when the first
GeForce card came out it was believed that most of the gaming load
would go to the GPU. But that's not the case. There's still a need
for a fast CPU to do all the things the GPU doesn't. As for Quad core
CPU's, there's just not enough PC games coded to use 4 cores yet to
make it worth it. Speed is the most important thing when it comes to
a gaming CPU. And that's what you said you plan on doing, so 2 cores
is plenty. JLC

Do any newest games (e.g., Far Cry 2) use quad core yet? Also, why not
E8500? I can afford that one. Or is it not worth it?


Using the E8500 here with a 4870. All games run on highest settings at
1680x1050 (though I drop the rez for Crysis). At your rez its seems
overkill but on larger screens its a great combo

Even with the high-res graphics that someone posted earlier for Far Cry
2, Oblivion, etc.?
--
"Ants can carry twenty times their weight, which is useful information
if you're moving out and you need help getting a potato chip across
town." --Ron Darian
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

"Ant" wrote in message
m...
On 11/25/2008 1:53 AM PT, Sleepy typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

Thank you in advance.

the 6mb cache makes the 8 series between 10 and 20 % quicker than the 7
series.
those wolfdales run cool and use little juice so they overclock very
easily.
my 7300 overclocks from 1066fsb to 1333fsb = 3.17ghz with just 0.5v and
runs great.
paired with a 8800GT I can run Crysis at 1440x900 at High settings. I
struggle at 1680x1050 a *little*
but that'll be the graphics card.

If you don't oc then I'd go with the 8400. No need for quad core - no
games really need a quad though I
do recall an article that said the Dunia engine used in Far Cry 2
utilizes 4 cores - heck very few game engines
make proper balanced use of just 2 cores!

How about E8500 over E8400? Not that much different for 15 bucks? OK,
current games don't really use quad core then. How about future games like
within 2-3 years?

surely you can do the math for yourself ! $15 between the 8200 and 8400 but
a
decent speed differance - not the same gain going to a 8500. you reach a
point where
you splash out money for very little gain.
as for 2 or 3 years - it isn't worth thinking about.
with PCs you're lucky if the kit you buy today looks good in 18 months !

Ant wrote:
On 11/25/2008 11:14 AM PT, Shawk typed:

I am planning to upgrade my computer again next month. I am at a
loss on
which Intel Core 2 Duo CPU to get since there are so many models:

E7300 (2.66 ghz 1066 fsb) = $135
E7400 (2.8 ghz 1066 fsb) = $155
E8200 (2.66 ghz 1333 fsb) = $175
E8400 (3.0ghz 1333 fsb) = $190
E8500 (3.16ghz 1333 fsb) - $205
Q6600 (2.4 ghz 1066 fsb) = $200
Q8200 (2.33 ghz 1333 fsb) = $210

I am planning to have 2 GB of RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850(most
likely)/4870
(all details cranked up at 1280x1024 resolution), use Windows XP Pro.
SP3 (screw Vista and its DirectX 10+), etc.

for that resolution i'd go with the E8400 (3ghz). I have the HD 4850
and a 16x10 res monitor and with E8400 can play everything pretty much
max (except Crysis which I don't own).

I totally agree the E8400 is a great buy and will work great with
which ever card you get. The notion that you don't need a powerful
CPU for gaming is a myth. Always has been. Back when the first
GeForce card came out it was believed that most of the gaming load
would go to the GPU. But that's not the case. There's still a need
for a fast CPU to do all the things the GPU doesn't. As for Quad
core CPU's, there's just not enough PC games coded to use 4 cores
yet to make it worth it. Speed is the most important thing when it
comes to a gaming CPU. And that's what you said you plan on doing,
so 2 cores is plenty. JLC

Do any newest games (e.g., Far Cry 2) use quad core yet? Also, why
not E8500? I can afford that one. Or is it not worth it?


Using the E8500 here with a 4870. All games run on highest settings at
1680x1050 (though I drop the rez for Crysis). At your rez its seems
overkill but on larger screens its a great combo

Even with the high-res graphics that someone posted earlier for Far Cry
2, Oblivion, etc.?


Oblivion is ancient - did you mean FO3? I don't have that yet, but yes,
1680x1050 and highest settings on Far Cry 2. Also I usually have vsync
on with my games and always some AA.

Oh, DX10 on Vista 64 and 4gig ram. According to many here they should
run even better at DX9 on XP?