Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best CPU for Gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 4, 2007 5:19:46 AM

Hey, I was just wondering what is the biggest thing you wanna look for in a CPU for gaming. Is it the Bus Speed, the CPU Speed, or the Cache? What plays the biggest role in gaming. I basically cant decide if I want the 6850 Core 2 Duo, which is 3ghz, 1333 Bus, and 4mb Cache. Or if I want the new Penryns coming out which I was thinking of getting the 2.5ghz Quad, with 12mb Cache, and 1333 bus speed. Both have the same bus speed, but one has higher CPU Speed, and the other is higher Cache. What do you think is better for playing the higher end games?

More about : cpu gaming

a c 473 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2007 5:36:45 AM

The Quad will also have 2 more cores.

Generally the better the specs the better the games should perform, up to a certain point. Most games will not be taking advantage of 4 cores. Some will, but in my opinion it will take a couple of years before games can be optimized for quad core CPUs.

While a Quad Core is overkill for just gaming (in my opinion), it will also last you longer since there will still be untapped power for games if more games are designed to take advantage of more than just 2 cores.

Personally, I am leaning towards getting the Q9450 'cause I will be using it for encoding video which does take full advantage of Quad Cores. I'll be gaming with it too, and most likely doing both at the same time.

Based on what you described, you are gunning for the Q9300 which only comes with 6mb of cache.

December 4, 2007 5:40:34 AM

For just about every benchmark out there the AMD is still a good bit cheaper and the x2 6400 at stock clocks will out perform the 6850. If you go with a quad atm the q6600 is the only viable option for gaming. Keep in mind that the q6600 is a horrible gaming chip at stock clocks and needs to be pushed pretty hard to get decent performance out of it.

I tell everyone to go with the x2 6400 and a nice 3870(only foward compatable card on the market worth the $$$ atm) on the new 790fx chipset MBs. The entire system is cheap, performs well, does not require overclocking. The 5000 amd is only for the OCer. Dont waste your time. It doesnt matter how much you know OCing this chip to match the 6400 will lower the life of your system a great deal. If you plant your hardware on Vista 64 you are pretty well off for a few years to come. Even after that time your CPU upgrade and graphics platform will be afordable compared to an entire new system for Intel. I dont call being able to save the case and PSU shoping smart.
Related resources
December 4, 2007 5:58:08 AM

jerseygamer said:
For just about every benchmark out there the AMD is still a good bit cheaper and the x2 6400 at stock clocks will out perform the 6850. If you go with a quad atm the q6600 is the only viable option for gaming. Keep in mind that the q6600 is a horrible gaming chip at stock clocks and needs to be pushed pretty hard to get decent performance out of it.

I tell everyone to go with the x2 6400 and a nice 3870(only foward compatable card on the market worth the $$$ atm) on the new 790fx chipset MBs. The entire system is cheap, performs well, does not require overclocking. The 5000 amd is only for the OCer. Dont waste your time. It doesnt matter how much you know OCing this chip to match the 6400 will lower the life of your system a great deal. If you plant your hardware on Vista 64 you are pretty well off for a few years to come. Even after that time your CPU upgrade and graphics platform will be afordable compared to an entire new system for Intel. I dont call being able to save the case and PSU shoping smart.


An E6850 is clearly a step above the X2 6400+ in performance. The E6750 is the same price as the X2 6400+ and performs better, so what the heck are you on about?! You are clearly confused, and god help the poor souls who take your 'advice'.

In order to educate, you must be educated yourself. Ignorant advice is worse than no advice. Get a grip on reality, and learn something in the process.
December 4, 2007 6:25:12 AM

epsilon84 said:
An E6850 is clearly a step above the X2 6400+ in performance. The E6750 is the same price as the X2 6400+ and performs better


I would buy a Intel CPU as well. I can't see how the AMD's can outperform the Intel's.
December 4, 2007 6:27:39 AM

jerseygamer said:
Keep in mind that the q6600 is a horrible gaming chip at stock clocks and needs to be pushed pretty hard to get decent performance out of it.

Serious?
December 4, 2007 6:34:13 AM

cfvh600 said:
Serious?


The guy is clearly deluded. A case of Sharikou Syndrome, perhaps.
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2007 6:52:12 AM

Check my sig. I rest my case.
a c 473 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2007 6:52:58 AM

jerseygamer said:
Keep in mind that the q6600 is a horrible gaming chip at stock clocks and needs to be pushed pretty hard to get decent performance out of it.


At worse the Q6600 will perform like the E6600 because the stock speed is 2.4GHz. I hardly think that the E6600 is a horrible gaming chip at stock speed.

How about some benchmarks to backup your less than educated post?
December 4, 2007 6:57:31 AM

Sorry dude, the Q6600 preforms roughly about the same in games as a X2 6400+ at stock speeds, not to mention is has ALOT of overclocking headroom and is a quadcore. Have you been sleeping under a rock or something?
December 4, 2007 7:00:21 AM

skittle said:
Sorry dude, the Q6600 preforms roughly about the same in games as a X2 6400+ at stock speeds, not to mention is has ALOT of overclocking headroom and is a quadcore. Have you been sleeping under a rock or something?


I think it's more of a case of getting hit in the head with a rock... and these are the results. :lol: 

May 21, 2009 1:27:11 PM

i would get the quad(two more cores). or if you want true gaming, get the new i7's
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2009 1:35:12 PM

i7 wasn't out in 2007, which is when the last post was made.
!