Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Processor for Gaming ??

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
August 30, 2008 8:23:06 PM

Hey Guys ,

Im kinda new to this so i need help plz .

I have recently bough an XFX Nvidia Nforce 790i Ultra Mobo .. My question is , What is the best processor to go buy
a Q9450 , a Q6700 or a Q6600 especially for Gaming and Future Proof regardless of the Price . Note that i wont be using Watercooling here .

Other Specs :

4GB DDR3 1333 mhz
Nvidia Geforce 8800GTX Graphic Card
Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme -- CPU Cooler

More about : processor gaming

August 30, 2008 8:26:59 PM

get the Q9550 will be the best in your case.in the future everything will get multithreaded into quad and beyond since Nehalem will get max 8 threads:o 

i know there are people who will come in later and say E8500.let see.......
August 30, 2008 8:36:17 PM

I would have thought an E8600 would be the best for pure gaming. ...but I'd want some sort of quad core since its likely that you'll do some multi-tasking and want strong performance for upcoming mult-threaded games and apps over the next couple of years.
Related resources
August 30, 2008 8:43:57 PM

^ there you go first one in the E8xxx series!lol

but that processor is good though!for now anyway.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 9:05:18 PM

The Q9550 since it's only $10 more than the Q9450.
August 30, 2008 10:14:06 PM

^ +1 ...if I were buying a processor today the Q9550 or Q9650 would probably be the candidates and the Q9550 is the wiser choice between the two, IMO.

...overkill for gaming but all-around goodness and great longevity.
August 31, 2008 12:56:55 AM

+1 Q9550
If it was just for gaming I would reccomend the E8500 because of it's high clockspeed/ E8600 has a too large premium for 136mhz at the moment.

But for longevity the Quad will serve you better in the long term.
August 31, 2008 1:06:35 AM

Actually, slower clocked quad will outperform faster clocked duals even in older non-quad optimized games, as long as the gap isn't too big, due to background processes being moved to spare cores.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

If price doesn't matter, go for q9550. If the motherboard chipset is an older Nvidia one, the better choice would be q6700, due to the higher 10x multiplier compared to q9550's 8.5x and q9450's 8x, which will bottleneck overclocking, resulting in q6700's bottom line performance being better. But 790i should be able to handle the high fsb as long as you're not looking for extreme oc.
August 31, 2008 3:35:35 AM

oh btw gill wouldnt the nehalems have possibly 16 threads since the 8 core i assume would also be hyper-threaded?
August 31, 2008 4:39:31 AM

oh yeah of course HT 16 thread!i wonder whats the price tag on it!lol
August 31, 2008 5:15:27 AM

yorkfield is more future proof then kenstfield
August 31, 2008 3:40:29 PM

Thanks alot Guys , Anymore Opinions ?
August 31, 2008 5:10:32 PM

venkat karthik said:
yorkfield is more future proof then kenstfield


Not true. Intel follows an alternating new architecture/die shrink development cycle. Kentsfield -> Yorkfield is on the die shrink part of the cycle. Architecture is identical, only slightly smaller. Performance and behavior difference is minimum. Yorkfield -> Nehalem is on the new architecture part. Performance and behavior difference can be significant.
August 31, 2008 5:27:05 PM

^dagger that guy going everywhere and saying the Penryn will be more future proof because it supports SSE4.1.

i wonder what he been reading. if he read enough article he should know the difference is bare minimal.
August 31, 2008 10:52:31 PM

Q9550 is a much better choice then the E8500, especially if you plan on doing a bit of multitasking. I personally would choose Quad-Core over Dual-Core
August 31, 2008 11:43:59 PM

I went to a relative's home today to tune their computers. They have a FX-55 oc'd to 2.8Ghz and a new Dell D830 dualcore something something.

Even after the tuning they were both frick'n painful to use for me. I don't know how in the !@#$%! anyone can use a single core processor. I was running MS updates and that's like all the FX-55 could focus on. ...it frick'n pissed me off bad. The newer Dell D830 was a bit better but still painful compared to my Q9450.

Yes, I know the processor was not hardly the only thing at play in that scenario, but damn, damn...Damn! It'll be hard to recommend even a dualcore after that experience. Get a quad, because someday soon with some software a dual is just not going to cut it as well as even a Q6600.

Even on my aging Q9450 I don't even have to think about what or how many tasks I fire up. I do whatever comes to mind and my rig remains responsive. Its 2008, isn't that how contemporary computing should be?

Q9550.
September 2, 2008 12:51:59 AM

E8400
Well for gaming this is your best choice.For 160 Dollars and overclock it.
I run this on stock cooling and it is fine
September 3, 2008 7:10:24 AM

e8400/e8500 for gaming, definitely.

Quads offer little to no performance gains in gaming and are too expensive given their performance as a gaming processor.

The e8600 as mentioned above is too expensive given it's relative performance to the e8400 and e8500 chips (kinda like the quads).

Do you have a dollar figure in mind? It could help narrow your choices down.
September 3, 2008 11:46:14 AM

I agree with Raven about the quadcores in gaming. If your primarily gaming than a quad is probably overkill. However, I'd recommend a quad for anyone that doesn't plan to replace their processor in the next 24 months and that uses their PC for more than gaming.

The multi-tasking ability of a quad beats that offered by a dual-core hands down. Even if you're only doing several single-threaded tasks a quad handles that scenario better than a dual-core, IME. I've tried to prove myself wrong about that but to no avail.

However, a quad runs notably warmer than a dual-core, IME. So if you're going to coolest processor with the highest overclocks, a quad is not the answer to that question. My Q9450 refuses to run as cool as I'd like, no matter what HSF I use...and now that we know the TjMax is 100C and not 95C I've learned it runs ever warmer than I'd thought.

However, I still believe a quad is the better investment for the long-term high-performance computing due to its multi-tasking ability.
September 3, 2008 1:15:20 PM

The question between dual and quad has been gone over many times. Keep in mind that dual does not outperform quad, until clock rate gap between them is big enough. At slightly lower clock (less than around 200mhz), a quad will win over due to background processes being moved over to spare cores. Here's a benchmark, 5 games, first 3 non-quad optimized (only 2 threads), last 2 quad optimized.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
September 3, 2008 1:40:04 PM

To tell u the truth guys (E8xxx) people. Based on this guys other parts, hes not looking for best $/performance

@OP: like dagger and almost everyone else get the Q9550. Its fast (faster if u OC) and u get the longevity of 2 extra cores (when things due go quad)
Then use it for about a year and a half, skip Nehalem because i can just see it having some problems at first and go straight to Westmere or Sandy Bridge w/e is after Nehalem
September 4, 2008 12:15:35 AM

i think when Nehalem does intro to the market there will be alot of games and apps that will adopt to quad core/8 threads to keep up with the "trend" that intel setup. when think about it its only less then a year away would you spend on a dual core now?
September 4, 2008 8:28:34 AM

i built a system recently with a 9450 8x multiplier i just upped fsb to 400mhz and got a nice and satisfying 3.2ghz stable oc
the 12mb cash was ridiculously wonderful


amm for the nahalem i dont think their so hot they have 256kb L@ per core :S which totally sucks for gaming even tho they have a huge slow L3

benches show that the intergrated mem controller just barely brought it back up to the q9xxx series

but for non cashe intensive apps it was a true beast but a lousy overclocker ram wise due to the cpu and mem voltage being locked in together and maxes at 1.65v :S 1066 ddr3 is also their supose max DWL

amm not my cup of tea

i guess im looking out for the phenon that will have 1mb L2 per core
amd is too cheap to give better on die mem and stick us with a slow ass L3 .....



damm i strayed


go 9450 12mb :D  expecially if u want the 400fsb and 1600mhz mem clocks :D ....

9550 errm i dunno u got a great cpu cooler already so no need for it
September 4, 2008 11:19:14 AM

tbh i dont know what benches you have read but since you already made your mind up not to go for it so nvm.
September 4, 2008 10:37:52 PM

Lol, I've been wondering... why would they favor L3 cache instead of L2 for Nehalem anyway? Lowering cost? :p 
September 4, 2008 10:47:16 PM

in nehalem the L2 is independant and L3 is shared isnt it?its been awhile since i read it.can anyone refresh my memory?:) 
September 4, 2008 10:57:27 PM

Yes the L2 is independent and L3 is shared (unless im wrong too)

But what about the news of memory, supposedly Nehalem is only native for DDR3 800 and 1066 :o 
September 5, 2008 12:53:46 AM

or should we say thats the only memory it support?!LOL

but even though it will still outperform any current gen even at FSB500
September 5, 2008 8:06:24 AM

seriously though, who in this world uses a computer for gaming and NOTHING ELSE. no web surfing, no music, no watching videos, no video or photo editing?
September 5, 2008 10:57:47 AM

lol thats why we need a quad rather then dual core!
September 6, 2008 10:25:44 AM

EXACTLY!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b K Overclocking
November 3, 2008 5:14:57 AM

i always wondered..... WHO NEEDS A QUAD CORE?
seriously?

wich means you guys are doing LOTS of video editing,
are in HURRY TO DO FAST VIDEO EDITING because you have a boss asking for starwars movie... for tomorrow....
you have 10 cd per day to rip into mp3
4gigs of file to archive everyday
2 dvd9 to shrink into dvd5 everyday
making superb photo editing
drawing some CAD.. etc etc..

wow you guys have lots of needs......
November 3, 2008 9:29:35 AM

wow ur a useless flame that obviously has nothing better to do than bump a post from Sept....:non: 

We like quads cause 1) They do compressions and other programs faster and 2) longevity.
I also wondered also y ppl need to be annoying and bump dead posts
November 3, 2008 11:30:12 AM

Sorry Silverion77, I think the whole idea that you need more cores to perform is simply a marketing scheme.

I'm not sure if you guys know how multi-threaded processes work. To create a program that works for multiple cores you've got 2 methods:

1)creating a program for a specific # of cores: this is the most effective multi-core software. Be it games or graphics editings, you will get the best out of your processor. The downside to this is anything more or less will either be underpowered or not used. (eg: a dual core will slow down on a quad core specific software and an 8 core cpu will have 3 cores totally unused for this type of software).

2) a loop like technique: Now I forgot what the proper term for this was but the way it works is it runs in loops so it scales to the # of cores you have. The advanage is no matter what core you're running it will take advantage of all the cores. The down side to this is it's rather inefficent so you lose performance anyways.

I know some games have already made it to quad like World in conflict but there really aren't that many quad core specific games out there other than the top few. Most games are still single threaded. Even with valve starting to take multithreading into consideration, dual core will be suffice for say a year or two before quad core is a necessity. So why not clock your dual core higher and get the best performance there is for the price?
November 3, 2008 4:50:09 PM

:pfff:  LOL there is no such thing as future proof although you should get some mileage out of your LGA775 system. Any number of sites will tell you E8[456]00 is a better choice for gaming (price/performance with some exceptions) and I agree. The dual's tend to OC much faster than the quads and about the only exception are high clock extreme quads. Then again you did not say if $$$ is an issue. If not go for the Q9650 (still won't get as much of OC as Wolfy) or one of the extremes. Keep in mind Intel already robbed some of the potential from the highest end extreme quad by already running it at FSB 400. I might be a demanding gamer but I also use the system for video/music encoding/editing, surfing, music, running two businesses, working remote for my day development job, and web/application development. In selecting a CPU one of the big deciding factors for me is the multiplier and the Q9650 just hit 9 (E8400 level) vs. 9.5/10 for Wolfy. I will eventually buy a quad but I'll wait for the end of the road for Yorkfield (hopefully at least x10). Most of the BS touting quads is from synthetics like 3dMark and PCMark. Very few current real world applications/games support more than 1-2 threads. For <1/2 the price you could build a high end dual and later on upgrade to a highend quad when prices have fallen to 1/2 what they are now and still spend less money than you would now for a q9650.
November 3, 2008 6:56:29 PM

anartik said:
:pfff:  LOL there is no such thing as future proof although you should get some mileage out of your LGA775 system. Any number of sites will tell you E8[456]00 is a better choice for gaming (price/performance with some exceptions) and I agree. The dual's tend to OC much faster than the quads and about the only exception are high clock extreme quads. Then again you did not say if $$$ is an issue. If not go for the Q9650 (still won't get as much of OC as Wolfy) or one of the extremes. Keep in mind Intel already robbed some of the potential from the highest end extreme quad by already running it at FSB 400. I might be a demanding gamer but I also use the system for video/music encoding/editing, surfing, music, running two businesses, working remote for my day development job, and web/application development. In selecting a CPU one of the big deciding factors for me is the multiplier and the Q9650 just hit 9 (E8400 level) vs. 9.5/10 for Wolfy. I will eventually buy a quad but I'll wait for the end of the road for Yorkfield (hopefully at least x10). Most of the BS touting quads is from synthetics like 3dMark and PCMark. Very few current real world applications/games support more than 1-2 threads. For <1/2 the price you could build a high end dual and later on upgrade to a highend quad when prices have fallen to 1/2 what they are now and still spend less money than you would now for a q9650.


In essence you are comparing the price for performance. I think this has been the standard for judging productivity of a processor for a while. It makes sense because you're dumping a lot of money (regardless it is a factor or not). Any conscious consumer would want to maximize the money they pay for performance. I agree that eventually we need to move onto quad but the question is why take on all the extra heat now when there's no need? The power it consumes is also 2x the dual cores. A well OCed E8400 or higher can even reach near performance of the Extreme quad cores (at stock speeds) in games. The only place where it will start to lag a little is when you do video editing or graphics editing.

The buyer needs to be conscious of what his main use of the CPU is. Is it graphics/sound editing or is it gaming? For the price of these quads right now it's truely an overkill. Take a look at what happened to Q6600 just around 1 yr later. The price dropped by half! I think a C2D quad should not be worth more than 300 at most and its range should be at mid 200 dollar level. Until then, Dual cores are still the better choice overall.
November 3, 2008 9:10:48 PM

Its not a matter of price to performance for a all computer builders. Some yes, i agree, like my $700 budget PC i did a dual....but for those that want to spend good money a quad is a way to go.

Once u get to a good clock of 3.4+ which is EASILY attainable on all quads, u see little bottlenecking in ur system. U will have some but not a tremendous amount compared to higher clocked duals.

And for a lot of ppl that dont want to make a Nehalem super computer, future proofing is still a valid point. Especially as Nehalem goes only quad + the push for more multithreading programs will come to be. Thats when a Core2 Quad will be used and will be more beneficial at lower speeds compared to higher duals
November 10, 2008 12:25:26 PM

love the Q9550
cant wait a year or so when half price, i am v happy with my q6600 at 3.2
November 10, 2008 5:41:13 PM

Im rly holding back from RAGING at Habitat atm

And yes the Q9550 is awesome sadly i havent overclocked it yet....gotta get on that
November 11, 2008 3:59:51 PM

Silverion77 said:
Once u get to a good clock of 3.4+ which is EASILY attainable on all quads


Simply untrue.
November 11, 2008 6:00:46 PM

wow nice response 3.4+....

"simply untrue"

Its a very helpful response with much data supporting it. I see ur point there, it is untrue. The only exception to that is a bad Q6600, but most ive seen hit 3.4 fine. 3.6 pushes further and ive even seen some to 3.8. New quads, 3.4 is fairly ez on them if the user wants to overclock their system to its fullest. Some exceptions are the Q9300 cause of its low multi, but if the person is OCing, we always tell them get the Q6600 or Q9550 over it

Most ppl that buy a quad is 1) they multitask and 2) they intend on overclocking it. I mean sure if the user has a lower budget then get a dual, but for higher budgets a quad isnt going to bottleneck much, and has 2 extra cores. And at habitat's statement of But future games are going to be utilizing multi cores." Really? I've been hearing that for years theres 1 problem.....Quads have only been out since 2007. So rly were coming to about 2 years and also when quads first came out they were not readily used. Only recently the push for a quad core computer has been big so Yes programs will turn to multithreading with more than 2 threads and when that happens the quads will beat the duals even though its lower clocked

Edit: o and Habitat theres something called an edit button. Might wanna use it
November 12, 2008 5:57:36 PM

what?!??!

no srysly
what the hell does that mean cause im just lost in that jumble of words.
If thats how ur papers were written, then the reason u got good grades is because u jumped around so much and that it didnt make sense....they just gave up. U change so many times i cant tell if a) im just lost or b) ur bipolar and have 2 personalities buried in that thing u call a mind
November 12, 2008 9:18:53 PM

yea definitely 50 fps avg in Crysis is definitely crappy
And definitely is was overpriced...i forgot that part.

Theres no need for u to explain cause theres nothing to explain.
U have no supporting evidence besides ur own opinion.
Countless articles have shown that an overclocked quad performs just as well as a dual.
Then the quad gives u more power for the future. As soon as games move to multithreading any i7 or Quad will win

Edit: and srysly if u wrote the best papers in college then i wanna kno where u went, because i read ur post 10+ times and each time it made less sense
"read out loud cause they were so good" Rofl, were they that good??
November 16, 2008 1:58:40 AM

well if quads Oc to the point where they just match Dual core Oced levels and only offer a slight headroom "for the future" then you're still paying a premium because right now the cost for quad is around 2x the price of the more afforable dual cores (unless you opt for E8600 which is overkill). I have E8400 and I can OC to 4 ghz which performs just as well as a 2x more expensive quad. Do I really need to pay 2x the price now to get the same performance?

Why not wait a year later for price to drop before investing?
November 16, 2008 2:15:02 AM

What sort of "slight headroom" In all respects, as soon as games move quad it will be 2x more in retrospect. Of course ur gpu will bottleneck first as it does with duals/quads now anyways, but in a totally cpu dependent environment it will do much better.

Well last i checked a simple Q6600 is $180....seems pretty reasonable to me. OC it to 3.4-3.6 and ur golden

As to waiting...ur saying buy a dual for $180 now....wait a year and spend another $180 (lets say) on a quad. So i can spend $360 over time or just buy a $320 quad now. Plus i got mine in a combo for $60 off. Im not complaining but if ud like go check some other threads on this page. Its very fun....Habitat vs. Every Knowledgeable person on THF

And lastly ill add in...Its not even ur money ffs. Let me or anyone else spend it like they want. Fuel the economy we need it right now
November 16, 2008 3:36:21 AM

Well I guess you're right. I can't help it if there are just people out there that can't wait to get rid of their money during a recession.

I think the Q6600 does fine but as a semi-enthusiast I'd rather take the 45nm Quads (Q9XX0).

Your example there about buying a dual for $180 and then buying a quad using another $180 is not exactly correct because 1 year later that dual core of yours is still worth a bit. Assume that the price gets slashed in half, you can still sell it for $90. Then, you're really paying around $110 more to upgrade to quad.

This means $290 spent in between while you're spending $360. With $70 I can spend it on either part of a better GPU or a better cooling solution (HSF). Please also do remember that while using quad your energy bill goes up as well. Why pay more for energy so quickly?
November 16, 2008 4:07:03 AM

Energy??

Cause its my parents :kaola: 
November 25, 2008 9:50:02 PM


Please get a life

threads dud
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 25, 2008 10:27:01 PM

Hehe - I love xkcd.

As for multithreaded gaming, just look at FSX or Left 4 Dead.
!