Best Processor for Gaming ??

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

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

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

i know there are people who will come in later and say E8500.let see.......

Reply to iluvgillgill

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.

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

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

but that processor is good though!for now anyway.

Reply to iluvgillgill

The Q9550 since it's only $10 more than the Q9450.

Reply to dirtmountain

^ +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.

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

+1 Q9550

Reply to skywalker9952

+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.

Reply to random1283

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/c [...] html#sect0

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.

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

oh btw gill wouldnt the nehalems have possibly 16 threads since the 8 core i assume would also be hyper-threaded?

Reply to V3NOM

oh yeah of course HT 16 thread!i wonder whats the price tag on it!lol

Reply to iluvgillgill

yorkfield is more future proof then kenstfield

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to venkat karthik

Thanks alot Guys , Anymore Opinions ?

Reply to Revolver

venkat karthik wrote :

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.

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

^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.

Reply to iluvgillgill

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

Reply to deathsdefiance

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.

Message edited by halcyon on 09-01-2008 at 01:44:55 AM

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

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

Message edited by gerardfraser on 09-02-2008 at 02:52:40 AM

Reply to gerardfraser

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.

Reply to ravenware

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.

Message edited by halcyon on 09-03-2008 at 01:50:56 PM

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

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/c [...] 600_8.html

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

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

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?

Reply to iluvgillgill

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 expecially if u want the 400fsb and 1600mhz mem clocks ....

9550 errm i dunno u got a great cpu cooler already so no need for it

Reply to nerophine

tbh i dont know what benches you have read but since you already made your mind up not to go for it so nvm.

Reply to iluvgillgill

Lol, I've been wondering... why would they favor L3 cache instead of L2 for Nehalem anyway? Lowering cost?

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

in nehalem the L2 is independant and L3 is shared isnt it?its been awhile since i read it.can anyone refresh my memory?

Reply to iluvgillgill

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

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

but even though it will still outperform any current gen even at FSB500

Reply to iluvgillgill

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?

Reply to V3NOM

lol thats why we need a quad rather then dual core!

Reply to iluvgillgill

EXACTLY!

Reply to V3NOM

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

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?

Message edited by murdoc on 11-03-2008 at 09:50:04 PM

Reply to murdoc

: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.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by anartik on 11-03-2008 at 07:53:24 PM

------------------------------

http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/416040.png

Reply to anartik

anartik wrote :

: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.

Message edited by murdoc on 11-03-2008 at 09:57:12 PM

Reply to murdoc

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

Message quoted 1 times

I have been using computers for years and have used REAL professional encoding/editing programs. Why do you need to spend the extra couple hundreds of dollars on a quad for? Unless your a professional, which you should be in the dual processor area anyway, then why isn't the e8x00 series more then good enough? Last time I checked, dual core is more then enough to do anything you want for multitasking.

Also, who the hell games with **** running in the background?! Unless your not playing intensive games, then in this case, dual core should be good enough anyways!!! Is it just me or does anyone else see the stupidity in this also?

Start with the title please. Why do people always say get the e8x00 series? Cause it's good. +1 for that.

And I've had a dual processor setup too. If you think a quad would be the same or similar to a dual core dual processor setup, then you don't know what your talking about.

Message edited by habitat87 on 11-10-2008 at 07:28:13 AM

Reply to habitat87

Oh yeah, why do all theses people spend so much money on a quad core and usually don't bother to look into a raptor to go with it? That should be a standard if your going to spend that much money.

Message edited by habitat87 on 11-10-2008 at 07:40:11 AM

Reply to habitat87

"But future games are going to be utilizing multi cores." Really? I've been hearing that for years. Honestly, it's getting kind of irrittating. A faster clock speed is what your looking for.

Reply to habitat87

love the Q9550
cant wait a year or so when half price, i am v happy with my q6600 at 3.2

Reply to specialresident22

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

Silverion77 wrote :

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

Simply untrue.

Reply to dhvd79a

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

Message edited by Silverion77 on 11-11-2008 at 09:12:48 PM

Reply to Silverion77

Damn, I had a good post too, oh well, let's make it simple.

First of all, like I said in another thread. I had the best papers in college every single time, and read out loud cause they were so good, mind you. I'm not here to win awards. I also said in another thread that I didn't bother to check stupid posts, if you could get mad, then you must have understood it damn well.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=200770

Those are probably on air too. Try not to get discouraged or cry over it.

I had to add this in, it's too funny. "Ya....I reallly don't understand why people just trying to hit 4ghz only on a EO stepping. nothing new with 4ghz.....4.5+ghz is where it's at."

1. What could you possibly be doing that a dual can't? I haven't maxed out my low end dual e5200 for multitasking yet... 2. See the link I put up and the comment after.

Even if I was or wasn't on a budget I'd get the e8x00 and if I wasn't waiting for i7. Yeah, there is a problem, your thinking is messed up. Isn't a dual core a multi core? And can't that benefit too? I have posts back from 2006 and maybe even 2005 where people were debating this. That's actually coming up on 3 or 4 years. Why does it have to be a quad? Damn, shows how stupid you are and that Intel did a damn good job. What?! Recently? Most people are at dual right now and i7 isn't even out yet, yeah we are being pushed in that direction. SOON. And then you call out mistakes? You can't even think right, let alone put words to that screen and hit submit.

There's something called I didn't even bother cause I don't care. And again, you understood it so perfect that you got mad. There's something called bs, and people don't like to hear it.

And rage for all I care, I need a good laugh atm. I'm having a **** day. Anger plus embarassment equals humility. OUCH!

A youtube clip of you putting the fire out trying to catch up to the dual's massive oc's would make my day. Hey, what do you know, you could pump that clip out just a little faster with the bigger cache you got there. Oh wait, sorry most overclockers are over 4.0ghz and beyond by now. Well, I tried to help?

Message edited by habitat87 on 11-12-2008 at 12:02:50 PM

Reply to habitat87

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

Message edited by Silverion77 on 11-12-2008 at 08:59:48 PM

Just admit your wrong and that your cpu is crappy and overpriced. LOL! You only understood what you wanted to see obviously, so there's no need for me to explain more.

Reply to habitat87

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??

Message edited by Silverion77 on 11-13-2008 at 05:08:36 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?

Message edited by murdoc on 11-16-2008 at 06:30:53 AM

Reply to murdoc

Forum Overclocking : CPUs - Best Processor for Gaming ??

Please mind

Focus On

Best Processor for Gaming ??

Forum Overclocking : CPUs - Best Processor for Gaming ??

Please mind