I know Intel is raping AMD right now but I'm looking to upgrade my pc. Is quad core really for gaming? I do not use multiple applications and I'm never going to go SLI only single gpu's. So i'm wondering should I stick with an Intel Quad Core Q6600 and overclock it from 2.4 to 3.2 on all 4 cores for $279? Or just save cash and go with AMD 6400+ 3.2 GHZ dual core w/o overclocking for about $180? (Which is half the price).
Another question as well...For just a gamer who plays games 99% of the time does quad core even help?
Right now I have a 7800GTX still using DX9 with 1 gig of ram on a Amd 64 4200+ dual core 939 set up and playing Hellgate London on high settings pretty well on 1280x1024 resolution. I just think my processor is a bit slow and I need more ram so im looking for a motherboard deal too cuz my 939 is outdated. I would appreciate your help i was planning on getting this combo for my pc upgrade and go quad:
I'm in the same boat with a 939 board and I have decided that I would feel much better spending more on an Intel chipset because I would likely notice much more of an improvement than if I built an AM2 rig. I like to say "wow" when i build a new system.
I'd recommend the Q6600 if you can afford it. Especially since more and more games are being designed to use multiple cores, it's a good future-proofing step.
As for AMD... I wouldn't really recommend it unless you just plain don't like Intel.
If you wanted a cheaper solution to start up with Intel you could look at: GA-P35 DS3L ($80 now on newegg) and the E2160 1.6 stock OC's to 3.0 with a good HSF is now $72 on newegg.
Other than that not sure what to advise, with that same motherboard you can still use 4gb ram if you want, and upgrade to a quad later, or right off the bat. You can get a 4GB kit of G.skill ddr 2 800 on Newegg right now for $90.
------------------------------I has compyoutorz
Reply to pous
Multi core one way or the other is the way of the future. Games have talked about using it for a long time, and I would be surprised if it doesn't hit mainstream use for games soon.
Ever since I got my Q6600, I've never had any intention of going less than quad. So, now I have a qx9650, and I can't say I regret it.
Future proofing? no such thing in tech. Since only like two games right now use multiple cores i would suggest getting a C2D. Lets say you have a e8400@3.0 and running a single threaded program or game means you only have 1.5ghz speed compared to the 3.0 now imagine if you had quad divide your cumulative core speed by 4 and thats what speed you get in lets say COD2
Future proofing? no such thing in tech. Since only like two games right now use multiple cores i would suggest getting a C2D. Lets say you have a e8400@3.0 and running a single threaded program or game means you only have 1.5ghz speed compared to the 3.0 now imagine if you had quad divide your cumulative core speed by 4 and thats what speed you get in lets say COD2
that just sounds totally wrong lol the speed of the processor doesnt get cut in half just because its a dual core and it doesnt get divided by 4 when its a quad core.
I think your current system still has a bit of life left in it. I read on Toms that AMD is coming out with a completely new processor architecture. I think with your system, you can wait to see how AMD's new processor performs. Unless you've got that itch to build a new system - I'm guilty of that myself
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.