Hi,  
 
So I play crysis with a 1920x1200 monitor with everything on medium and average around 40fps. My only problem is when playing multi-player and when there is a alot of people playing, my fps can go down as low as 15 fps. I was wondering if getting the phenom 9850BE and overclocking it to 3.0ghz would stop this problem and keep my fps at an even level? My current system is below.  
 
Thanks alot!
 
Ryan

Well, firstly, a 9850BE is not guaranteed to hit 3GHz, many top out at around 2.8 - 2.9GHz. Even if you did hit 3GHz, it would only be marginally faster than an X2 @ 3.2GHz.
 

Your sudden drop in FPS while online when alot of people join a server have nothing to do with whatever hardware your using.
Sounds more like a lower grade server and/or JIP issues like players of ArmA suffer.
 
As for how far you can OC the new AMD Quads it really depends on the chipset and the maker of your MB.
 
On the DFI forums many are getting well past 3Ghz without much issue on air/stock volts and without a boost in heat...yet I do not see this first round of the new AMD to be the same as a year from now.
 
No matter which make of CPU you have (AMD/Inel) you will always reach a higher OC with a DFI MB than any other make.
People on that forum are running 6000+ just over 3.4Ghz without much effort on air.
 
The seven systems on my game LAN listed in my profile are all OC 50% with everything on stock volts.
Good MB/RAM/cooler/case and PSU's.

The phenom will help as firstly at 2.8GHz or higher no X2 can beat it and secondly a lot of programs running will free up extra performance no benchmark reviews talk about.  Your anti-virus, software firewall, and latency processing for your network will surly take advantage of the 2 free cores.  Ever noticed how you FPS drops your latency rises.  This is because your network is fighting for cpu time and losing.  On some games you can limit your FPS which has show to lower latency.  Many games today are played with voice over IP which again no benchmark review uses in tests.
 
If you only play single player with no anti-virus and software firewall running then those benchmarks are perfect.  If you do play online then all benchmarks are junk and a quad is always better.
 
This being said crysis is a GPU hog so one must determine which will give the greater improvement.  If your GPU isn't top end then maybe it should be your first choice.  Price of these new CPU tho are low so its important to way your choice by performanced gain over cost.

Interesting theory, do you have anything to back this up, or is it just an opinion? AV and firewalls are background apps that hardly use any system resources at all (unless your AV is scanning your entire system whilst your gaming   ) You're making it sound like these programs need a CPU core each to function.  For what its worth I game online perfectly fine on a dual core CPU and I have my AV and firewall enabled at all times.

Btw, I've never noticed my latency increasing as my fps drops, it remains fairly stable regardless of the framerate. I use VOIP and it has no noticeable impact on gaming performance (yes, I've compared the difference, my old mic broke and I went without one for about a week) and I use both Ventrillo and the built in VOIP function in games.

Interesting theory, do you have anything to back up your getting the benchmarks equal to reviews whilst playing online?  Using these extra programs that magically take no CPU performance.  Try playing CSS without and with your fps_max lower than your average.  I see around a 10ms lower latency on the same server.  On my sons new quad system it makes no difference limiting the max FPS.
 
You are making it sound like quads cant use their extra cores when games are concerned and no performance advantages are gained when playing online.

Err, who said anything comparing to online review benchmarks? They don't even test online because its a variable environment and no two runs will be the same. I'm just saying that AV and firewalls use very little system resources, they are called background applications for a reason, do you even know what that means?

I don't currently have CS:S installed so I can't test it out, I don't think COD4 or BF2 has that function. But my ping is like 10 - 20ms average anyway so I doubt it can get much lower unless they moved the server into my room, LOL!

Yes that means they are always running and do take up cpu cycles.  The voice over IP has a noticeable performance hit and you may have 9-18ms with a quad.
 
My point is you don't have a quad and basing your opinion on benchmarks which you admit they don't test online using these 3 almost always used programs.  Do you see the flaw in your opinion?

Please stop putting words into my mouth, you have a habit of doing this elbert and its really annoying.  
 
I'm not basing my opinion on online reviews, I'm talking about my experiences based on a dual core gaming rig, and I've experienced none of the things you suggested, nor has my gaming performance been impacted in any way by having the AV and firewall running in the background since they use very few resources and has a negligible impact on performance. Why don't you go into task manager and tell us what % of the CPU is dedicated to the AV and firewall then?
 
Btw do you really think its worth saving 1-2ms at the expense of VOIP?! I'm sure the mere fact that it uses a bit of bandwith will increase your latency somewhat, but if its only a small amount its not worth giving it up for, considering how much it adds to the gaming experience.

Stop question others say they have Interesting theory and questioning there proof, you have a habit of doing this epsilon84 and its really annoying.  
 
The OP is asking about a quad so how is your experience then related?  So tell the OP it sucks and takes for ever to exit games on a dual core.
 
VOIP had nothing to do with the bandwidth but its impact on CPU.  The 1-2ms saved is due to the network not needing to fight the game for CPU time using a quad period.
 
The anti-virus i use takes 1% every 5 seconds, the fire wall takes 1% 4 seconds, Spybot-sd 1% every second, and my VOIP at 3% all the time.  On my dual core it takes about 40seconds to alt-tab to change a VOIP setting on my system and my sons quad about 5 seconds.

I just heard crysis runs better on a quad compared to a dual.

You heard right but the 9850BE at 3GHz isn't going to out perform a stock Q6700.   From your sig you cant improve much on your GPU's so the CPU is about the only other upgrade you have.

An AM2+ mobo would also help as well. Either an ASUS 790FX or a DFI 790FX would be perfect with a 9850 BE.

 
That's nice, mocking someone, thats really original. Where'd you learn that from, your kids?!        
 
You have what 'proof' exactly? Its just your opinion, and its just as valid as mine, or anyone elses. When I said interesting theory, thats exactly what I meant, I meant no disrespect at all, though you seemed to take it the wrong way. I am questioning the impact that AV and firewalls have on gaming performance, and I do consider 1% every few seconds negligible, especially since no game taxes both CPU cores at 100% for it to really make a difference.
 
Does it really take you 40 seconds to alt_tab out of a game?!  Theres something wrong with your PC, or you are running out of RAM, or need a serious defrag or something. I can alt_tab out of a games quicker on my old single core system, and on my current rig it takes a few seconds at most to alt_tab out of most games.

 
Might as well get a C2D/C2Q system if you're gonna splash that kind of money around.

From my experience with online gaming your rig will only perform as good as the slowest system in the game.  Thats why the host can kick you if you lag.
 
You should focus on your single player mode first and get that at the level you want and then go online.  That will let you know your setup is optimal and then you can accept the lag if its still there since it will be a server issue.

Did you learn getting upset when someone tell you your experience isn't matching the OP question.  Only a kid wouldn't understand the wrong in suggesting something he has no experience.   I find mocking kids is the only thing they understand.  The reason i'm mocking you is because you seem to be acting like a kid.
 
Why do you question others opinion when its as valid as yours?  Get upset when I question yours?  I took it the the way it was wrote with your ending where is the proof.  You cant stop questioning other as your reply to sailer.
 
Lets not forget the graphics drivers which again will have 2 extra cores to work from.  This being the only thing taken into account on the benchmark reviews.  Now counting those up you see its more around 4 and 1/2%.  Again not counting the need for networking CPU time.  The only benchmark review I have ever seen the X2 beat the phenom in is the old 9600 benchmark.  
 
Now quads are more responsive than duals coming out of games and if your questioning that then you know less than i first thought.  Get off the FX57 v/s FX60 the single core is dead and soon the dual will be to quads.

Welcome to lagland...