new pc / which cpu ?

[autobus]

Hey guys i am building new PC.
i need some possibly high end / low price config
here's my config:
XpertVision GF9800GTX Super 512MB DDR3 PCX ~300$
2x SAMSUNG 640GB SATA2 16MB HD642JJ ~2x 120$ = 240$
A-DATA DDR2 2x 2GB 800+MHz dual Extreme Edition ~71$
ASUS P5K ~110$
PSU Fortron 500W Blue storm II ~74$
case ~30$

cpu:
1-CPU Intel® Core™2 Quad processor, Q9300-2,5GHz,1333MHz,6MBL2 BOX ~360$ (hell overpriced in my country)
2-Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz BOX 6MB dual ~238$
3-Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz BOX 8M ~224$
4-Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz BOX 8M ~272$

which cpu would you guys suggest?
i could wait for q9300 till price lowers a little.


please consider i would be playing Lineage II while frapsing on 1680x1050 i am not sure if fraps support quadcore or by any means i can run fraps in another thread.

and i will overclock not much just about 15-25%

oh and if you have any suggestions to my config (mb,gpu,ram,hdd etc) you are welcome to correct me

ok thanks in advance
=> go eat me forum warriors!!!!

 

[autobus]

how about fraps does it take advantage of quadcore? my friend is playing on e8500 o/ced to 4ghz and he is experiencing low fps

 

[lameness]

Yeah an e8500 overclocked to 4ghz is a bit crappy, no wonder he get rubbish frame rates.


seriously tho it depends on what gpu he has, fraps uses hardly any cpu power a quad core at 20ghz would still give crappy framerates if he has an 8400gs.

 

[dagger]

Quad cores provide huge improvements over new multithreaded games that support them. At the moment, that's only Lost Planet and Supreme Commander. E8400 is faster in older games that only use one or 2 cores, especially when overclocked. For system that is to last less than 2 years, get dual, for more than 2 years, get quad.

As for overclocking, e8400 runs at 3.0ghz stock, and a typical oc is 4.0ghz, an improvement of 1.0ghz across 2 cores. Q6600 runs at 2.4ghz, and a typical oc is 3.6ghz, an improvement of 1.2ghz across 4 cores. Net overclocking is 4x1.2ghz for q6600, and 2x1.0ghz for e8400. Absolute clock speed is 2x4.0ghz for e8400 and 4x3.6ghz for q6600.

At the price you're citing, I'd go for the cheaper q6600 over the more expensive e8400. It's cheaper, more future proof, better value, and provides greater increase in value and performance on overclocking.

 

[autobus]

he is using gf 8800gts 512b and he oced it (dunno how much though)

i checked some benchmarks and q6600 is far behind q9300 in every aspect isnt investing to newer technology better idea ? (45mn) less heat atleast or woudl additional 2mb of cache that q6600 has be able to fill the gap

 

[dagger]

he is using gf 8800gts 512b and he oced it (dunno how much though)

i checked some benchmarks and q6600 is far behind q9300 in every aspect isnt investing to newer technology better idea ? (45mn) less heat atleast or woudl additional 2mb of cache that q6600 has be able to fill the gap

Q6600 is not "far behind" q9300. On benchmarks, stock q9300 runs average 7% faster than q6600. On gaming benchmarks, it's less than 7%. And stock clock speed for q9300 is higher than q6600. Per ghz, their performance is about the same. Q9300's smaller cache is not a problem for most applications. Only a few heavy applications take advantage of larger cache. The real problem is its 7.5x multiplier, which will bottleneck overclocking on all but x38/48 motherboards. 1600mhz fsb = only 3.0ghz for q9300, and 3.6ghz for q6600.

 

[Andrius]

Q6600 is not "far behind" q9300. On benchmarks, stock q9300 runs average 7% faster than q6600. On gaming benchmarks, it's less than 7%. And stock clock speed for q9300 is higher than q6600. Per ghz, their performance is about the same. Q9300's smaller cache is not a problem for most applications. Only a few heavy applications take advantage of larger cache. The real problem is its 7.5x multiplier, which will bottleneck overclocking on all but x38/48 motherboards. 1600mhz fsb = only 3.0ghz for q9300, and 3.6ghz for q6600.

The lower multiplier of the Q9300 is like a giant DON'T BUY ME neon sign for overclockers. The Q9300 also runs quite hot with the stock cooler. Much hotter than Q6600 with a $40 XIGMATEK S1283 cooler. As of today nothing really uses the improvements in the Q9xxx family over the Q6xxx family of processors. Value is not on Q9300's side just like dagger said. The Q9450 costs 50% more than Q6600 here. It offers even less value.

 

[el Greenie]

id go with Q6600, ive seen lots of posts about people choosing it because of its overclocking capabilities, with a nice 9x multiplier

 

[Andrius]

^ Its either E8400 or Q6600

9 is the magic number here.

 

[dagger]

9 is the magic number here.

That depends on your motherboard. With a x38/48, lower multiplier can do just fine.

 

[Andrius]

^It can but somehow Q6600 and E8400 offer a sweetspot of value.
They also both have a multiplier of 9 like QX6850/QX9650.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Q6600 is not "far behind" q9300. On benchmarks, stock q9300 runs average 7% faster than q6600. On gaming benchmarks, it's less than 7%. And stock clock speed for q9300 is higher than q6600. Per ghz, their performance is about the same. Q9300's smaller cache is not a problem for most applications. Only a few heavy applications take advantage of larger cache. The real problem is its 7.5x multiplier, which will bottleneck overclocking on all but x38/48 motherboards. 1600mhz fsb = only 3.0ghz for q9300, and 3.6ghz for q6600.

Good to see that you are not pushing your 'pet' as hard as ever.

@ OP E8400 is faster and gives better fps in 'older' games like COD4, Crysis, Timeshift, MOHA, Bioshock and Turok in my personal experience and I have both CPU's.

 

[level101]

The Q9300 also runs quite hot with the stock cooler. Much hotter than Q6600 with a $40 XIGMATEK S1283 cooler.

Funny how you stuck the Q9300 with the stock cooler.
You could also say the Q6600 also runs quite hot with the stock cooler. Much hotter than Q9300 with a $40 XIGMATEK S1283 cooler.

 

[Andrius]

Funny how you stuck the Q9300 with the stock cooler.
You could also say the Q6600 also runs quite hot with the stock cooler. Much hotter than Q9300 with a $40 XIGMATEK S1283 cooler.

Yes. I was wondering when something like that would come flying around. I've stuck it with the stock cooler because it costs the same (or more) as a $220 Q6600 + $40 XIGMATEK cooler. Last I checked a Q9300 was $285. My statement was all about VALUE.

The Q6600 also reaches higher overclocks due to it's multiplier of 9.
The highest OC on a Q9300 I've seen to date is 3.5GHz. Ask dagger what her Q6600 does for a living.

 

[dagger]

Yes. I was wondering when something like that would come flying around. I've stuck it with the stock cooler because it costs the same (or more) as a $220 Q6600 + $40 XIGMATEK cooler. Last I checked a Q9300 was $285. My statement was all about VALUE.

The Q6600 also reaches higher overclocks due to it's multiplier of 9.
The highest OC on a Q9300 I've seen to date is 3.5GHz. Ask dagger what her Q6600 does for a living.

Q9300 can overclock well beyond 3.5ghz. You just need a good chipset motherboard that can handle the high fsb required. At the moment, that's x38/x48 and nothing else. You should get an aftermarket cooler for q9300. The stock cooler is just horrible.

And 3.6ghz for q6600 isn't high. It's a very typical oc for Q6600.

 

[Andrius]

I think a Rampage Formula can take Q9300 as high as it will go.
Q9300 needs 466MHz for 3.5GHz. It topped out at 473MHz but it was not a round number so we pulled back a bit to 3.5GHz. That's close to the FSB limit anyway. Most Q9xxx chips hit "the wall" at 475-480MHz and that's that.

EDIT : As to well beyond 3.50GHz :
7.5 x 480MHz = 3.60GHz
7.5 x 500MHz = 3.75GHz
7.5 x 520MHz = 3.90GHz
Not really I'd say.