I been dead set on the Q9550, i was like omg a quad, but.. i realised i should not be like that.
i should get what i need, and i can save money by getting what would be good, not just to say i have a quad core processor.
All i will ever be doing on my new computer is gaming, and surfing the web (music too).
Never ever gonna video edit.
My question is will the E8400 bottleneck a hd4870 1gb at 1920 X 1080?
If it does, is there a good chance just a overclock would get rid of this bottleneck?
I can save a good 115$ on the processor if i get this one. and i know it can overclock like a beast.
All opinions and suggestions are greatly appreciated.
(especially any from people who own any of these processors or video cards!)
i just think that it will be a long time, many direct X into the future, before i need more than 2 cores to run a game. and even by then, 4 cores would be enough.
The q9550 would be a 140$ processor, and i'd just buy that.
i think a dual core would last me just long enough. i think the timeline would go like this.
2009- Great for games (high Ghz)
2010- First games utilizing quads (Still a great CPU)
2011- MAYBE first time i need to step into medium Quality
2012- (if we dont all die) All of a sudden intel has somethin new, i7 and ddr3 are the new dual cores + ddr2 so i could prolly get it for really cheap.
By then, i'd prolly be to engrossed into school and work for me to even care about upgrading. so i think a dual core oc'd to 3.5-3.8ghz range would go along just fine
i think a E8400 OC'd to 3.6ghz and beyond would be great for PC games for at least the next 2 years. I am not looking at getting Max frames on ultra high quality in games in 2010. That is unrealistic. Just looking to be able to play my fav games without having to resort to polygon textures (exaggeration).
Dual Core 3.4Ghz won't be a minimum requirement for awhile.
I am still just starting to see 3.0ghz Pentium 4 as a minimum requirement (and that is some high end games too)
that is stuff i want to hear, someone with a dual core defending it. I am tired of people who feel all high and mighty about their quads. Honestly, i am the type of person who would admit if a lower end model is really good, but so is the quad.
Look, i am not trying to get a system that would be amazing for the next 3 years, but be able to play my fav games well into 3 years, i dont care at ALL if OMG it wont play on high, whatever, i just want to play them. I think the E8400 is the way to go in my case
Already most games coming out in 2009 are not going to take advantage of anything more than 2 cores because they been in production for at least 3 years. So if intel is just starting to try to get developers to code for multiple threads, the closest time frame i can see a game i wanting to play even remotely gaining any performance out of a quad, will be in 3 years.
I am not flaming quads, at all, i see the benefits if you video edit and encode or whatever. Just i don't think it is a reasonable option just to say you have 2 extra cores.
The E8400 has amazing benchmarks, what makes these benchmarks even more amazing, this processor is now only 160$ it stands up extremely well in games with 250-300$ processors.
My point is, just tell me the E8400 Overclocked would more than be enough for today's games, and games into 2010. More games are GPU dependent anyway.
If in a quad core enabled game i get 130fps on the E8400, and 146 fps on a Quad, i really don't care, a few extra frames is a worthless comparison.
2 good new games are using Quads. L4D (no tests have shown whether a quad helps, but its not very taxing) and San Andreas which has shown to benefit from quads. Windows 7 is coded to use quads better and separate the load of a program among the different threads (from microsoft announcements). but whether duals die, i doubt it...we dont kno what the future is, its just we kno that everything will eventually go multithreading. That can mean next month, year or decade for all i care
No. But it doesnt come up as much on its default setting. And it is super super super easy to turn off in windows 7 as apposed to just super super easy in Vista. It has a slider that corrosponds when you want the warnings. Just read one article out of the 20k of them on the net.
Vos17, rather go with the E8400, because as you say you will never do any multithreading. Personally if I was in your situation I would get an AMD processor, simply because it is so much cheaper, and if you only play games and surf the web you will never need an Intel, imo. You can save a good $250 if you get an AMD Athlon x2 with an AMD mobo. That $250 can be used on something thats more important and which matters to you, like a better graphics card.
Getting a quad for "future-proofing" or brag rights is ridiculous. And so is getting an Intel CPU when you will never particularly need it.
im pretty new here,and i dont know how old this topic is.
But my succestion would be that buy the E8400 first...
When u think its not enough then the prices of the quad cores have already been lowered...
Since the Core I7's came out...
i know its been a LONG time since this thread was last posted in, but i must say... the e8400 is STILL 189.99.. i paid 199.99 in june 2008. so much for the prices going down when i7 and i5 were around..